Fascism-Nazism are pan-European ideologies, let's not kid ourselves, and Greece could not be
left out of this phenomenon. Fascism has remained dormant for 35 odd years, simply because the
Greek elites squandered billions of many on populist policies and handouts. When your belly is
full, you can always claim to be a patriot and a socialist.
It is ironic that Golden Dawn venerate the Nazis considering how badly they treated the
Greeks during the war. Along with the rest of their ignorance they obviously know nothing about
history.
It is the same in Ukraine. It all depends whose history you have been taught.
Real anger and the correct cause, the globalised banks that take money from the poor and
give to the rich. If only they could drop the racism. Or is that being exaggerated because they
are anti-banking.
The words Fascism is thrown about a lot at the moment when it should be reserved for the true
fascists that are in government across the western world.
As Mussolini said Fascism is the coming together of corporations and the state.
The key characteristics of the SOCIOECONOMIC system of a suzerainty are hierarchy, polarization and exploitation. This enables
the Global Financial Syndicate to drive PRIVATE CONTROL by privatization, extracting profits and increasing its power. Without
this system it can't survive, capture new entities and increase its power.
In analyzing any situation one need to understand the POWER DYNAMICS. This enables one to understand the hierarchy of religions,
nations, corporations, elites,...There seems to be a well defined playbook that is being followed to expand the global power.
However, now it seems to be failing?
Is this a good chart of the
POWER PLAYERS
driving U$A's and international developments?
(Solid lines refer to funding and dashed lines refer to mostly ideological connections)
Are there better charts and overview of the power players?
If one were to view Israel from an imperialist lens then it is a beachhead in the Middle East of the Financial Empire like
the Colony of Virginia (1606). The IMPERIALIST goal is to create a Middle East Union (MEU), similar to the United States and the
EU. Israel will be the financial, technological, military and trading hub of the ME? It will drive decimation of states to steal
the region's land, oil gas and natural resources, so they can be priced in the Empire's currency.
What were the strategies and tactics used by the Imperialist settlers to steal land from the Native Americans? Wasn't (freedom
of) religion one of the dimensions? How was the LAND stolen from natives of America? Weren't treaties made in bad faith? "In 1830,
US Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, forcing many indigenous peoples east of the Mississippi from their lands."
Ayn Rand framed
it as ... to the graduating Class Of U$A's military academy at West Point
Which of the past patterns of stealing land and getting rid of the natives are being repeated by Israel? We're watching a tragedy
and living through an epoch in the history of humanity.
One more thing... MECHANISM of power & control expansions to capture resources and control points...
Is this a good overview of what happened in
Ukraine? It discusses various power players,
plans and ploys.
"Anyone who does not understand contemporary history as a chain of decisions and events and instead always takes only the end
link of a long chain into account – will not understand anything at all."
"We must cultivate among the Ukrainians a people whose consciousness is altered to such an extent, that they begin to hate
everything Russian". -- Who said this & why?
The Dollar Empire is working towards neutralizing Russia through short term concessions. Russia has defined redlines and demanded
no interferences with Nord Stream 2, Belarus, Syria & Ukraine (implementation of the Minsk agreement). Also, no NATO membership
for Ukraine and Georgia. Russia wants to develop Iran and Turkey as regional powers, and be the third power to that of the U$A
and China. It will be interesting to see what happens next.
"Our race is the Master Race. We are divine gods on this planet. We are as different from
the inferior races as they are from insects. In fact, compared to our race, other races are
beasts and animals, cattle at best. Other races are considered as human excrement. Our
destiny is to rule over the inferior races. Our earthly kingdom will be ruled by our leader
with a rod of iron. The masses will lick our feet and serve us as our slaves." -- Menachem
Begin (Israeli Prime Minister, 1977-1983)
The legal case was set in motion after a citizen filed a complaint against Zelensky for
delivering a speech in Russian at an IT-themed forum in Kiev in May 2019. The person asked the
Supreme Court to rule that Zelensky had broken the law by not using Ukrainian – the
country's sole official language, according to the constitution – while exercising his
presidential duties.
Zelensky is a native Russian-speaker, from the industrial city of Krivoy Rog, and like most
Ukrainians of his generation, outside of the West of the country, he would have had little
exposure to the native tongue as a child.
The court initially dismissed the claim, but an appeal was then launched. On Friday, the
Supreme Court's Grand Chamber ruled that "the president of Ukraine must use the state
language [Ukrainian] when carrying out his official duties."
However, the court clarified that the president is only subject to legal liability for
actions undertaken "when carrying out his constitutional duties." In other cases, it
only constitutes a "political" responsibility. The case was therefore closed, as "the
plaintiff's claims are not subject to consideration in the administrative procedure."
In 2019, the parliament adopted a bill that made the use of Ukrainian mandatory by state
officials and in the public sphere. The bill was signed into law by the outgoing president,
Petro Poroshenko, when Zelensky was still president-elect. At the time, many observers felt
Poroshenko made the move to make life difficult for the incoming leader, given his preference
for the use of Russian.
The
Guardian
a few days ago carried a
very
strange piece
[which has since been removed] under the heading "Stamps celebrating Ukrainian resistance in
pictures." The first image displayed a stamp bearing the name of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA).
The UPA was, without any shadow of a doubt, responsible for the slaughter of at least 200,000 Polish civilians; they
liquidated whole Polish communities in Volhynia and Galicia, including the women and children. The current Polish
government, which is as anti-Russian and pro-NATO as they come, nevertheless has
declared
this
a genocide.
It certainly was an extremely brutal ethnic cleansing. There is no doubt either that at times between 1942 and 1944
the UPA collaborated with the Nazis and collaborated in the destruction of Jews and Gypsies. It is simplistic to
describe the UPA as fascist or an extension of the Nazi regime; at times they fought the Nazis, though they
collaborated more often.
There is a real sense in which they operated at the level of medieval peasants, simply seizing local opportunities to
exterminate rural populations and seize their land and assets, be they Polish, Jew or Gypsy. But on balance any
reasonable person would have to conclude that the UPA was an utterly deplorable phenomenon. To publish a celebration
of it, disguised as a graphic art piece, without any of this context, is no more defensible than a display of Nazi
art with no context.
In fact,
The Guardian's
very
brief text was still worse than no context.
"Ukrainian photographer Oleksandr Kosmach collects 20th-century stamps issued by Ukrainian groups in exile during
the Soviet era.
Artists and exiles around the world would use stamps to communicate the horrors of Soviet oppression. "These
stamps show us the ideas and values of these people, who they really were and what they were fighting for,"
Kosmach says."
That is so misleadingly partial as a description of the art glorifying the UPA movement as to be deeply
reprehensible. It does however fit with the anything -- goes stoking of Russophobia, which is the mainstay of
government and media discourse at the moment.
The nationalist right should embrace police defunding. Let communities police themselves.
Peter Turchin's studies show that our polarization has reached catastrophic levels. The
immiseration of the working and middle classes is 5 decades old and shows no sign of
abating.
Plus we hate each other. De-platforming and firing for tiny, frivolous reasons will continue.
The (second) American experiment is crashing, and the decline looks irremediable. Look at the
streets.
The Great Society experiment is a failure. 80% of black Americans believe that race relations
are worse today than in 1960.
If self-policing doesn't work (it probably won't), at least it will pave the way for peaceful
separations based on "irreconcilable differences." Communities will develop a sense of
sovereignty. A key aspect of state power is the exercise of legitimate coercion.
In any event, we do not have to kneel. "Is life so sweet and peace so dear "
That's what people really want, justice. They want to see Floyd's killer prosecuted,
convicted and put behind bars.
That's not justice, that is revenge. Justice would be a thorough examination of the facts
of the matter and any mitigating factors that would lead a jury of the accused cops' peers to
an appropriate verdict, which might also be acquittal.
As for the economy, the current fantasy-land painted by our leaders reminds me of the
StayCations and FunEmployment of 2009-2010, including madam Pelosi's quip that we should all
be free to be artists on someone else's dime. Instead, over time, we got more barristas and
wait-staff jobs, more despair, and more opioid deaths.
Russiagate. Impeachment scam. Planned demic. Obamagate. And now white lives don't matter. All
these things are really the same thing.
It's the globalist war of control to defeat the nationalists.
In America, it means war on God, family, and love of America. We've been bombarded with
this war for decades, but now Trump has brought the war out into the open. The good news is
that the left is now at peak irrationality, and the tide is turning. They've used up all the
kitchen sinks to throw at Trump, and now he's stronger than ever. No love lost for Trump on
my part, but who in their right minds can vote for Biden now? It's Nixon '68 all over
again.
Excellent, Mr. Unz. British, American and Jewish elites need to be isolated, they are
obviously an enemy of the whole human race. Ethno Nationalism for all peoples of the world,
protected by all peoples of the world, is the most sensible solution. Isolate the warmongers,
secret societies and criminal's. No more war's and heal the earth. It's up to us.
The article is mostly junk. But it contains some important insights into the rise of Trympism (aka "national neoliberalism") --
nationalist oligarchy. Including the following " the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not
actually pursuing policies that are economically populist."
The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy should
change. The real threat to liberal democracy isn't authoritarianism -- it's nationalist oligarchy. Here's how American foreign policy
should change.
Notable quotes:
"... Fascism: A Warning ..."
"... Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America ..."
"... the governments that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist. ..."
"... The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy ..."
"... Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority to overthrow them. ..."
"... Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out through ordinary political means. ..."
"... Classical Greek Oligarchy ..."
"... Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different -- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." ..."
"... We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. ..."
"... The view that money is speech under the First Amendment has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy," as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship. ..."
"... The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the Age of Small Wars ..."
"... The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic ..."
Ever since the 2016 election, foreign policy commentators and practitioners have been engaged in a series of soul-searching exercises
to understand the great transformations taking place in the world -- and to articulate a framework appropriate to the challenges
of our time. Some have looked backwards, arguing that the liberal international order is collapsing, while others question whether
it ever existed. Another group seems to hope the current messiness is simply a blip and that foreign policy will return to normalcy
after it passes. Perhaps the most prominent group has identified today's great threat as the rise of authoritarianism, autocracy,
and illiberal democracy. They fear that constitutional democracy is receding as norms are broken and institutions are under siege.
Unfortunately, this approach misunderstands the nature of the current crisis. The challenge we face today is not one of authoritarianism,
as so many seem inclined to believe, but of nationalist oligarchy. This form of government feeds populism to the people, delivers
special privileges to the rich and well-connected, and rigs politics to sustain its regime.
... ... ..
Authoritarianism or What?
Across the political spectrum, commentators and scholars have identified -- and warned of -- the global rise of autocracies and
authoritarian governments. They cite Russia, Hungary, the Philippines, and Turkey, among others. Distinguished commentators are increasingly
worried. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently published a book called Fascism: A Warning . Cass Sunstein
gathered a variety of scholars for a collection titled, Can it Happen Here? Authoritarianism in America .
The authoritarian lens is familiar from the heroic narrative of democracy defeating autocracies in the twentieth century. But
as a framework for understanding today's central geopolitical challenges, it is far too narrow. This is mainly because those who
are worried about the rise of authoritarianism and the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics. Their emphasis
is almost exclusively political and constitutional -- free speech, voting rights, equal treatment for minorities, independent courts,
and the like. But politics and economics cannot be dissociated from each other, and neither are autonomous from social and cultural
factors. Statesmen and philosophers used to call this "political economy." Political economy looks at economic and political relationships
in concert, and it is attentive to how power is exercised. If authoritarianism is the future, there must be a story of its political
economy -- how it uses politics and economics to gain and hold power. Yet the rise-of-authoritarianism theorists have less to say
about these dynamics.
To be sure, many commentators have discussed populist movements throughout Europe and America, and there has been no shortage
of debate on the extent to which a generation of widening economic inequality has been a contributing factor in their rise. But whatever
the causes of popular discontent, the policy preferences of the people, and the bloviating rhetoric of leaders, the governments
that have emerged from the new populist moment are, to date, not actually pursuing policies that are economically populist.
The better and more useful way to view these regimes -- and the threat to democracy emerging at home and abroad because of
them -- is as nationalist oligarchies. Oligarchy means rule by a small number of rich people. In an oligarchy, wealthy elites seek
to preserve and extend their wealth and power. In his definitive book titled Oligarchy , Jeffrey Winters calls it "wealth
defense." Elites engage in "property defense," protecting what they already have, and "income defense," preserving and extending
their ability to hoard more. Importantly, oligarchy as a governing strategy accounts for both politics and economics. Oligarchs use
economic power to gain and hold political power and, in turn, use politics to expand their economic power.
Those who worry about the rise of authoritarianism and fear the crisis of democracy are insufficiently focused on economics.
The trouble for oligarchs is that their regime involves rule by a small number of wealthy elites. In even a nominally
democratic society, and most countries around the world today are at least that, it should be possible for the much larger majority
to overthrow the oligarchy with either the ballot or the bullet. So how can oligarchy persist? This is where both nationalism and
authoritarianism come into play. Oligarchies remain in power through two strategies: first, using divide-and-conquer tactics
to ensure that a majority doesn't coalesce, and second, by rigging the political system to make it harder for any emerging majority
to overthrow them.
The divide-and-conquer strategy is an old one, and it works through a combination of coercion and co-optation. Nationalism --
whether statist, ethnic, religious, or racial -- serves both functions. It aligns a portion of ordinary people with the ruling oligarchy,
mobilizing them to support the regime and sacrifice for it. At the same time, it divides society, ensuring that the nationalism-inspired
will not join forces with everyone else to overthrow the oligarchs. We thus see fearmongering about minorities and immigrants, and
claims that the country belongs only to its "true" people, whom the leaders represent. Activating these emotional, cultural, and
political identities makes it harder for citizens in the country to unite across these divides and challenge the regime.
Rigging the system is, in some ways, a more obvious tactic. It means changing the legal rules of the game or shaping the political
marketplace to preserve power. Voting restrictions and suppression, gerrymandering, and manipulation of the media are examples. The
common theme is that they insulate the minority in power from democracy; they prevent the population from kicking the rulers out
through ordinary political means. Tactics like these are not new. They have existed, as Matthew Simonton shows in his book
Classical Greek Oligarchy , since at least the time of Pericles and Plato. The consequence, then as now, is that nationalist
oligarchies can continue to deliver economic policies to benefit the wealthy and well-connected.
It is worth noting that even the generation that waged war against fascism in Europe understood that the challenge to democracy
in their time was not just political, but economic and social as well. They believed that the rise of Nazism was tied to the concentration
of economic power in Germany, and that cartels and monopolies not only cooperated with and served the Nazi state, but helped its
rise and later sustained it. As New York Congressman Emanuel Celler, one of the authors of the Anti-Merger Act of 1950, said, quoting
a report filed by Secretary of War Kenneth Royall, "Germany under the Nazi set-up built up a great series of industrial monopolies
in steel, rubber, coal and other materials. The monopolies soon got control of Germany, brought Hitler to power, and forced virtually
the whole world into war." After World War II, Marshall Plan experts not only rebuilt Europe but also exported aggressive American
antitrust and competition laws to the continent because they believed political democracy was impossible without economic democracy.
Framing today's threat as nationalist oligarchy not only clarifies the challenge but also makes clear how democracy is different
-- and what democracy requires. Democracy means more than elections, an independent judiciary, a free press, and various constitutional
norms. For democracy to persist, there must also be relative economic equality. If society is deeply unequal economically, the wealthy
will dominate politics and transform democracy into an oligarchy. And there must be some degree of social solidarity because, as
Lincoln put it, "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
We see a number of disturbing signs the United States is breaking down along these dimensions. Electoral losers in places
like North Carolina seek to entrench their power rather than accept defeat. The view that money is speech under the First Amendment
has unleashed wealthy individuals and corporations to spend as much as they want to influence politics. The "doom loop of oligarchy,"
as Ezra Klein has called it, is an obvious consequence: The wealthy use their money to influence politics and rig policy to increase
their wealth, which in turn increases their capacity to influence politics. Meanwhile, we're increasingly divided into like-minded
enclaves, and the result is an ever-more toxic degree of partisanship.
Addressing our domestic economic and social crises is critical to defending democracy, and a grand strategy for America's future
must incorporate both domestic and foreign policy. But while many have recognized that reviving America's middle class and re-stitching
our social fabric are essential to saving democracy, less attention has been paid to how American foreign policy should be reformed
in order to defend democracy from the threat of nationalist oligarchy.
The Varieties of Nationalist Oligarchy
Just as there are many variations on liberal democracy -- the Swedish model, the French model, the American model -- there
are many varieties of nationalist oligarchy. The story is different in every country, but the elements of nationalist oligarchy
are trending all over the world.
... ... ...
... the European Union funds Hungary's oligarchy, as Orbán draws on EU money to fund about 60 percent of the state projects
that support "the new Fidesz-linked business elite." Nor do Orbán and his allies do much to hide the country's crony capitalist
model. András Lánczi, president of a Fidesz-affiliated think tank, has boldly stated that "if something is done in the national
interest, then it is not corruption." "The new capitalist ruling class," one Hungarian banker comments, "make their money from
the government."
The commentator Jan-Werner Müller captures Orbán's Hungary this way: "Power is secured through wide-ranging control of the
judiciary and the media; behind much talk of protecting hard-pressed families from multinational corporations, there is crony
capitalism, in which one has to be on the right side politically to get ahead economically."
Crony capitalism, coupled with resurgent nationalism and central government control, is also an issue in China. While some
commentators have emphasized "state capitalism" -- when government has a significant ownership stake in companies -- this phenomenon
is not to be confused with crony capitalism. Some countries with state capitalism, like Norway, are widely seen as extremely non-corrupt
and, indeed, are often held up as models of democracy. State capitalism itself is thus not necessarily a problem. Crony capitalism,
in contrast, is an "instrumental union between capitalists and politicians designed to allow the former to acquire wealth, legally
or otherwise, and the latter to seek and retain power." This is the key difference between state capitalism and oligarchy.
... ... ...
Ganesh Sitaraman is a professor of law
and Chancellor's faculty fellow at Vanderbilt Law School, and the author of The Counterinsurgent's Constitution: Law in the
Age of Small Wars and The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution: Why Economic Inequality Threatens our Republic
.
I'm finding it hard to think of examples where the formerly norm-giving group becomes derided or humiliated.
You can probably try to look at the situation in (now independent) republics of the former USSR. Simplifying previously oppressed
group, given a lucky chance, most often strive for dominance and oppression of other groups including and especially former dominant
group. This is an eternal damnation of ethno/cultural nationalism.
And not only it (look at Mutual Help and The State in Shantytowns.) In them ethnic comminutes often own protection markets,
offer services that hire people and replace the state, pay off gang leaders. they also provide some community support for particular
ethnic group, enforce the rules of trade within themselves, etc. In GB the abuse of children by ethnic gangs was sickening (
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/sep/30/abuse-children-asian-communities
)
In many cases of ethnic/cultural nationalism this looks more like a competition for resources with the smoke screen of noble
intentions/human rights/past oppression/ humiliations/etc
Or you can look at the language policy in the USA and the actual situation in some areas/institutions of Florida and California
and how English speakers feel in those areas/institutions. Or in some areas of Quebec in Canada.
That actually suggests another meaning of famous Randolph Bourne quote " War is the health of the state " (said in the midst
of the First World War.) It bring the unity unachievable in peace time or by any other methods, albeit temporarily (from Ch 14.
Howard Zinn book A People's History of the United States ):
the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the
battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches.
In the United States, not yet in the war, there was worry about the health of the state. Socialism was growing. The IWW
seemed to be everywhere. Class conflict was intense. In the summer of 1916, during a Preparedness Day parade in San Francisco,
a bomb exploded, killing nine people; two local radicals, Tom Mooney and Warren Billings, were arrested and would spend twenty
years in prison. Shortly after that Senator James Wadsworth of New York suggested compulsory military training for all males
to avert the danger that "these people of ours shall be divided into classes." Rather: "We must let our young men know that
they owe some responsibility to this country."
The supreme fulfillment of that responsibility was taking place in Europe. Ten million were to die on the battlefield; 20
million were to die of hunger and disease related to the war. And no one since that day has been able to show that the war
brought any gain for humanity that would be worth one human life. The rhetoric of the socialists, that it was an "imperialist
war," now seems moderate and hardly arguable. The advanced capitalist countries of Europe were fighting over boundaries, colonies,
spheres of influence; they were competing for Alsace-Lorraine, the Balkans, Africa, the Middle East.
Neo-McCarthyism now serves a somewhat similar purpose in the USA. Among other thing (like absolving Hillary from her fiasco
to "deux ex machine" trick instead of real reason -- the crisis and rejection of neoliberalism by the sizable strata of the USA
population) it is an attempt to unify the nation after 2016.
"... In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what? We're
trying to build a completely new society.' ..."
"... And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. ..."
I'd never heard of the Euro-Atlantic Security Leadership Group (EASLG) until today, even though it turns out that one of its members
has the office next door to mine. Its
website says that
it seeks to respond to the challenge of East-West tensions by convening 'former and current officials and experts from a group of
Euro-Atlantic states and the European union to test ideas and develop proposals for improving security in areas of existential common
interest'. It hopes thereby to 'generate trust through dialogue.'
It's hard to object to any of this, but its latest
statement , entitled 'Twelve Steps Toward Greater Security in Ukraine and the Euro-Atlantic Region', doesn't inspire a lot of
confidence. The 'twelve steps' the EASLG proposes to improve security in Eastern Ukraine are generally pretty uninspiring, being
largely of the 'set up a working group to explore' variety, or of such a vaguely aspirational nature as to be almost worthless (e.g.
'Advance reconstruction of Donbas An essential first step is to conduct a credible needs assessment for the Donbas region to inform
a strategy for its social-economic recovery.' Sounds nice, but in reality doesn't amount to a hill of beans).
For the most part, these proposals attempt to treat the symptoms of the war in Ukraine without addressing the root causes. In
a sense, that's fine, as symptoms need treating, but it's sticking plaster when the patient needs some invasive surgery. At the end
of its statement, though, the EASLG does go one step further with 'Step 12: Launch a new national dialogue about identity', saying:
A new, inclusive national dialogue across Ukraine is desirable and could be launched as soon as possible. Efforts should be
made to engage with perspectives from Ukraine's neighbors, especially Poland, Hungary, and Russia. This dialogue should address
themes of history and national memory, language, identity, and minority experience. It should include tolerance and respect for
ethnic and religious minorities in order to increase engagement, inclusiveness, and social cohesion.
This is admirably trendy and woke, but in the Ukrainian context somewhat explosive, as it implicitly challenges the identity politics
of the post-Maidan regime. Unsurprisingly, it's gone down like a lead balloon in Kiev. The notorious website Mirotvorets even
went so far as to add former
German ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger to its blacklist of enemies of Ukraine for having had the temerity to sign the EASLG statement
and thus 'taking part in Russia's propaganda events aimed against Ukraine.' Katherine Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group
commented on Twitter, 'As the idea of dialogue
becomes more mainstream, backlash to the concept grows fiercer.' 'In Ukraine, prominent pro-Western politicians, civic activists,
and media, have called Step 12 "a provocation" and "dangerous",' she added
Quinn-Judge comes across as generally sympathetic to the Ukrainian narrative about the war in Donbass, endorsing the idea that
it's largely a product of 'Russian aggression'. But she also recognizes that the war has an internal, social dimension which the
Ukrainian government and its elite-level supporters refuse to acknowledge. Consequently, they also reject any sort of dialogue, either
with Russia or with the rebels in Donbass. As Quinn-Judge notes in another Tweet:
An advisor to one of Ukraine's most powerful pol[itician]s told us recently of his concern about talk of dialogue in international
and domestic circles. 'We have all long ago agreed among ourselves. We need to return our territory, and then work with that sick
– sick – population.'
This isn't an isolated example. Quinn-Judge follows up with a couple more similar statements:
Social resentments underpin some opposition to disengagement, for example. An activist in [government-controlled] Shchastye
told me recently that she feared disengagement and the reopening of the bridge linking the isolated town to [rebel-held] Luhansk:
'I don't want all that trash coming over here.'
In 2017, a woman working with frontline families told me why she didn't want reintegration. 'These [the population of rebel-held
Donbass] are people with a minimum level of human development, people raised by their TVs. Okay, so we live together, then what?
We're trying to build a completely new society.'
And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass with their
'minimum level of human development'. You can fiddle with treating Donbass' symptoms as much as you like, ŕ la EASLG,
but unless you tackle this fundamental problem, the disease will keep on ravaging the subject for a long time to come. In due course,
I suggest, the only realistic cure will be to remove the patient entirely from the cause of infection.
All that you have described above is very sad, but not very surprising – which is itself very sad. I think Patrick Armstrong is
right that a lot of the reason Ukraine is not and has never been a functional polity is because much if not most of the population
cannot accept that the right side won WWII.
Contempt and loathing towards the Donbass is a pretty popular feeling amongst Ukrainian svidomy. E.g., one of the two regular
pro-Ukrainian commenters on my blog.
To his credit, he supports severing the Donbass from Ukraine (as one would a gangrenous limb – his metaphor) as opposed to
trying to claw it back. Which is an internally consistent position.
Same guy who doesn't consider Yanukovych as having been overthrown under coup like circumstances, while downplaying Poland's
past subjugation of Rus territory.
In Part I and II we saw how much truth is there in Herr Karlin's claim of being a model of the rrrracially purrrre Rrrrrrrussian
plus some personal views.
Part III (this one) gives a peek into his cultural and upbringing limits, which "qualify" him as an expert of all things Russian,
who speaks on behalf of the People and the Country.
" I left when I was six, in 1994 , so I'm not really the best person to ask this question of – it should probably be directed
to my parents, or even better, the Russian government at the time which had for all intents and purposes ceased paying academics
their salaries.
I went to California for higher education and because its beaches and mountains made for a nice change from the bleakness of
Lancashire.
I returned to Russia because if I like Putler so much, why don't I go back there? Okay, less flippancy. I am Russian, I
do not feel like a foreigner here, I like living in Moscow, added bonus is that I get much higher quality of life for the buck
than in California ."
"I never went to school, don't have any experience with writing in Russian, and have been overexposed to Anglo culture ,
so yes, it's no surprise that my texts will sound strange."
The Russian branch of Carnegie Endowment did a piece on this issue. It mostly fits your ideas, but the author suggests it was
a compromise, short-term solution – what steps can be taken right now, without crossing red lines of either side – but compromise
is unwelcome among both parties. The official Russian reaction was quite cold too.
Upon a quick perusal of the website of the org at issue, Alexey Arbatov and Susan Eisenhower have some kind of affiliation
with it, thus maybe explaining the compromise approach you mention.
This matter brings to mind Trump saying one thing during his presidential bid – only to then bring in people in key positions
who don't agree with what he campaigned on.
In terms of credentials and name status, the likes of Rand Paul, Tulsi Gabbard, Stephen Cohen and Jim Jatras, are needed in
Trump's admin for the purpose of having a more balanced foreign policy approach that conforms with US interests (not to be necessarily
confused with what neocons and neolibs favor).
Instead, Trump has been top heavy with geopolitical thinking opposites. He possibly thought that having them in would take
some of the criticism away from him.
The arguably ideal admin has both sides of an issue well represented, with the president intelligently deciding what's best.
On the BBC and on other media there are films of Ukrainians attacking a bus with people evacuated from China. These people
even wanted to burn down the hospital where the peoplew were taken (along with other unrelated patients)
This is a sign of a degraded society – attacking people who may or may not be ill!!!
Ukraine will eventually break up
The nationalist agenda is just degrading the society.
-The economy is failing
-People who can, are leaving
-The elected government has no control over the violent people who take to the streets
It's clear Zelensky is a puppet no different to Poroshenko – this destroys the idea that democracy is a good thing.
It's very sad that the EU and the Americans under Obama – empowered these decisive elements and then blame Russia.
Crimea did the right thing leaving Ukraine – Donbass hopefully will follow.
"And there once again you have it – one of the primary causes of the war in Ukraine: the contempt with which the post-Maidan
government and its activist supporters regard a significant portion of their fellow citizens, the 'sick trash' of Donbass"
[ ]
Only them?
[ ]
Yesterday marks yet another milestone on the Ukrainian glorious шлях перемог and long and arduous return to the Family
of the European Nations. The Civil Society ™ of the Ukraine rose as one in the mighty CoronavirusMaidan, against the jackbooted
goons of the crypto-Napoleon (and agent of Putin) Zelensky. Best people from Poltava oblast' (whose ancestors without doubt, welcomed
Swedish Euro-integrators in 1709) and, most important of all, from the Best (Western) Ukrajina, who 6 years ago made the Revolution
of Dignity in Kiev the reality and whom pan Poroshenko called the best part of the Nation, said their firm "Геть вiд Москви!"
to their fellow Ukrainian citizens, evacuated from Wuhan province in China
The Net is choke full of vivid, memorable videos, showing that 6 years after Maidan, the Ukraine now constitute a unified,
эдiна та соборна country. You all, no doubt, already watched these clips, where a brave middle-aged gentleman from the
Western Ukraine, racially pure Ukr, proves his mental acuity by deducing, that crypto-tyrant (and "не лох") Zelensky wants to
settle evacuees in his pristine oblast out of vengeance, because the Best Ukrajina didn't vote for him during the election. Or
a clip about a brave woman from Poltava oblast, suggesting to relocate the Trojan-horse "fellow countrymen" to Chernobol's Zone.
Or even the witty comments and suggestions by the paragons of the Ukrainian Civil Society, " волонтэры ":
Shy and conscientious members of the Ukrainian (national!) intelligentsia had their instincts aligned rrrrrright. When they
learned about that their hospital will be the one receiving the evacuees from Wuhan, the entire medical personell of that Poltava
oblast medical facility rose to their feet and sang "Shenya vmerla". Democracy and localism proved once again the strongest suit
of the pro-European Ukraine, with Ternopol's oblast regional council voting to accept the official statement to the crypto-tyrant
Zelensky, which calls attempts to place evacuees on their Holy land "an act of Genocide of the Ukrainian People" (c)
That's absolutely "normal", predictable reaction of the "racially pure Ukrainians" to their own fellow citizens. Now, Professor,
are you insisting on seeking or even expecting "compromise" with them ? What to do, if after all these years, there is
no such thing as the united Ukrainian political nation?
"Ukraine's democracy is flourishing like never before due to the tireless efforts of grassroots, pro-democracy, civil-society
groups. Many Ukrainians say their country is now firmly set on an irreversible, pro-Western trajectory. Moreover, the country
has also undertaken a top-to-bottom cultural, economic, and political divorce from its former Soviet overlord.
Today, Ukraine is a democratic success story in the making, despite Russia's best efforts to the contrary."
– Nolan Peterson, a former special operations pilot and a combat veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan, is The Daily Signal's foreign
correspondent based in Ukraine
Search
Feb 15, 2020
3
Fascism in Ukraine: the conspiracy of silence
Kit Knightly
Joseph Altham
The rise of the far right in Ukraine is one of the most disturbing trends in 21st century Europe. But it's a
story you rarely get to read about in the British press.
These days, the mainstream media does not have much to say about Ukraine. And when Ukraine is
mentioned, the main focus tends to be on Ukraine as it relates to the latest American political scandal, rather than
on Ukraine itself. Six years ago, the revolt in Kyiv put Ukraine at the top of the news agenda, but now the papers
have gone quiet.
This lack of interest in Ukraine is surprising, because Ukraine has some big stories that you would expert
journalists to be reporting. The country has been going through a violent upheaval, and the fighting in Ukraine's
eastern region still continues.
Supposedly, the reason for all the bloodshed was to secure Ukraine's European future? So how's that project going
today? Not well. Ukraine is still a long way from full membership of the European Union, and remains one of Europe's
poorest countries.
The ruins of Donetsk airport, December 2014 (Photo: Wikipedia)
Clearly, Ukraine is not working out. Of course, the nationalist uprising in Kyiv did achieve one of its core
objectives: the termination of the old partnership with Moscow. But the uprising also aimed to end corruption in
Ukraine and curb the power of the oligarchs. On both counts, Ukraine's political elite has performed badly. Ukraine's
corruption rating is still poor, while Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine's current president, was helped into power by the
influential billionaire, Ihor Kolomoisky.
All in all, Ukraine's "bright future" seems further away than ever, and the biggest losers from Ukraine's
pro-Western course have been the Ukrainian people. But the Western press long ago settled on the story that Vladimir
Putin is the big bully, and Ukraine has been cast in the role of his victim.
Because Vladimir Putin is labelled as the bad guy, and criticism of the Ukrainian government is thought to serve
his agenda, Ukraine has become a no-go area. The powers that be don't want to admit how bad things are inside
Ukraine, so The Guardian's "fearless investigative journalists" don't get to write about it.
Mikhail Bulgakov. During his lifetime, his work was censored by the Soviets. In 2014, the new Ukrainian government
banned a TV dramatization of his novel, The White Guard. (Photo: Wikipedia)
Instead, the truth is being swept under the carpet. And the truth is that the nationalist forces that took control
of Ukraine are bringing shame on their country. Ukraine has given way to crude nationalistic resentment, to the
extent of vandalizing Soviet war memorials and banning books, TV dramas and films. And in its search for new national
heroes to replace the Soviet heroes it is rejecting, Ukraine is glorifying the most despicable characters from its
fascist past.
The Lviv pogrom, 1941 (Photo: Wikipedia)
The historical background is complicated. In the 1930s, Ukraine was oppressed by the Bolsheviks and millions died
of famine. Then, during World War II, the German invasion of the USSR gave Ukrainian nationalists the opportunity to
push for independence, in an uneasy alliance with Nazi Germany. By collaborating with Nazi Germany, the Ukrainian
nationalists hoped that they would be rewarded with their own Ukrainian state.
As Ukraine fashions a new identity for itself, Ukrainians have been seeking inspiration from Stepan Bandera, Roman
Shukhevych and the other Nazi collaborators who piggy-backed on German military victories to advance the Ukrainian
nationalist cause.
Torchlit procession of Ukrainian nationalists (Photo: Wikipedia)
The trouble is that these Ukrainian nationalists, who proclaimed statehood in Lviv in 1941, were committed to more
than just a tactical alliance with Nazi Germany. Their organization sympathized with Nazi ideas, too.
The Nazis regarded Jews, Poles and Russians as subhuman, and so did Stepan Bandera. The Ukrainian nationalists
massacred Poles, perpetrated pogroms and were willing participants in the Holocaust. They even had their own division
in the SS, the SS Galicia.
A photo of Stepan Bandera displayed during the Maidan uprising, January 2014 (Photo: Wikipedia)
The dark side of Ukraine's wartime history has become a point of reference for the new, post-Maidan regime. As
monuments to Soviet commanders are demolished, new monuments to Ukrainian fascists are going up.
The Ukrainian government has designated 1st January, Stepan Bandera's birthday, as a national holiday. Statues of
Bandera and Shukhevych have appeared in many cities, and streets are being named after war criminals.
Ultranationalist organizations are invited to schools to give children a "patriotic" education. Nazi symbols are
openly displayed at concerts and football matches, and antisemitic literature is sold on market stalls.
Meanwhile, monuments commemorating the Holocaust have been desecrated, and synagogues have been attacked.
"Death to the Yids": graffiti beside a synagogue in Odessa. The sign is a Wolfsangel, a common Nazi symbol.
(Photo: Wikipedia)
Old poisons are rising to the surface. The figures openly praised by Ukrainian leaders are the scoundrels and
fanatics who threw in their lot with Hitler. The new Ukraine is obsessed with its own national grievances, but it
shows little respect for any of the non-Ukrainian victims of history. With its sickly blend of romanticism and
self-pity, Ukraine is now a breeding ground for racism and extremism. But this is something the Western press is not
yet ready to admit.
Instead, the press has been colluding in a conspiracy of silence and shutting its eyes to the danger. By putting
up statues of fascists from the past, Ukraine is giving a green light to fascism today.
OffGuardian does not accept advertising or sponsored content. We have no large financial backers. We are not
funded by any government or NGO. Donations from our readers is our only means of income. Even the smallest amount
of support is hugely appreciated.
Connect with
Connect with
Subscribe
newest
oldest
most voted
Notify of
Hey according to two faced Shifty Schiff Ukraine is "fighting the Russians so we don't have to". I mean
another "great ally" like Israel who has been selling them arms hand over first despite the fact that the
Ukrainians are truly "antisemitic" who unlike American "antisemites" that are always bellyaching about
Israel's genocidal policies Ukrainians excel in their antisemitism by burning down synagogs and
threatening the Jewish population er I mean offer them a one way train excursion all expenses paid.
I
mean what greater "ally" does Israel need to convince more Jews to come the "promised land"and kill a few
Palestinians and steal their land. I mean things haven't been as good since ol' Uncle 'Dolph signed the
Transfer Agreement.
Aside from a some occasional burbling about antisemitism by NuttenYahoo like the Americans they
continue to sell them arms so they can launch genocidal campaigns against Dombass and other ethnic
Russian areas that aren't as Ukofriendly as Washington and Tel Aviv using their reconstituted Bandera
Brigade AKA SS Galicia of inveterate Iron Guard. I mean these guys aren't just a bunch Neo-nazis skin
heads but qualify as the real animal.
Thanks to Obama, Nuland and Clinton with the help of Soros deep pockets to fund color revolutions whom
if you remember according to 60 Minute interview a ways back reveled in turning over Jewish property and
Jews to the tender mercies of the 3rd Reich. I mean what a guy.
Well the reason you probably haven't heard anything is because the American government is just too
modest about show casing yet another example of bringing "freedom and democracy" to the benighted who
haven't experienced the joys of austerity, privatization and giving all their money to help those poor
needy kleptocrats who are just millionaires and are striving to be another Jeff Bezos.
Loverat
,
Ukraine is almost identical to the rise of fascism in 1990s Croatia. I wonder when the Pope will visit
and grant saint hood to these appalling monsters.
Jen
,
It must be said that the western parts of Ukraine, where the Ukrainian ultranationalist movement arose
under people like Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych and Yuri Stetsko, were actually under Polish rule and
were subjected to forced Polonisation under an increasingly nationalist and fascist Polish government
during the 1920s and 1930s. This explains why ethnic Polish people were fair game for torture and
lynching by Ukrainian followers of Bandera & Co during Nazi rule in the 1940s. Western Ukraine mostly
escaped the famines that affected Soviet Ukraine and other parts of the USSR in the 1930s.
...In point of fact, of course, the zionist program to get lebensraum by liquidation or
enslaving the Semitic native populations is telling, definitive.
... ... ...
(The Quakers say "tell the truth and shame the devil"... With the idea implied that truth
saying is a duty under god, whatever it costs. The Quakers used to be significant in US
history, but like CPUSA, are under reliable and useful control as agents of X. (ask Ruth
Paine, of the curator group for Oswald operation))
Where Judis is on more solid ground, it seems to me, is in his reminder that liberals should
not be too dismissive of nationalism, since nationalism, "by itself, is neither good nor evil,
liberal nor conservative."
You wouldn't know it from the way the term is tossed about in
popular discourse, but as a historical matter this is more or less incontestable: The
nationalism of Donald Trump is only one of many varieties.
It's not the nationalism that
emerged amidst the French Revolution, as part of an attempt to make sense of the revolutionary
doctrine of popular sovereignty. Neither is it the anti-colonial nationalism marshaled to
support a range of twentieth-century independence movements. Nor is it rooted in philosophical
ruminations on the identity-shaping role played by language, or culture, or history -- any one
of which could be associated with a range of thinkers who would be appalled by the MAGA-hat
crowd.
Recognizing nationalism's protean nature is, in fact, a first step toward what might be a
productive exercise for anybody hoping to revitalize the left at this moment in history. Assume
that, at least over the short and medium term, the current global system of bordered
nation-states is not going to disappear (even if it is undergoing transformation). And assume
that, for many people, everyday thought and behavior will adhere to (largely unconscious)
scripts that serve to locate them in particular settings, communities, associations, and so
on.
Given these realities, what kind of collective self-understandings would it be useful
to promote? American history doesn't lack for precedents; there are left-nationalist themes in
texts like the Gettysburg Address, in FDR's 1936 nomination speech (the one featuring his
denunciation of "economic royalists"), and in Martin Luther King Jr.'s metaphor of a
promissory note .
Samuel H. Beer, one of the twentieth century's leading scholars of
American politics, once described the great moments of American reform as responses to
crises of
nationhood : "[T]he crisis of sectionalism, culminating in the Civil War; the crisis of
industrialism, culminating in the Great Depression and the New Deal; and the crisis of racism,
which continues to rack our country."
In Beer's view, these moments of active reform
counteracted destructive centrifugal forces; they made the nation "
more of a nation ." This emphasis on "making" a nation through
politics is a good reminder that nations were not found, but invented; they are not immune to
political refashioning. And if they're unlikely to disappear anytime soon, it might be a good
idea to start thinking about which kinds we can live with.
The US depends upon continuation of the dollar as the world's reserve currency. Were
that to be lost the US likely would descend into chaos without end. When the USSR came
apart it was eventually able to downsize into the Russian state. We don't have that here;
there is no core ethnicity with it's own territory left anymore, it's just a jumble. For
the US it's a matter of survival.
Possession of a core ethnicity doesn't invariably guarantee stability or even constitute a
nation and I don't believe this is why Russia survives as a nation today. Russia itself is a
country with a great many nationalities, and there are almost as many Asian as European faces
in the country. Furthermore, the Ukraine was part of the USSR, has what you term a core
ethnicity, and yet has descended into chaos without end since the collapse of the USSR.
Clearly, a nation consists of something other than ethnic identity, language or even
religion.
The 19th century French historian Ernest Renan in a famous lecture at the time "What is a
Nation" stated: "A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle A nation is therefore a
large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the
past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future. It presupposes a past; it is
summarized, however, in the present by a tangible fact, namely, consent, the clearly
expressed desire to continue a common life .
"Man is a slave neither of his race nor his language, nor of his religion, nor of the
course of rivers nor of the direction taken by mountain chains. A large aggregate of men,
healthy in mind and warm of heart, creates the kind of moral conscience which we call a
nation."
A nation is an organic entity not dependent on a common language, religion or bounded by
geography. Whether or not a nation or nations survive the collapse of the American Empire
will depend on the willingness of the people to live together with a shared collective memory
of the past. Renan makes the point that national traumas are more unifying than national
triumphs. The chaos that will surely follow the Empire's collapse will become part of the
shared trauma, out of which a new nation or nations will arise, if the people so will.
"I see you have successfully internalized The Cuck's Credo."
I won;t speak to the explication of what nationhood is as described. But clearly skin
color is not a cohesive enough glue. The white colonists comprised of varying ethnic cultures
went to war against whites in great britain. And by all indications of history the whites in
Europe spent more than 1800 years killing each other in country and out --
So any claim that whiteness is a cohesive glue or embodies a cohesive glue cementing
nationality is thoroughly rejected by history. That anyone contends it against the evidence
is peculiar.
@Daniel.I Oh, are you ever missing the point. What Renan wrote elsewhere, "that which
makes a nation is the willingness of its members to live together," (ce qui fait une nation
c'est la volunté de ses membres de vivre ensemble) cuts both ways. It not only expains
why Russia successfully transitioned the fall of the USSR, while the Ukraine has not yet: the
Russians chose to live together. It also explains why nationalists like you continue to
choose by your own volition to identify as American despite your pissing and moaning. You and
the Russians and the Ukrainians are making your own volitional choices about the nation you
choose to be a member of. Those choices multiplied by the millions of inhabitants demonstrate
how this is an organic process. Furthermore, Renan wrote well before the current idea of
globalism had developed any traction, and he is writing from observation of history as a
historian. He had no globalist agenda to promote. I have read quite a lot of what the hard
right nationalists have had to say in their comments on the Unz Review, and frankly, the
arguments are unconvincing. I would suggest reading the Renan lecture I posted the link to,
it clears up the mess and shows a third way between you and the globalists, the way of how
things really come down. It shows reality.
So any claim that whiteness is a cohesive glue or embodies a cohesive glue cementing
nationality is thoroughly rejected by history. That anyone contends it against the evidence
is peculiar.
No matter what the core identity of a society, there will be at least episodic internal
violence. But that doesn't mean that people don't need identity.
What identity, in your view, should the people focusing on whiteness as symbolic of their
sense of belonging, be adopting?
It's obvious that being "an American" is becoming less and less psychologically
satisfying. So what is the answer?
@EliteCommInc. You have no idea how satisfying it is to watch the Anglo – after
having forced liberalism down the throat of everyone else – finding himself on the
receiving end of it.
@Polemos The nation in Renan's thinking transcends consideration of the one and the many
through a kind of political metaphysic: the nation is spiritual, the nation is a
mystery. The national myth of shared trauma creates a past while organic human volition
results in a spiritual recognition of both the individual and others as participants in this
mystery, this nation, this Gestalt . Charles de Gaulle touched this in his benediction
"vive la France eternelle," as did Ronald Reagan with the metaphor from the Gospels, "a city
on a hill."
@Daniel.I I get the general use by Americans to use "liberal" for what the rest of the
Anglophone countries would probably call "left wing" (although I think Americans also say
"neo liberalism" mraning something quite different). But I struggle to understand what you
mean by "liberalism". Derived from which lot of Anglos? Thrust down throats by which lot of
Anglos? I would like to learn more from you about the ideology or philosophy or political
movement you are referring to.
As a prompt to leap out of a narrowly based view I note that the main conservative right
of centre party which often forms Australian governments is the Liberal Party.
@Weston Waroda "A nation is an organic entity not dependent on a common language,
religion or bounded by geography."
Is it to say that the German, the English, the Swede, the Polish, the Norwegians, the
Danes, the Czech, the Slovak, the Italian, the Greek, the Hungarian, the Romanian, the
Bulgarian, the Portuguese, the Irish, the various nations that emerged from the former
Yugoslavia or the USSR are not organic entities but only the Belgian are? Is it to say that
African states with borders drawn across ethnicities by colonial powers are nations? Today's
France is proof of the contrary to your statement and Renan's theory. You are the one
disconnected from reality as your idea of what constitutes a nation is a pure abstract
disproven by empirical evidence.
Renan makes the point that national traumas are more unifying than national
triumphs.
It's interesting that the places that the Empire has been unable to control are often
ex-Communist (Russia, China, Eastern Europe) which experienced national trauma, but were also
outside of the Zio-Glob Empire in its critical post 1945 growth period (the map of US
overseas bases).
Also, Imperial institutions like NATO are looking irrelevant. European leaders may well
wonder why they're necessary. In 1945, the US was the world's leading industrial economy/
international creditor with a legitimate reserve currency – now not so much –
with the US clinging onto power using violence, threats and sanctions and generally
alienating everyone.
Israel is a very successful example of a strongly ethnocentric state that has its endless
internal squabbles between the various groups within that identity, but yet remain fairly
united against potential threats from outsiders (i.e., the"others"). This most definitely
applies to the critical matter of immigration.
Wisely, they do not easily accept immigrants, except those who are proven to be of their
own ilk, and they are currently exploring, via internal public dialog, whether their already
relatively stringent standards are not restrictive enough. (See here: https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/6-out-of-7-immigrants-to-Israel-not-Jewish-611842
)
They know they will be internally weakened, displaced, and ultimately, replaced if they do
otherwise. They 'see the writing on the wall'.
Jews are not stupid people. It would seem equally wise for the US, Canada, and the
European states to emulate their example, preserving their shared heritages and
commonalities, which provide strength and unity in the face of adversities and against
foreign enemies, both abroad and domestically.
What is sauce for the (jewish) goose is sauce for the (goyim) ganders .
Canada has a reputation for
being a relatively progressive state with universal, single-payer health care, various other social
benefits, and strict gun laws, similar to many European countries but quite unlike the United States.
It has managed to stay out of some American wars, for example, Vietnam and Iraq, portrayed itself as a
neutral "peace keeper", pursuing a so-called policy of "multilateralism" and attempting from time to
time to keep a little independent distance from the United States.
Behind this veneer of
respectability lies a not so attractive reality of elite inattention to the defence of Canadian
independence from the United States and intolerance toward the political and syndicalist left. Police
repression against communist and left-wing unionists and other dissidents after World War I was
widespread. Strong support for appeasement of Nazi Germany, overt or covert sympathy for fascism,
especially in Québec, and hatred of the Soviet Union were widespread in Canada during the 1930s. The
Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables including Adolf
Hitler, and thought that his British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not gone far enough in
appeasing Hitlerite Germany. Mackenzie King and many others of the Canadian elite saw communism as a
greater threat to Canada than fascism. As in Europe, the Canadian elite -- Liberal or Conservative did
not matter -- was worried by the Spanish civil war (1936-1939). In Québec French public opinion under the
influence of the Catholic Church hoped for fascist victory and the eradication of communism. In 1937 a
Papal encyclical whipped up the Red Scare amongst French Canadian Catholics. Rejection of Soviet
offers of collective security against Hitler was the obverse side of appeasement. The fear of victory
over Nazi Germany in alliance with the USSR was greater than the fear of defeat against fascism. Such
thoughts were either openly expressed over dinner at the local gentleman's club or kept more discrete
by people who did not want to reveal the extent of their sympathy for fascism.
The Liberal prime minister,
William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables including Adolf Hitler, and thought that his
British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not gone far enough in appeasing Hitlerite Germany
Even after the Nazi invasion of
the USSR in June 1941, and the formation of the Grand Alliance against the Axis, there was strong
reticence amongst the governing elite in Canada toward the Soviet Union. It was a shotgun marriage, a
momentary arrangement with an undesirable partner, necessitated by the over-riding threat of the Nazi
Wehrmacht. "If Hitler invaded Hell," Winston Churchill famously remarked, "I would make at least a
favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." Once Hitler was beaten, however, it would
be back to business as usual. The Grand Alliance was a "truce", as some of my students have proposed
to me, in a longer cold war between the west and the USSR. This struggle began in November 1917 when
the
Bolsheviks
seized power
in Petrograd; it resumed after 1945 when the "truce", or if you like, the Grand
Alliance, came to a sudden end.
This was no more evident than
in Canada where elite hatred of communism was a homegrown commodity and not simply an American
imitation. So it should hardly be a surprise that after 1945 the Canadian government -- Mackenzie King
was still prime minister -- should open its doors to the immigration of approximately 34,000 "displaced
persons", including thousands of
Ukrainian
fascists and Nazi collaborators
, responsible for heinous war crimes in the Ukraine and Poland.
These were
veterans
of
the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the Waffen SS Galicia and the Organisation of Ukrainian
Nationalists (OUN), all collaborators of Nazi Germany during World War II.
Chrystia Freeland,
the current Canadian minister for external affairs
The most notorious of the Nazi
collaborators who immigrated to Canada was
Mykhailo
Chomiak
, a mid-level Nazi operative in Poland, who came under US protection at the end of the war
and eventually made his way to Canada where he settled in Alberta. Had he been captured by the Red
Army, he would quite likely have been hanged for collaboration with the enemy. In Canada however he
prospered as a farmer. His grand-daughter is the "Ukrainian-Canadian" Chrystia Freeland, the present
minister for external affairs. She is a well-known Russophobe,
persona non grata
in the
Russian Federation, who long claimed her grandfather was a "victim" of World War II. Her claims to
this effect have been demonstrated to be
untrue
by
the Australian born journalist
John
Helmer
, amongst many others.
In 1940 the Liberal government
facilitated the creation of the
Canadian
Ukrainian Congress (UCC)
, one of many organisations used to fight or marginalise the left in
Canada, in this case amongst Canadian Ukrainians. The UCC is still around and appears to dominate the
Ukrainian-Canadian
community
. Approximately 1.4 million people living in Canada claim full or partial Ukrainian
descent though generally the latter. Most "Ukrainian-Canadians" were born in Canada; well more than
half live in the western provinces. The vast majority has certainly never set foot in the Ukraine. It
is this constituency on which the UCC depends to pursue its political agenda in Ottawa.
The Canadian Ukrainian
Congress (UCC) president Paul Grod
After the coup d'état in Kiev
in February 2014 the UCC lobbied the then Conservative government under Stephen Harper to support the
Ukrainian "regime change" operation which had been conducted by the United States and European Union.
The UCC president, Paul Grod, took the lead in obtaining various advantages from the Harper
government, including arms for the putschist regime in Kiev. It survives only through massive EU and
US direct or indirect financial/political support and through armed backing from fascist militias who
repress dissent by force and intimidation. Mr. Grod claims that Russia is pursuing a policy of
"aggression" against the Ukraine. If that were true, the putschists in Kiev would have long ago
disappeared. The
Harper
government
allowed fund raising for
Pravyi Sektor
, a Ukrainian fascist paramilitary
group, through two organisations in Canada including the UCC, and even accorded "charitable status" to
one of them to facilitate their fund raising and arms buying. Harper also sent military "advisors" to
train Ukrainian forces, the backbone of which are fascist militias. The Trudeau government has
continued that policy. "Canada should prepare for Russian attempts to destabilize its democracy,"
according
to Minister Freeland
: "Ukraine is a very important partner to Canada and we will continue to
support its efforts for democracy and economic growth." For a regime that celebrates violence and
anti-Russian racism, represses political opposition, burns books, and outlaws the Russian language,
"democracy" is an Orwellian portrayal of actual realities in the Ukraine. Nevertheless, late last year
the Canadian government approved the sale of arms to Kiev and a so-called
Magnitsky
law
imposing sanctions on Russian nationals.
The
Harper
government
allowed fund raising for
Pravyi Sektor
, a Ukrainian fascist paramilitary group
There is no political
opposition in the House of Commons to these policies. Even the New Democratic Party (NDP), that burnt
out shell of Canadian social democracy, supported the Harper government, at the behest of Mr. Grod, a
Ukrainian lobbyist who knows his way around Ottawa. In 2015 the UCC put a list of questions to party
leaders, one of which was the following: "Does your party support listing the Luhansk People's
Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic as terrorist organizations?" The Lugansk and Donetsk
republics are of course anti-fascist resistance movements that emerged in reaction to the violent coup
d'état in Kiev. They are most certainly
not
"terrorist" organisations, although they are
subjected to daily bombardments against civilian areas by Kiev putschist forces. Nevertheless, the
then NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, who would have agreed to almost anything to win power, answered in
the affirmative. This must have been a moment of dismay for Canadians who still harboured illusions
about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the Liberal and Conservative parties. How could it
support a US/EU installed putschist regime which governs by intimidation and violence? In fact, it was
a Conservative electoral strategy to obtain the votes of people of Ukrainian and East European descent
by backing putschist Kiev and denouncing Russia. Mulcair was trying to outflank Harper on his right,
but that did not work for he himself was outflanked on his left.
Some Canadians harboured
illusions about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the Liberal and Conservative parties
In the 2015 federal elections
the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, outwitted poor Mr. Mulcair and won the elections. The NDP suffered
heavy electoral losses. Mulcair looked like someone who had made a Faustian bargain for nothing in
return, and he lost a bid to remain as party leader. The Liberals campaigned on re-establishing better
relations with the Russian Federation, but that promise did not hold up. The minister for external
affairs, Stéphane Dion, tried to move forward on that line, but appears to have been stabbed in the
back by Mr. Trudeau, with Ms. Freeland guiding his hand in the fatal blow. In early 2017
Dion
was sacked
and Freeland replaced him. That was the end of the Liberal promise to improve relations
with the Russian government. Since then, under Freeland, Russian-Canadian relations have worsened.
The influential Mr. Grod
appears to keep the Canadian government in his hip pocket. There are photographs of him side by side
with Mr. Harper and then with Mr. Trudeau, with Ms. Freeland on his left. Mr. Grod has been a great
success in backing putschist Kiev. Last summer Mr. Trudeau even issued a traditional Ukrainian fascist
salute,
"SlavaUkraini!"
,
to celebrate the anniversary of Ukrainian independence. The prime minister is a great believer in
identity politics.
The influential Mr. Grod
appears to keep the Canadian government in his hip pocket
The latest gesture of the
Canadian government is to approve $1.4 million as a three year grant to promote a "Holodomor National
Awareness Tour". Ukrainian "nationalists" summon up the memory of the "Holodomor", a famine in the
Ukraine in 1932-1933, deliberately launched by Stalin, they say, in order to emphasise their
victimisation by Russia. According to the latest Stalin biographer, Steven Kotkin, there was indeed a
famine in the USSR that affected various parts of the country, the Ukraine amongst other regions.
Kazakhstan, not the Ukraine suffered most. Between five and seven million people died. Ten millions
starved. "Nonetheless, the famine was not intentional. It resulted from Stalin's policies of forced
collectivization ,"Kotkin writes, himself no advocate of the Soviet Union. Compulsion, peasant
rebellion, bungling, mismanagement, drought, locust infestations, not targeting ethnicities, led to
the catastrophe. "Similarly, there was no 'Ukrainian' famine," according to Kotkin, "the famine was
[a] Soviet[-wide disaster]" (
Stalin
,
2017, vol. 2, pp. 127-29). So the Liberal government is spending public funds to perpetuate a
politically motivated myth to drum up hatred of Russia and to support putschist Kiev.
Identity politics and
Canadian multiculturalism are now invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets of
Kiev with torchlight parades and fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and
collaboration during World War II
The Canadian government also
recently renewed funding for a detachment of 200 "advisors" to train Ukrainian militias, along with
twenty-three
million dollars
-- it is true a pittance by
American
standards
-- for "non-lethal" military aid, justified by Ms. Freeland to defend Ukrainian
"democracy". Truly, we live in a dystopian world where reality is turned on its head. Fascism is
democracy; resistance to fascism is terrorism. Identity politics and Canadian multiculturalism are now
invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets of Kiev with torchlight parades and
fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and collaboration during World War II.
"
Any country sending representatives to Russia's celebration of the 70th anniversary of their
victory against Adolf Hitler,"
warned
putschist Kiev
in April 2015, "will be blacklisted by Ukraine."
"The further a society drifts
from the truth," George Orwell once said, "the more it will hate those that speak it." Well, here is
one truth that Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Freeland will not want to hear, hate it or not: 42,000 Canadian
soldiers, not to mention 27 million Soviet citizens, died during the war against the Axis. Memories
must be fading, for now we have come to this pass, where our government is supporting a violent,
racist regime in Kiev directly descended from that very enemy against which Canada and its allies
fought during World War II.
The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture
Foundation.
Tags:
Canada
Chrystia Freeland
Print this article
Michael Jabara Carley
March 9, 2018 |
History
Why Canada Defends Ukrainian Fascism
Canada has a reputation
for being a relatively progressive state with universal, single-payer health care, various other
social benefits, and strict gun laws, similar to many European countries but quite unlike the
United States. It has managed to stay out of some American wars, for example, Vietnam and Iraq,
portrayed itself as a neutral "peace keeper", pursuing a so-called policy of "multilateralism"
and attempting from time to time to keep a little independent distance from the United States.
Behind this veneer of
respectability lies a not so attractive reality of elite inattention to the defence of Canadian
independence from the United States and intolerance toward the political and syndicalist left.
Police repression against communist and left-wing unionists and other dissidents after World War
I was widespread. Strong support for appeasement of Nazi Germany, overt or covert sympathy for
fascism, especially in Québec, and hatred of the Soviet Union were widespread in Canada during
the 1930s. The Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables
including Adolf Hitler, and thought that his British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not
gone far enough in appeasing Hitlerite Germany. Mackenzie King and many others of the Canadian
elite saw communism as a greater threat to Canada than fascism. As in Europe, the Canadian
elite -- Liberal or Conservative did not matter -- was worried by the Spanish civil war (1936-1939).
In Québec French public opinion under the influence of the Catholic Church hoped for fascist
victory and the eradication of communism. In 1937 a Papal encyclical whipped up the Red Scare
amongst French Canadian Catholics. Rejection of Soviet offers of collective security against
Hitler was the obverse side of appeasement. The fear of victory over Nazi Germany in alliance
with the USSR was greater than the fear of defeat against fascism. Such thoughts were either
openly expressed over dinner at the local gentleman's club or kept more discrete by people who
did not want to reveal the extent of their sympathy for fascism.
The Liberal prime
minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables including Adolf Hitler, and
thought that his British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not gone far enough in appeasing
Hitlerite Germany
Even after the Nazi
invasion of the USSR in June 1941, and the formation of the Grand Alliance against the Axis,
there was strong reticence amongst the governing elite in Canada toward the Soviet Union. It was
a shotgun marriage, a momentary arrangement with an undesirable partner, necessitated by the
over-riding threat of the Nazi Wehrmacht. "If Hitler invaded Hell," Winston Churchill famously
remarked, "I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."
Once Hitler was beaten, however, it would be back to business as usual. The Grand Alliance was a
"truce", as some of my students have proposed to me, in a longer cold war between the west and
the USSR. This struggle began in November 1917 when the
Bolsheviks
seized power
in Petrograd; it resumed after 1945 when the "truce", or if you like, the Grand
Alliance, came to a sudden end.
This was no more evident
than in Canada where elite hatred of communism was a homegrown commodity and not simply an
American imitation. So it should hardly be a surprise that after 1945 the Canadian
government -- Mackenzie King was still prime minister -- should open its doors to the immigration of
approximately 34,000 "displaced persons", including thousands of
Ukrainian
fascists and Nazi collaborators
, responsible for heinous war crimes in the Ukraine and
Poland. These were
veterans
of
the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the Waffen SS Galicia and the Organisation of Ukrainian
Nationalists (OUN), all collaborators of Nazi Germany during World War II.
Chrystia Freeland,
the current Canadian minister for external affairs
The most notorious of the
Nazi collaborators who immigrated to Canada was
Mykhailo
Chomiak
, a mid-level Nazi operative in Poland, who came under US protection at the end of
the war and eventually made his way to Canada where he settled in Alberta. Had he been captured
by the Red Army, he would quite likely have been hanged for collaboration with the enemy. In
Canada however he prospered as a farmer. His grand-daughter is the "Ukrainian-Canadian" Chrystia
Freeland, the present minister for external affairs. She is a well-known Russophobe,
persona
non grata
in the Russian Federation, who long claimed her grandfather was a "victim" of
World War II. Her claims to this effect have been demonstrated to be
untrue
by
the Australian born journalist
John
Helmer
, amongst many others.
In 1940 the Liberal
government facilitated the creation of the
Canadian
Ukrainian Congress (UCC)
, one of many organisations used to fight or marginalise the left in
Canada, in this case amongst Canadian Ukrainians. The UCC is still around and appears to
dominate the
Ukrainian-Canadian
community
. Approximately 1.4 million people living in Canada claim full or partial Ukrainian
descent though generally the latter. Most "Ukrainian-Canadians" were born in Canada; well more
than half live in the western provinces. The vast majority has certainly never set foot in the
Ukraine. It is this constituency on which the UCC depends to pursue its political agenda in
Ottawa.
The Canadian
Ukrainian Congress (UCC) president Paul Grod
After the coup d'état in
Kiev in February 2014 the UCC lobbied the then Conservative government under Stephen Harper to
support the Ukrainian "regime change" operation which had been conducted by the United States
and European Union. The UCC president, Paul Grod, took the lead in obtaining various advantages
from the Harper government, including arms for the putschist regime in Kiev. It survives only
through massive EU and US direct or indirect financial/political support and through armed
backing from fascist militias who repress dissent by force and intimidation. Mr. Grod claims
that Russia is pursuing a policy of "aggression" against the Ukraine. If that were true, the
putschists in Kiev would have long ago disappeared. The
Harper
government
allowed fund raising for
Pravyi Sektor
, a Ukrainian fascist paramilitary
group, through two organisations in Canada including the UCC, and even accorded "charitable
status" to one of them to facilitate their fund raising and arms buying. Harper also sent
military "advisors" to train Ukrainian forces, the backbone of which are fascist militias. The
Trudeau government has continued that policy. "Canada should prepare for Russian attempts to
destabilize its democracy,"
according
to Minister Freeland
: "Ukraine is a very important partner to Canada and we will continue to
support its efforts for democracy and economic growth." For a regime that celebrates violence
and anti-Russian racism, represses political opposition, burns books, and outlaws the Russian
language, "democracy" is an Orwellian portrayal of actual realities in the Ukraine.
Nevertheless, late last year the Canadian government approved the sale of arms to Kiev and a
so-called
Magnitsky
law
imposing sanctions on Russian nationals.
The
Harper
government
allowed fund raising for
Pravyi Sektor
, a Ukrainian fascist paramilitary
group
There is no political
opposition in the House of Commons to these policies. Even the New Democratic Party (NDP), that
burnt out shell of Canadian social democracy, supported the Harper government, at the behest of
Mr. Grod, a Ukrainian lobbyist who knows his way around Ottawa. In 2015 the UCC put a list of
questions to party leaders, one of which was the following: "Does your party support listing the
Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic as terrorist organizations?" The
Lugansk and Donetsk republics are of course anti-fascist resistance movements that emerged in
reaction to the violent coup d'état in Kiev. They are most certainly
not
"terrorist"
organisations, although they are subjected to daily bombardments against civilian areas by Kiev
putschist forces. Nevertheless, the then NDP leader, Thomas Mulcair, who would have agreed to
almost anything to win power, answered in the affirmative. This must have been a moment of
dismay for Canadians who still harboured illusions about the NDP as a progressive alternative to
the Liberal and Conservative parties. How could it support a US/EU installed putschist regime
which governs by intimidation and violence? In fact, it was a Conservative electoral strategy to
obtain the votes of people of Ukrainian and East European descent by backing putschist Kiev and
denouncing Russia. Mulcair was trying to outflank Harper on his right, but that did not work for
he himself was outflanked on his left.
Some Canadians
harboured illusions about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the Liberal and Conservative
parties
In the 2015 federal
elections the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, outwitted poor Mr. Mulcair and won the elections.
The NDP suffered heavy electoral losses. Mulcair looked like someone who had made a Faustian
bargain for nothing in return, and he lost a bid to remain as party leader. The Liberals
campaigned on re-establishing better relations with the Russian Federation, but that promise did
not hold up. The minister for external affairs, Stéphane Dion, tried to move forward on that
line, but appears to have been stabbed in the back by Mr. Trudeau, with Ms. Freeland guiding his
hand in the fatal blow. In early 2017
Dion
was sacked
and Freeland replaced him. That was the end of the Liberal promise to improve
relations with the Russian government. Since then, under Freeland, Russian-Canadian relations
have worsened.
The influential Mr. Grod
appears to keep the Canadian government in his hip pocket. There are photographs of him side by
side with Mr. Harper and then with Mr. Trudeau, with Ms. Freeland on his left. Mr. Grod has been
a great success in backing putschist Kiev. Last summer Mr. Trudeau even issued a traditional
Ukrainian fascist salute,
"SlavaUkraini!"
,
to celebrate the anniversary of Ukrainian independence. The prime minister is a great believer
in identity politics.
The influential Mr.
Grod appears to keep the Canadian government in his hip pocket
The latest gesture of the
Canadian government is to approve $1.4 million as a three year grant to promote a "Holodomor
National Awareness Tour". Ukrainian "nationalists" summon up the memory of the "Holodomor", a
famine in the Ukraine in 1932-1933, deliberately launched by Stalin, they say, in order to
emphasise their victimisation by Russia. According to the latest Stalin biographer, Steven
Kotkin, there was indeed a famine in the USSR that affected various parts of the country, the
Ukraine amongst other regions. Kazakhstan, not the Ukraine suffered most. Between five and seven
million people died. Ten millions starved. "Nonetheless, the famine was not intentional. It
resulted from Stalin's policies of forced collectivization ,"Kotkin writes, himself no advocate
of the Soviet Union. Compulsion, peasant rebellion, bungling, mismanagement, drought, locust
infestations, not targeting ethnicities, led to the catastrophe. "Similarly, there was no
'Ukrainian' famine," according to Kotkin, "the famine was [a] Soviet[-wide disaster]" (
Stalin
,
2017, vol. 2, pp. 127-29). So the Liberal government is spending public funds to perpetuate a
politically motivated myth to drum up hatred of Russia and to support putschist Kiev.
Identity politics and
Canadian multiculturalism are now invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets
of Kiev with torchlight parades and fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi
collaborators and collaboration during World War II
The Canadian government
also recently renewed funding for a detachment of 200 "advisors" to train Ukrainian militias,
along with
twenty-three
million dollars
-- it is true a pittance by
American
standards
-- for "non-lethal" military aid, justified by Ms. Freeland to defend Ukrainian
"democracy". Truly, we live in a dystopian world where reality is turned on its head. Fascism is
democracy; resistance to fascism is terrorism. Identity politics and Canadian multiculturalism
are now invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets of Kiev with torchlight
parades and fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and collaboration
during World War II. "
Any country sending representatives to Russia's celebration of the
70th anniversary of their victory against Adolf Hitler,"
warned
putschist Kiev
in April 2015, "will be blacklisted by Ukraine."
The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the
bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the
world
Patrick Cockburn | @indyworld |
Nationalism in different shapes and forms is powerfully transforming the politics of the
British Isles, a development that gathered pace over the last five years and culminated in the
general election this month.
National identities and the relationship between England, Scotland and Ireland are changing
more radically than at any time over the last century. It is worth looking at the British
archipelago as a whole on this issue because of the closely-meshed political relationship of
its constituent nations. Some of these developments are highly visible such as the rise of the
Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP) to permanent political dominance in Scotland in the three
general elections since the independence referendum in 2014.
Other changes are important but little commented on, such as the enhanced national
independence and political influence of the Republic of Ireland over the British Isles as a
continuing member of the EU as the UK leaves. Dublin's greater leverage when backed by the
other 26 EU states was repeatedly demonstrated, often to the surprise and dismay of London, in
the course of the negotiations in Brussels over the terms of the British withdrawal.
Northern Ireland saw more nationalist than unionist MPs elected in the general election for
the first time since 1921. This is important because it is a further sign of the political
impact of demographic change whereby Catholics/nationalists become the new majority and the
Protestants/unionists the minority. The contemptuous ease with which Boris Johnson abandoned
his ultra-unionist pledges to the DUP and accepted a customs border in the Irish Sea separating
Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain shows how little loyalty the Conservatives feel
towards the northern unionists and their distinct and abrasive brand of British
nationalism.
These developments affecting four of the main national communities inhabiting the British
Isles – Irish, nationalists and unionists in Northern Ireland, Scots – are easy to
track. Welsh nationalism is a lesser force. Much more difficult to trace and explain is the
rise of English nationalism because it is much more inchoate than these other types of
nationalism, has no programme, and is directly represented by no political party – though
the Conservative Party has moved in that direction.
The driving force behind Brexit was always a certain type of English nationalism which did
not lose its power to persuade despite being incoherent and little understood by its critics
and supporters alike. In some respects, it deployed the rhetoric of any national community
seeking self-determination. The famous Brexiteer slogan "take back control" is not that
different in its implications from Sinn Fein – "Ourselves Alone" – though neither
movement would relish the analogy.
The great power of the pro-Brexit movement, never really taken on board by its opponents,
was to blame the very real sense of disempowerment and social grievances felt by a large part
of the English population on Brussels and the EU. This may have been scapegoating on a
grandiose scale, but nationalist movements the world over have targeted some foreign body
abroad or national minority at home as the source of their ills. I asked one former Leave
councillor – one of the few people I met who changed their mind on the issue after the
referendum in 2016 – why people living in her deprived ward held the EU responsible for
their poverty. Her reply cut through many more sophisticated explanations: "I suppose that it
is always easier to blame Johnny Foreigner."
Applying life lessons to the pursuit of national happiness The Tories won't get far once
progressives join forces 22,000 EU nationals have left NHS since Brexit vote, figures show This
crude summary of the motives of many Leave voters has truth in it, but it is a mistake to
caricature English nationalism as simply a toxic blend of xenophobia, racism, imperial
nostalgia and overheated war memories. In the three years since the referendum the very act of
voting for Brexit became part of many people's national identity, a desire to break free,
kicking back against an overmighty bureaucracy and repelling attempts by the beneficiaries of
globalisation to reverse a democratic vote.
The political left in most countries is bad at dealing with nationalism and the pursuit of
self-determination. It sees these as a diversion from identifying and attacking the real
perpetrators of social and economic injustice. It views nationalists as mistakenly or malignly
aiming at the wrong target – usually foreigners – and letting the domestic ones off
the hook.
The desire by people to see themselves as a national community – even if many of the
bonds binding them together are fictional – is one of the most powerful forces in the
world. It can only be ignored at great political cost, as the Labour Party has just found out
to its cost for the fifth time (two referendums and three elections). What Labour should have
done was early on take over the slogan "take back control" and seek to show that they were
better able to deliver this than the Conservatives or the Brexit Party. There is no compelling
reason why achieving such national demands should be a monopoly of the right. But in 2016, 2017
and 2019 Labour made the same mistake of trying to wriggle around Brexit as the prime issue
facing the English nation without taking a firm position, an evasion that discredited it with
both Remainers and Leavers.
Curiously, the political establishment made much the same mistake as Labour in
underestimating and misunderstanding the nature of English nationalism. Up to the financial
crisis of 2008 globalisation had been sold as a beneficial and inevitable historic process.
Nationalism was old hat and national loyalties were supposedly on the wane. To the British
political class, the EU obviously enhanced the political and economic strength of its national
members. As beneficiaries of the status quo, they were blind to the fact that much of the
country had failed to gain from these good things and felt marginalised and forgotten.
The advocates of supra-national organisations since the mediaeval papacy have been making
such arguments and have usually been perplexed why they fail to stick. They fail to understand
the strength of nationalism or religion in providing a sense of communal solidarity, even if it
is based on dreams and illusions, that provides a vehicle for deeply felt needs and grievances.
Arguments based on simple profit and loss usually lose out against such rivals.
Minervo , 1 day ago
Bigger by far are two forces which really do have control over our country -- the
international NATO warmongers but even more so, the international banksters of the finance
industry.
Why no 'leftist' campaign to Take Back Control of our money? Gordon Brown baled out the
banks when they should have gone bankrupt and been nationalised.
Blair is forever tainted with his ill-fated Attack on Iraq. Surely New Liberals or
Democrats or Socialists would want to lock down on that fiasco?
The Nationalism of taking back control could be a leftist project too.
"The life of the individual is a constant struggle, and not merely a metaphorical one,
against want or boredom, but also an actual struggle against other people. He discovers
adversaries everywhere, lives in continual conflict and dies with sword in hand."
Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Suffering of the World
Although Nietzsche seems to be the philosopher of choice for many on the Dissident Right,
I've always had a soft spot for Arthur Schopenhauer. His cantankerous philosophical pessimism
has always struck a chord with my own temperament, and for many years I've found his
quasi-Buddhist and highly compassionate conceptualisation of suffering to be strangely
comforting. That life is a struggle involving endless adversaries and competitors also forms an
aspect of Schopenhauer's philosophy, and this continues to be significant in shaping my
political and philosophical outlook. Certainly, it goes without saying that adversaries have
never been in short supply for members of the Dissident Right. They are arrayed before us now,
emerging from all points of the political spectrum, and often even from within our own ranks.
Dissident right political philosophies, more than any other, appear destined to be mired in
continual conflict, and I often find it difficult to shake the dark impression that one day I
will die, metaphorical sword in hand, with every battle raging but far from won. For this
reason, I sometimes permit myself the relief of optimism (a form of cowardice to both
Schopenhauer and Spengler), and part of this is the attempt to find allies where formerly one
may have seen only foes. This brings me to the subject matter of this essay -- recent
developments on the Left which appear to suggest the emergence of an anti-globalist,
anti-immigration, and anti-Zionist/anti-Semitic politics.
Swedish Communists Wake Up
Just days ago, Sputnik
reported on the fact that almost half of the members of the Communist Party in Malmö,
Sweden, are resigning. They plan to establish a new workers' party that no longer features
multiculturalism, LGBT interests, and climate change as key policy goals. Nils Littorin, one of
the defectors,
told a local newspaper that today's Left has become part of the elite and has come to
"dismiss the views of the working class as alien and problematic." Littorin suggested that the
Left "is going through a prolonged identity crisis" and that his group, instead, intends to
stick to the original values, such as class politics. Littorin adds "[The Left] don't
understand why so many workers don't think that multiculturalism, the LGBT movement and Greta
Thunberg are something fantastic, but instead believe we are in the 1930s' Germany and that
workers who vote [right-wing] Sweden Democrats have been infected by some Nazi sickness." In a
piece of simple insight previously rare on the Left, he argues that the rise in right-wing
votes for people like Donald Trump and Boris Johnson are in fact due to "widespread
dissatisfaction with liberal economic migration that leads to low-wage competition and the
ghettoisation of communities, a development that only benefits major companies." Rather than
being beneficial to working class Whites, Littorin condemns a "chaotic" immigration policy that
has led to "cultural clashes, segregation and exclusion due to an uncontrolled influx from
parts of the world characterised by honour culture and clan mentalities."
Littorin continues to talk sense when it comes to the LGBT agenda. He explains that LGBT
issues and the climate movement are merely "state ideologies" that are "rammed down people's
throats". Littorin adds that phenomena like these happen at the expense of real issues, such as
poverty, homelessness, and income equality: "Pride, for instance, has been reduced to dealing
with sexual orientation. We believe that human dignity is primarily about having a job and
having pension insurance that means that you are not forced to live on crumbs when you are
old."
As well as prioritising jobs and pensions over the flamboyant celebration of buggery,
Littorin and his colleagues have pledged to abandon the name and ethos of Communism, describing
it as a
word drawn to the dirt, a nasty word today, and not entirely undeservedly. In communist
parties, there is this risk of elitism, self-indulgence, and a belief that a certain
avant-garde should lead a working class that does not know its own best interests, instead of
asking people what they want. 20th-century Communism died with the Soviet Union, it has never
been successfully updated for the 21st century but has been stuck in 100-year-old books.
Curiously, events in Malmö have been mirrored somewhat in broader Swedish Left
politics, with Markus Allard, the leader of the left-wing Örebro Party, expressing
similar
thoughts in an op-ed titled "Socialists don't belong to the left," accusing the mainstream
left of completely abandoning
its base , switching from the working class to "parasitic grant-grabbing layers within the
middle class."
British Socialists Reinvent Themselves
Almost simultaneously, an identical process is occurring in Britain with George Galloway 's announcement of a
new Workers
Party of Britain . At the time of its launch Galloway described the party as "hard Brexit
and hard labour," and added: "If you're a liberal who thinks it's Left if you're still pining
for the EU, if you think shouting "racist," "homophobic," "transphobic" at everybody who
doesn't agree with you is the way forward, we're probably not for you." Galloway's pro-Brexit
stance is rooted in his
belief that the modern British Left "have no vision for an alternative to rampant
neoliberalism and a deindustrialised, finance-led, low wage economy, they calculate the best
way to make this work is within the EU." He argues that the cosmopolitan leadership of the
Labour Party in particular "think we are some kind of uncivilised tribe, painting our faces
blue, and only able to vote in a right-wing government," a view he finds "not only deeply
insulting, but also self-defeating and overly optimistic about the EU." On immigration,
Galloway argues that there is "nothing left-wing about unlimited mass immigration. It
decapitates the countries from which the immigrants leave, and drives down wages in those where
they arrive. The wealthy benefit from it, as they can afford cheap labor for their companies,
or cheap au-pairs, cheap baristas, cheap plumbers. But the working class suffers."
Galloway has also stressed that his new party will strongly pursue anti-Israel politics, and
is fully committed to opposing the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
Galloway and the Workers Party of Britain have also taken a stand against the more extreme
forms of LGBT indoctrination, particularly the mass promotion of transgenderism. Galloway, who
has previously been attacked by a
self-styled "trans anarchist" while giving a speech, is here following the lead of the
pro-Brexit Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist) which recently published
Identity Politics and the Transgender Trend: Where is LGBT ideology taking us and Why does
it matter? In this text, and other articles on the party's website, including this
very interesting speech denouncing transgender ideology as anti-materialist and
anti-scientific, the argument is made that
Biological differentiation between male and female is a real thing . It doesn't
just exist in humanity, it exists in many species throughout the natural world. Sexual
reproduction is a natural biological process that has persisted in nature due to the
diversity it engenders; it is a phenomenon encountered in the natural world. And let's not
forget how this debate impinged upon us. We've been following this ideological trend, and
encountering identity politics (idpol) among supporters and candidates for membership of our
party, and amongst people we've been working with for at least four or five years. Because
idpol has become a fashion in that period. And it is a fashion; it is a trend. And it
suddenly -- from being very marginal to certain academic institutions in the 1970s -- became
mainstream globally worldwide; it was actively promoted. Not promoted by communists, not by
socialists, but picked up on and accepted by many of them, because they are led by, and they
blindly followed, bourgeoise society down this dead-end. There is a group of self-proclaimed
'socialists' who are not actually any longer fighting against our oppression, they're
fighting against reality!
The Left in Crisis?
None of these developments are entirely surprising and, in fact, the argument could be made
that they are the inevitable side effect of what Nils Littorin termed the Left's prolonged
"identity crisis." The endorsement and promotion of multiculturalism and its sex-politics
corollaries never did make much sense within the framework of rational critiques of capitalism,
and the tension between the nominal desire for working class solidarity and divisive
pseudo-Marxian doctrines (e.g. Whiteness Studies) designed to mobilise imported ethnic factions
against the largest section of the working class (blue-collar Whites) was always destined to
bring about significant stress fractures when Leftist fortunes began to decline.
And decline they have. Of course, we have to set aside rampant ideological and cultural
success. Figures and cliques operating under the banner of social equality and eternal progress
continue to hold the reins of power in government, academia, and the mass media. But the Left
is without question currently subject to a period of political decline. It's losing votes, and
more important, it's fast losing hearts and minds. I should also add that they aren't losing
them to right-wing ideas, but to the hollow shells of right-wing ideas (Free Enterprise! Build
the Wall!) and to the charismatic globalist play-actors who promote-these ideas like salesmen
selling used cars or aftershave. White working-class people are voting for free enterprise
without hesitation while Jewish
vulture capitalism operates with impunity under that very banner, destroying their towns,
exporting their jobs, and repossessing their homes. The same people vote for a wall they'll
never get -- and would never really solve the problems resulting from capitalism or ensure a
majority White future. And they do it not because of concern about identity or racial destiny,
but in the same way one might decide to install CCTV in a grocery store -- the ever-elusive
Wall will never be built so long as it represents nothing more than the aspiration to protect
mere inventory. The hollow men of the pseudo-Right-wing offer flimsy placebos, and yet the
political Left, supposedly the historical repository of hard materialism, can't seem to
compete.
There's been a scramble to blame the situation on
a lack of charismatic leaders , disunity, a lack of attractive policies, and even the idea
that the European Left made the
fatal mistake of trying to meet the Right on its own turf by "flirting with closed-border
nationalism or neoliberalism." But the real reason is surely the fact the Left has consistently
alienated and browbeat working class Whites, while slowly revealing itself to be an elite-run
clique of cosmopolitans, who are living the high life while waxing lyrical about oppressions
that are rarely real and often imaginary, and in any case never affect them personally. Added
to this is the fact Leftist ideology has become so convoluted and contorted, with the
square-peg doctrine of Marx endlessly forced into new and increasingly abstract circular and
triangular holes, resulting in Marxist interpretations of such ephemera as graffiti, pop music,
and drag queens, all of which strike the average blue-collar worker as a steaming pile of
effeminate middle-class navel-gazing. All this plays out as young yet dithering social justice
warriors, jobless and senseless, search for oppression like an old lady with dementia searches
for a purse she hasn't owned in 20 years. As the pundits split hairs, I look on, and it occurs
to me rather simply that right now the pseudo-Left-wing liars aren't quite as good as the
pseudo-Right-wing liars.
Are These Rebels Potential Allies?
When I was around 11 years old, my mother made a new friend, a Scottish woman in her 30s,
who always struck me as very strange. It was her eyes. I didn't know at first what
schizophrenia was, though I would soon find out. One day she arrived at our house and,
recognising her, I opened the door and welcomed her in. I called to my mother, who was
upstairs, and made small talk with the Scottish woman, who, standing still and staring right at
me, seemed perfectly cheerful and articulate. She asked about how I was doing at school, and we
talked a little bit about science, which she seemed to know a lot about. It was only after a
few minutes that I noticed the smell and deduced that the woman had fouled herself. By the time
my mother arrived, the Scottish woman had descended into a stream-of-consciousness gibberish
that culminated in her attempting unsuccessfully to retrieve a knife from the kitchen before
running from the property. She'd simply stopped taking her medication. We later discovered she
was found by police that night, dancing and weeping with bare, bloody feet in a nearby
graveyard, wearing nothing but a nightgown and proclaiming to the dead that she was God,
distraught at the death of the crucified son.
The episode has remained with me now for over two decades, shaping my perceptions of
reality, relationships, and trust. Here it suffices only to remark that the insane talk sense
at times, even as their psyche shatters. And if we dig deeply enough into the statements of
these moderately "awakened" Leftists, do we yet see signs of madness? A look again at the
statement from the Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist-Leninist), along with some reading
between the lines, suggests something decidedly off . Yes, "biological differentiation
between male and female is a real thing." Of course it is. But so is biological differentiation
between races, and yet here our erstwhile British hardcore materialists, currently led by a
full-blooded ethnic Indian named Harpal Brar , decide to fight against reality.
On that note, we should add that Brar's daughter, Joti Brar, has been announced as George
Galloway's deputy leader at the "hard Brexit and hard labour" Worker's Party of Britain.
Galloway, it's worth adding, has been married four times, with three marriages to non-Whites
(Palestinian Amineh Abu-Zayyad in 1994, Lebanese Rima Husseini in 2007, and ethnic Indonesian
Putri Gayatri Pertiwi in 2012). So for all his protestations of being against mass migration,
one gets the distinct impression that Galloway is a committed multiculturalist and that his
party will be internationalist in every meaningful sense of the term.
If there is any hope for some sanity in this camp of frustrated Leftists it is for the
simple reason that these small new pockets of reason are for the most part free of Jewish
influence and all the intellectual distortions such influence entails. In a 2018 essay titled "
On
"Leftist Anti-Semitism": Past and Present ," I considered the gradual shift of Jews away
from the hard Left due to growing anti-Zionism, and their growing confinement in centrist
neoliberalism:
Jewish blindness to their privileges, genuine or feigned, is of course one major cause for
the undeniable friction between Jews and the modern Left. It was perhaps inevitable that
foolish but earnest egalitarians on the Left would come to the slow realization that their
'comrades of the Jewish faith' were in fact not only elitists, but an elite of a very special
sort. The simultaneous preaching of open borders/common property and 'the land of the Jewish
people' was always going to strike a discordant note among the wearers of sweaty Che Guevara
t-shirts, especially when accompanied so very often by the cacophony of Israeli gunfire and
the screams of bloodied Palestinian children. Mass migration, that well-crafted toxin
coursing through the highways and rail lines of Europe, has proven just as difficult to
manage. Great waves of human detritus wash upon Western shores, bringing raw and passionate
grievances even from the frontiers of Israel. These are people whose eyes have seen behind
the veil, and who sit only with great discomfort alongside the kin of the IDF in league with
the Western political Left -- the only common ground being a shared desire to dispossess the
hated White man. For these reasons, the Left could well become a cold house for Jews without
becoming authentically, systematically, or traditionally anti-Semitic. One might therefore
expect Jews to regroup away from the radical left, occupying a political space best described
as staunchly centrist -- a centrism that leans left only to pursue multiculturalism and other
destructive 'egalitarian' social policies, and leans right only in order to obtain elite
protections and privileges [domestically for the Jewish community, internationally for
Israel]. A centrism based, in that old familiar formula, on 'what is best for Jews.'
As seen in the recent clash between Jews and the UK's Labour Party, the political relocation
of Jews to a kind of amorphous and opportunistic centrism will bring them into direct conflict
with those on the hard Left who not only pursue anti-Zionist politics but also object to
manifestations of raw Jewish power like the mass adoption of the IHRA definition of
anti-Semitism and the economic abuses of politically ambiguous (neither Left nor Right, but
Jewish) oligarchs like Paul Singer. As such, and together with their natural aversion to being
part of the Right, Jews will increasingly find it difficult to define themselves politically as
anything other than Jews, leading to the increased visibility of their activities and interests
-- something witnessed in the unprecedented step of Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis openly calling
for British Jews to move against Jeremy Corbyn. This increased visibility can only be a good
thing for those concerned with Jewish influence, and who have been frustrated in previous
periods by Jewish influence masquerading in various political guises.
A potential opportunity, imperfect but perhaps feasible, may therefore be arising whereby
White interests could be subliminally or even publicly defended through savvy, nominally
hard-Left activism against mass migration (on economic rather than racial grounds), against
Israel and international Zionist influence, against some aspects of PC culture, and against the
capitalist excesses of the Jewish vulture funds. It goes without saying that Leftist activists
don't receive anywhere near the same level of social, professional, or legal punishment for
their activism as those on the Right, especially the dissident Right. I don't think I'm too
wide of the mark in suggesting that an anti-immigration agitator with "Workers Party of
Britain" plastered over his social media is less likely to lose his job than someone with
public National Front affiliations. It may therefore be worth serious consideration by young
activists as to whether they might want to cultivate a kind of "Leftist" mask to defend White
interests in much the same way as Jews in the past have adopted various convenient political
masks while concealing deeper ethnic interests. I am suggesting a combination of infiltration
and masquerade. What matters most is the private motivation and the potential benefits of the
ultimate goal -- White interests and objectives serving them.
There are, of course, also dangers in supporting such movements. I am not suggesting the
investment of serious time and money in these groups, since the risk is great that the majority
of their members are committed to a politics that is ultimately antagonistic and destructive to
our own ultimate goals. There is also huge potential for betrayal on many of the issues where
we might have common ground -- immigration, LGBT madness, PC culture -- and I find it difficult
to shake off the impression that these developments bear the mark of a temporary despair and
are designed to dupe blue-collar Whites into voting Left once more.
Still, 2020 may open up a new front in the war, and as the New Year approaches, I'll silence
my inner Schopenhauer and toast to that.
Boris Johnson seems to be a step in this direction, many of the policies he has openly stated
would have been almost unthinkable for a Conservative PM previously, things like amnesty for
illegal immigrants, vast amounts of public spending, he has even stated an intention to
nationalise things like train operators.
Boris is seen as very much right wing by most people in the UK, but if you look at his
policies he could easily be described as a sort of left wing nationalist, especially in terms
of his social policies. In terms of actual policy there is increasingly little difference
between the Conservatives and Labour, the differentiation has become about abstract things
like self-proclaimed patriotism and the level of pandering to Zionism.
WN-types such as the author of this article tend to focus so heavily on immigration as an
issue. So here's a link to a long piece I published a couple of years ago proposing a
solution to the American version of the problem, though I'm not sure how applicable it would
be to Britain:
@Ron Unz I think, Mr. Unz, you highlight peaceful coexistence, at the same time many
still pine for a separate nation of exclusively white Christians. While it's a lost cause at
this point, it doesn't stop the WN types – a set that is difficult to exclude myself
from – from imagining a different reality and the National policies that would
accompany that. Is a grand bargain possible? It gives me pause.
It's extremely surprising to me that Andrew Joyce, in his analysis of left/right potential
cooperation for the benefit of the nation and its legacy population, would fail to mention or
bring up the French Equality and Reconciliation movement of Alain Soral. Here is a movement
with meaty ideas, and more importantly, results. For what ideas drive the Yellow Vest
protests if not the very concepts that Joyce points out in this article, expressed so well by
Soral and so many of the white French protesters? Soral, originally a Marxist who
subsequently joined the National Front (now the National Rally), has a number of useful and
accurate slogans. He is a brilliant analyst and an articulate commentator; unfortunately, his
videos and activism is limited to the French language. "The Left for the worker, The Right
for morality." Isn't this similar to Joyce's argument that the Left is losing members who are
rejecting the identity politics, gender bender, climate change distraction issue driven
narrative that is driving the Left today? Of course in France Soral is labeled a Rightist
Antisemite, as he is not shy about calling out the stranglehold that CRIF holds over French
politics and how this has warped foreign policy in the interests of apartheid Israel. When I
watch some of his videos and commentary, I wonder why we don't have a similar figure and
movement in the US.
Your basic question seems to be: What holds a country together? Especially, a large
country--- such as France/Germany/the UK/the USA/the USSR/China---that comprises many
disparate regions and ethnicities? What differentiates such a country from an empire?
So in the USSR seems like a case can be or is being made that the Party is what held the
union together, as an overarching organization that incorporated leaders into its structure.
Perhaps I am wrong in that inference as to what you or someone else is saying.
Seems like the queen's speech shows her effort to point out why it might be better for the
UK to stick together: ability to deliver better outcomes to all members of the
country/society.
The queen does seem to draw a certain line in her speech as to newcomers to the society
who wish to become part of it. Only those with specific skills to contribute to those already
here will be welcome. She doesn't specify that others are not welcome, but she certainly
seems to imply it. And, quite rightly, IMO.
"A botched assassination attempt against Ukrainian politician and businessman Vyacheslav
Sobolev has resulted in the death of his three-year-old son, Alexander.
"While Sobolev and his wife were leaving his high-end restaurant "Mario" in Kiev this past
Sunday, right-wing thugs opened fire on Sobolev's Range Rover, missing him but hitting his
son who was seated in the back of the vehicle. The three-year-old died on the way to the
hospital.
"Police later apprehended two men who had fled the scene in a black Lexus sedan, Oleksiy
Semenov, 19, and Andrei Lavrega, 20. Both are veterans of the war in Donbass in eastern
Ukraine where they served as members of the fascist Right Sector's paramilitary formation
until June of this year.
"The Right Sector was instrumental in the US- and EU-backed, fascist-led coup in February
2014 that toppled the Yanukovitch government and replaced it with a pro-Western and
anti-Russian regime. Since then, the Right Sector has been among the far-right forces that
have been heavily involved in the war against Russian-backed separatists in East Ukraine.
"As is usual when members of neo-Nazi groups carry out political attacks, the Right Sector
and their former battalion commander fraudulently attempted to distance themselves from
Lavrega and Semenov, claiming they had lost contact with them since they left Ukraine's armed
forces in June. These claims are not credible.
"Lavrega, who has been identified as the principal shooter in the killing, has been a
member of the Right Sector for at least half a decade. He had participated in the Maidan
movement of 2014 as a member of the Right Sector and perfected his shooting skills as a
sniper killing separatist soldiers in eastern Ukraine. According to his Right Sector
battalion commander, Andrei Herhert, Lavrega -- also known as "Quiet" -- was "one of the best
snipers in the war" and "very ideological."
"As a thanks for his service to the right-wing Kiev government, Lavrega received a
military decoration from former President Petro Poroshenko for "courage" just last year, in
October of 2018." ..........
"Whoever is ultimately responsible for ordering this political assassination and the
murder of the three-year-old boy, it is clear that the same far-right forces that were
instrumental in the coup in February 2014 and the civil war are now being employed to carry
out political assassinations by the Ukrainian oligarchy.
"Since the 2014 coup, the number of targeted political assassinations by right-wing
neo-Nazi groups like C14 and the Right Sector has skyrocketed. At least 15 people have been
murdered in such hit jobs by the far right since 2014. Among them was the well-known
Belarusian journalist Pavel Sheremet and the politician Kateryna Handziuk, who was killed in
a horrific acid attack by right-wing thugs last year.
"In virtually all these cases, the perpetrators have been protected from serious legal
prosecution. One of the murderers of Handziuk received a barely three-year prison sentence. A
critical role in shielding the neo-Nazis is played by Ukraine's Ministry of Internal Affairs'
Arsen Avakov, who controls the country's police force and possesses well-known ties to
Ukraine's most notorious fascist militia, the Azov Battalion.
"Avakov is one of the few members of the previous Poroshenko government that have remained
in the current Cabinet of Ministers under President Volodmyr Zelensky. He was recently
praised by former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch while testifying before the
House of Representatives regarding the Trump impeachment investigation (see also: "The
impeachment crisis and American imperialism").
"President Zelensky, who was elected in April this year on the basis of promises that he
would bring an end to the widely despised civil war in eastern Ukraine that has claimed the
lives of over 13,000 people, has maintained a conspicuous silence on this latest political
assassination attempt by the far right. Instead, the day after the murder, he posted a
message on Facebook to honor two Ukrainian soldiers who were killed while fighting in eastern
Ukraine this past weekend."
The rest of the story can be found at the WSWS https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/07/ukra-d06.html
The Right Sector links with the former US Ambassador-Democratic heroine- are topical.
Thank you for that insight. I cannot see how Zelensky will manage the Nazi Ukrainians
short of a virtual civil war against one western district. The USA will foment a major
insurrection to destroy him if he does a deal with Gazprom. Your suggestion as to where those
issues are discussed would be welcome.
A User #72
Thank you and well said. The eurocentric kabuki does mesmerise the information providers.
I too seek escape from that dominance and spent a good time today researching the Power of
Siberia implications and issues of South America. The global assault on all things African is
a matter of deep despair for me and I feel totally powerless to reverse the relentless
assault on their world.
From the utopian "Yankeedom" to the conservative "Greater Appalachia" and liberal "Left Coast," looking at these
cultures sheds an interesting light on America's political and cultural divides.
"The country has been arguing about a lot of fundamental things lately including state roles and individual liberty,"
Woodard, a Maine native who won the
2012 George Polk Award
for investigative reporting, told Business Insider. "[But] in order to have any productive
conversation on these issues," he added, "you need to know where you come from."
Woodard also believes the nation is likely to become more polarized, even though America is becoming a more diverse
place every day. He says this is because people are "self-sorting."
"People choose to move to places where they identify with the values," Woodard says. "Red minorities go south and blue
minorities go north to be in the majority. This is why blue states are getting bluer and red states are getting redder and
the middle is getting smaller."
Here's how Woodard describes each nation:
Matthew Speiser contributed to a previous version of this article.
Yankeedom values education, and members are comfortable with government
regulation.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/59b2be5c45e2381d008b5876?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
debra
millet/Shutterstock
>
Encompassing the entire Northeast north of New York City and spreading through Michigan, Wisconsin, and
Minnesota, Yankeedom values education, intellectual achievement, communal empowerment, and citizen
participation in government as a shield against tyranny. Yankees are comfortable with government regulation.
Woodard notes that Yankees have a "Utopian streak." The area was settled by radical Calvinists.
New Netherland in the New York area has a "materialistic" culture.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de800e9fd9db247a976a267?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Ryan
DeBerardinis/Shutterstock
>
A highly commercial culture, New Netherland is "materialistic, with a profound tolerance for ethnic and
religious diversity and an unflinching commitment to the freedom of inquiry and conscience," according to
Woodard. It is a natural ally with Yankeedom and encompasses New York City and northern New Jersey. The area
was settled by the Dutch.
The Midlands, largely located in the Midwest, opposes government regulation.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80a7ffd9db23e5a1dd0f7?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Matt Rourke / AP
>
Settled by English Quakers, The Midlands are a welcoming middle-class society that spawned the culture of
the "American Heartland." Political opinion is moderate, and government regulation is frowned upon. Woodard
calls the ethnically diverse Midlands "America's great swing region." Within the Midlands are parts of New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska.
Tidewater started as a feudal society that embraced slavery.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5d60177b00ef2b6aa56bf1e1?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Shutterstock
>
Tidewater was built by the young English gentry in the area around the Chesapeake Bay and North Carolina.
Starting as a feudal society that embraced slavery, the region places a high value on respect for authority and
tradition. Woodard notes that Tidewater is in decline, partly because "it has been eaten away by the expanding
federal halos around D.C. and Norfolk."
Greater Appalachia encompasses parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, and
Texas.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80db9fd9db252bf4b2083?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Michael Hickey/Getty
Images
>
Colonized by settlers from the war-ravaged borderlands of Northern Ireland, northern England, and the
Scottish lowlands, Greater Appalachia is stereotyped as the land of hillbillies and rednecks. Woodard says
Appalachia values personal sovereignty and individual liberty and is "intensely suspicious of lowland
aristocrats and Yankee social engineers alike." It sides with the Deep South to counter the influence of
federal government. Within Greater Appalachia are parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Arkansas,
Missouri, Oklahoma, Indiana, Illinois, and Texas.
Deep South adopts a rigid social structure and opposition to government
regulation.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80dfcfd9db2413c3a5eea?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Dave Martin/Getty
Images
>
The Deep South was established by English slave lords from Barbados and was styled as a West Indies-style
slave society, Woodard notes. It has a very rigid social structure and fights against government regulation
that threatens individual liberty. Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Texas, Georgia, and South Carolina are all
part of the Deep South.
El Norte has a dominant Hispanic culture.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80748fd9db24dc40f4fe2?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
David McNew/Reuters
>
Composed of the borderlands of the Spanish-American empire, El Norte is "a place apart" from the rest of
America, according to Woodard. Hispanic culture dominates in the area, and the region values independence,
self-sufficiency, and hard work above all else. Parts of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California are in El
Norte.
The Left Coast, located in coastal California, is a lot like Yankeedom and
Greater Appalachia.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8079efd9db239ec1a8f34?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
California has permanently moved up its presidential primary from June to March.
Mario Anzuoni/Reuters
>
Colonized by New Englanders and Appalachian Midwesterners, the Left Coast is a hybrid of "Yankee utopianism
and Appalachian self-expression and exploration," Woodard says, adding that it is the staunchest ally of
Yankeedom. Coastal California, Oregon, and Washington are in the Left Coast.
The Far West spans states in the central US including Montana, Wyoming, and
Utah.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80e54fd9db2417a02be09?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Scott Olson/Getty
Images
>
The conservative west. Developed through large investment in industry, yet where inhabitants continue to
"resent" the Eastern interests that initially controlled that investment. The Far West spans several states,
including Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, Nebraska, Kansas, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Washington, Oregon, and California.
New France inhabitants are comfortable with government involvement in the
economy.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8086cfd9db24eb80e8128?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Max Becherer/AP
>
A pocket of liberalism nestled in the Deep South, its people are consensus driven, tolerant, and comfortable
with government involvement in the economy. Woodard says New France is among the most liberal places in North
America. New France is focused around New Orleans in Louisiana as well as the Canadian province of Quebec.
First Nation, most of whose people live in the northern part of the country, is
made up of Native Americans.
<
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de808bdfd9db23afd1df6e8?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Protesters demonstrate against the Energy Transfer Partners' Dakota Access oil pipeline near the Standing
Rock Sioux reservation in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, U.S. September 9, 2016.
REUTERS/Andrew Cullen
>
White supremacy is an incredibly insincere distraction that tries to erase the histories of
White, Black, and Red peoples.
"Many White people seem to have forgotten what happened to them."
Some say the white supremacy ideology comes from pride. Some say it comes from a belief that
one's culture is superior. Some say it comes from hatred. I never believed these things are the
primary reason because I always sensed a deep loss in the heart of countless white people, some
deep emptiness and fear. Though, admitting to this emptiness is another matter.
James Baldwin wrote about American racism beyond the lines designed to separate us, saying
of white supremacy: "The root of the white man's hatred is terror. A bottomless and nameless
terror..."
It's said that anger is a secondary emotion. Hatred is anger. Racism is hatred. Hatred is
anger. Anger is a secondary emotion, beneath it lies something else.
After talking with many White American friends about the real origins of white supremacy, I
found there was always a certain limit beyond which they refused to go. This had nothing to do
with any hatred toward "the other" and everything to do with a chasm of pain they could not
bear to speak of -- not even for a few minutes could they speak of what has been seeping out of
the wound for so long. It is hard to speak of buried trauma. One wonders what might get stirred
up in that uncovering. Beyond wondering, there is healing, and the certainty that the truth
will set you free. We can be free in this life, you in your body, me in mine, together. To heal
the history we carry, let's allow the past and future to benefit from the courage of the
present.
There were Massacres, But No One Ever Says Their Names
The massacres in Europe lasted at least 500 years. Public tortures. Inquisitions. Generation
after generation of entire communities forced to watch their family, friends, and neighbors
terrorized and killed in front of them.
The ideology of white supremacy as we know it came at the end of this specific period of
history during which immense traumas occurred simultaneously: the mass killing and public
torture of women, the brutal assault against common people, the 'thought-police' Inquisition
committees, the terror from which one could almost not escape, and the enslavement of White
people throughout the region. This all happened in the centuries before the transatlantic slave
trade.
When you get to that part of the origin of white supremacy, and the deal that was
subsequently made with one's oppressor -- that deal being the ridiculous 'white supremacy' idea
and the target of the terror shifting to others -- the conversation often drops dead. Silence,
a few words here and there. Change the topic. Avoid that pain. This is the point beyond which
few have been willing to go.
The Details of the Time
Many have wondered how White people came up with the brutal tortures they imposed on Native
and African people in 'the Americas.' A look into history shows that many of the same tactics
were used on White people during the genocide against them.
The Inquistioners also targeted hair in Europe, especially towards women, which was used
against Native and African people in the Americas. The crimes they committed in this regard are
barely utterable.
The amount of whipping in Europe begs to be mentioned because of its relevance to American
history.
White people were intimately familiar with being enchained themselves, necks in iron,
shackled in rows together, taken on ships here and there, sold in markets -- for centuries.
They were also enslaved throughout the region during the same period as African people, likely
side by side, during the Arabic and Viking slave trades that preceded the transatlantic
one.
In Europe those days, the people who escaped slavery were certainly not free. They were
lynched, burned in public executions, tortured at length in public, and hunted down – by
the millions.
Many White people seem to have no memory of this history.
"Whites were enslaved during the Arabic and Viking slave trades that preceded the
transatlantic one."
The kind of torture documented in a book in 1860 by Pressel of a woman in Prossneck, Germany
is a small glimpse into the genocide. Anyone is advised to skip the following quoted list
describing the torture. It is reprinted simply to acknowledge what was going on and to whom, by
whom, and the lies upholding it, etc.
"Verbatim report of the first days of torture of a woman accused of witchcraft at
Prossneck, Germany, in 1629.
1. The hangman bound the hands, cut her hair, and placed her on the ladder. He threw alcohol
over her head and set fire to it so as to burn her hair to the roots.
2. He placed strips of sulphur under her arms and around her back and set fire to them.
3. He tied her hands behind her back and pulled her up to the ceiling.
4. He left her hanging there from three to four hours, while the torturer went to
breakfast.
5. On his return, he threw alcohol on her back and set fire to it.
6. He attached very heavy weights on her body and drew her up again to the ceiling. After
that he put her back on the ladder and placed a very rough plank full of sharp points against
her body.
7. Then he squeezed her thumbs and big toe in the vise, and he trussed her arms with a stick,
and in this position kept her hanging about a quarter of an hour, until she would faint away
several times.
8. Then he squeezed the calves and the legs in the vise, always alternating the torture with
questioning.
9. Then he whipped her with a rawhide whip to cause blood to flow out over her shift.
10. Once again, he placed her thumbs and big toes in the vise, and left her in this agony on
the torture stool from 10:00 a.m. till 1:00 p.m., while the hangman and the court officials
went out to get a bite to eat. In the afternoon a functionary came who disapproved this
pitiless procedure. But then they whipped her again in a frightful manner. This concluded the
first day of torture. The next day they start all over again, but without pushing things
quite as far as the day before.
-Wilhelm Pressel, Hexen and Hexenmeister (1860)"
Historian and scholar, Silvia Federici, says of the historical amnesia regarding this
period:
"That the victims, in Europe, were mostly peasant women may account for the historians'
past indifference towards this genocide, an indifference that has bordered on complicity,
since the elimination of the witches from the pages of history has contributed to
trivializing their physical elimination at the stake, suggesting that it was a phenomenon of
minor significance, if not a matter of folklore."
She also explores the emergence of Capitalism during the genocide against these women.
Supremacy Was Never The Question. It's Just a Mask
The lie that Black people are somehow inferior was a distraction that masked -- and nearly
erased -- the reality that 'white supremacy' ideology as we know it came at the end of this
brutal period in Europe. But it wasn't "about color" in Europe. There they were given a
different reason. In Europe they were killed for heresy, "any belief or theory that is strongly
at variance with established beliefs or customs." The Inquisition of that age has been
described as a court and the tormenters focused on getting 'confessions.' Their barbarity is
astounding.
The lie that Black people are somehow inferior was also another layer of the brutality that
grew as it moved on from Europe to Africa and the Americas. Psychological warfare, aimed at
distraction and destruction.
If it wasn't "about color" in Europe, then it was never about color at all. 'White
supremacy' is an incredibly insincere distraction that tries to erase the histories of White,
Black, and Red peoples. As a result, many White people seem to have forgotten what happened to
them, while many African and Native people have had to fight within their hearts regarding
their own inherent value. Who benefits from this?
Who was it that concocted this very strange 'white supremacist' idea: the White people who
had been brutalized for so long, or the powers-that-be(making the terror)? Who was it calling
People of Color savages, too natural, strangely spiritual and they should all be studying
Christianity? Who wrote that script to be repeated? It's obvious who wrote it. And it's obvious
who accepted this new ideology under duress.
Some White people tout white supremacy, and the clear truth is – they are more than
encouraged to. But to speak of these massacres and the deal one subsequently made with one's
oppressor? Well, there's a deep-seated fear there, few people will speak of it. That's not
healing. That's an imposed silence.
Who imposed that silence? When did it start?
What Kind of Deal, What Kind of Battle?
If the people living in the ghettos and reservations of America, who have been so long
mistreated, were today offered a deal that some "less than" people had just arrived and would
be put on the lowest rung, and they were offered a deal – free land and houses, a bunch
of free money, honey flattery, a much easier life, a few steps up the rung, a permanent raise,
and silence as to any mistreatment of these new "less thans" – who among the people would
take that deal? And who would not?
This, to me, is pointing to the heart of the battle. It's not skin tone, it's the battle of
the heart.
Race Conversations
James Baldwin spoke passionately about race in America, searing images unto a nation trying
to plaster itself in tv imagery that avoided the questions almost altogether. Baldwin never
tried currying favors from the class oppressing the people. He spoke searing words to the heart
of corrupted authority out of the desire for profound change.
Profound change. Not – you stay in your corner and gripe, and I'll stay in my corner
and gripe, and we'll yell at each other from our abysses when our own people ain't even doing
that well, and Those are not positive racial relations. They are not positive human
relations.
There are so many different people acting within a People. Those who hate, those who blame,
those ashamed, those who raise children to be healthy adults, those striving trying to find a
way, those who hold fast to the medicine they are here to protect. There are many people acting
within a People.
We are not really so different as we seem, our different cultures like different clothing on
the body of our lives. Do you judge me for mine? Right or wrong, good or evil, from a glance
even? We are not really so different, but America draws lines so dense between our communities
that we often conjecture about each other from afar. Why do we accept these terms of
engagement?
In many pockets of America, race conversations have moved into a state of mutual enrichment,
merging worlds even if only for a moment. The possibilities are endless for what could happen
in the healing of race in America.
No Disrespect
This is not written as any kind of acceptance of the idea of white supremacy, which is
blatantly ridiculous and untrue. It is not written as any excuse about the violence and
degradation that flows from this philosophy. It is written to look more closely at the
ideology's true origins and authors.
We now understand how trauma affects communities, and how it can manifest in future
generations if it isn't addressed. How do we work together to heal the pain we've all been
forced to endure by these powers-that-be-making(the terror)? How do we heal when some of us
turned into perpetrators in our own communities and beyond? How do we change our circumstances
when a brutal system tries to erase all our histories and replaces them with lies?
The cycles of pain unleashed on each other within our communities and between them "is
enough to make prophets and angels weep," as Baldwin said. Where does the pain end and the
beauty begin?
We can heal through changing and challenging ourselves one by one and then giving to each
other. We can heal through respect. We can heal through understanding each other's worth and
striving to lessen each other's pain. We can battle to unify beyond all arbitrary borders and
change the reality of this nation ourselves. We can heal through becoming clear about the
future we want with each other and letting nothing dissuade us from attaining it, no matter
what happens on the journey to get there.
Who will write the future story of race on this planet? Who will educate us about who we are
and our potential? The-powers-that-be(making the terror)? Or will we ourselves write a
different story?
Chelli Stanley is an independent journalist, environmentalist, Buddhist, common
person, of African, Japanese, and European descent born in Mexico. Has traveled widely, doesn't
watch tv, wants freedom. Can be contacted at [email protected]
white supremacy
Trending
Elizabeth Warren Wants Green Bombs, not a Green New Deal
Parallels Between Black and Palestinian Struggles
Cory Booker Hates Public Schools
Bill Cosby Should Have Been Denounced by Black America Long Ago
The Black Wall Around Barack Obama: Who Does It Protect Him Against?
How Complacency, Complicity of Black Misleadership Class Led to Supreme Court Evisceration
of the Voting Rights Act
Related Stories
Marker Now Calls 1898 Violence in Wilmington a "Coup," Not a "Race Riot"
Martha Waggoner
Marker Now Calls 1898 Violence in Wilmington a "Coup," Not a "Race Riot"
20 November 2019
White Democrats burned and killed their way to power in what's viewed as the only successful
coup d'etat in American history.
On Death and Dying as a Black Studies Professor at Portland State University
Ethan Johnson
On Death and Dying as a Black Studies Professor at Portland State University
13 November 2019
In celebration of Black Study's 50th year in existence at Portland State, we also get to
watch its death.
Liberalism Will Get Us Killed
Erica Caines
Liberalism Will Get Us Killed
06 November 2019
Much of the internet chatter over low- hanging fruit issues fails to address our material
realities within a settler colony.
Racial Violence in Black and White
Benjamin Balthaser
Racial Violence in Black and White
18 September 2019
From photos of lynchers to videos of brutal cops, there is a radical heritage of using
images of violence as instruments of critique.
White Supremacy Tried to Kill Jazz. An Interview with Gerald Horne
Anton Woronczuk
White Supremacy Tried to Kill Jazz. An Interview with Gerald Horne
11 September 2019
Viewing musicians as exploited workers and as beleaguered contractors helps contribute to a
better understanding of their art form and art more gen
Dershbag / STOP /being so stubborn!
Raymond Nat Turner, BAR poet-in-residence
Dershbag / STOP /being so stubborn!
21 August 2019
I know you're a Harvard Professor of law -- legal legend,renown,celebrated, decorated,Dream
Team alum
Black People in America Cannot Be Racist (As Much As They Might Like To Be)
Rohn Kenyatta
Black People in America Cannot Be Racist (As Much As They Might Like To Be)
21 August 2019
Black people in the US may not like white people, for good reason, but lack the power to
construct an anti-white racism.
Distinguished Black Scholar Writes Biography of Jefferson for the Age of Trump
Matthew Quest
Distinguished Black Scholar Writes Biography of Jefferson for the Age of Trump
14 August 2019
In the Age of Trump, it could be said that all interpreters of Jefferson and US History have
their own "alternative facts."
American Exceptionalism = Mass Murder
Glen Ford , BAR executive editor
American Exceptionalism = Mass Murder
08 August 2019
U.S. police agencies, including the FBI, are incapable of mounting an effective offensive
against their soul mates in the armed white right.
Trump's Disavowal of White Supremacy Makes a Mockery of Antiracism -- But So Does the Rest
of the Political Establishment
Crystal M. Fleming, Ph.D.
Trump's Disavowal of White Supremacy Makes a Mockery of Antiracism -- But So Does the Rest
of the Political Establishment
07 August 2019
The partisan condemnation of white supremacy that has taken shape during the Trump era has
reduced anti-racist critique to political theater.
More Stories
A (Re)Born National "Black and Left-Led" Organization Fights for Community Control of
Police
Glen Ford , BAR executive editor
A (Re)Born National "Black and Left-Led" Organization Fights for Community Control of
Police
28 Nov 2019
On the momentum of Chicago's vibrant anti-police movement – the most advanced in the
nation – the city's Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression has gone national
after a highly successful
Freedom Rider: Say No to Bloomberg
Margaret Kimberley , BAR editor and senior columnist
Freedom Rider: Say No to Bloomberg
27 Nov 2019
Bloomberg says he wants to stop Donald Trump but he's really running to stop Bernie
Sanders.
Barack Obama and the Ruling Class Target the Black Vote to Smother Sanders
Danny Haiphong , BAR contributor
Barack Obama and the Ruling Class Target the Black Vote to Smother Sanders
27 Nov 2019
Obama's principle task is to ensure sure that Black Americans do not vote in the direction
of single-payer healthcare and housing for all.
count ALL votes
BAR Poet-in-Residence Raymond Nat Turner
count ALL votes
27 Nov 2019
POW POW POW POW My leaders were voted out of office with hot lead ballots: red runoffs in
driveways, beds, ballroom floors, on balconies,
Bolivia Coup: Hatred of the Indian
Álvaro García Linera
Bolivia Coup: Hatred of the Indian
27 Nov 2019
How did the traditional middle class incubate so much hatred and resentment towards the
people, leading them to embrace racialized fascism centered on the Indian as the enemy?
"In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism, particularly
violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation," said Kevin McAleenan, the
acting director of homeland security.
Homeland Security Dept. Affirms Threat of White Supremacy
After Years of Prodding https://nyti.ms/2oTNJmQ
NYT - Zolan Kanno-Youngs - October 1
WASHINGTON -- The Department of Homeland Security is beginning to address white
supremacist terrorism as a primary security threat, breaking with a decade of flagging
attention after bigoted mass shooters from New Zealand to Texas took the lives of nearly 100
people in the last six months.
In a little-noticed strategy document (*) published last month to guide law enforcement on
emerging threats and in recent public appearances by Kevin K. McAleenan, the acting secretary
of homeland security, the department is trying to project a new vigilance about violent white
nationalism, beating back criticism that the agency has spent a decade playing down the
issue.
"I would like to take this opportunity to be direct and unambiguous in addressing a major
issue of our time. In our modern age, the continuation of racially based violent extremism,
particularly violent white supremacy, is an abhorrent affront to the nation," Mr. McAleenan
said during an address last month, describing white nationalism as one of the most dangerous
threats to the United States.
The department's new stance contrasts that of President Trump, who has repeatedly
dismissed white supremacy as an insignificant fringe movement. But beyond words and
documents, many officials trying to combat the threat throughout the country remain skeptical
that the full weight of federal law enforcement is finally being used to give bigoted
domestic terrorism the attention it deserves. ...
* (Could be this.)
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK
FOR COUNTERING TERRORISM AND TARGETED VIOLENCE
"... The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion ..."
"... there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there is. ..."
"... White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore. That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result. ..."
"... The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that psychic injury. ..."
"... White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another people's identity and future instead of their own. ..."
"... Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair in the white, Western mind. ..."
"... After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level . Israelis are optimistic about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving. ..."
"... that unwholesome obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots, learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said demand , ..."
"... Until whites have a story and a spirit of their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to extinction. ..."
The conservative movement's unwholesome obsession with Israel is not an entirely organic
obsession to be sure. There is a whole lot of dark kosher oligarch money lurking behind the
neoconservative cause, Christian Zionism, and the Reagan/Zioboomer battalion. Nevertheless,
whether organic or not, the boomer generation's excessive regard for Israel is today authentic
and undeniable. A strong fealty to Israel is deeply entrenched amongst boomer-generation
conservatives. Indeed, when it comes to defending Israel and its conduct, many of these types
are like samurais on meth. They don't seem to care at all if their entire state or city should
devolve into a semi-anarchic New Somalia, but god forbid some Somali congresswoman should
lambaste the sacred Jewish state. That simply can't be countenanced here in the land of the
free!
Mind you, this article is not meant to constitute a polemic against Israel, or Jewish
ethnopolitics for that matter. The BDS movement is just as wrongheaded as Ziocuckoldry, in my
humble opinion. Although there is much wrong with Israel, there is plenty right with it as
well. Despite what the modern left may believe, there is nothing inherently illegitimate about
a state like Israel, one rooted in history, in genes, in religion, and in race. States built
around a shared ethnicity or a shared religion (or, as in Israel's case, an ample helping of
both) are generally more stable and successful than diverse societies erected upon propositions
most people and peoples don't really accept, or leftist values that have ideological quicksand
for their foundations.
With that said, there is something awfully peculiar, almost disturbing about the old guard's infatuation with Israel. I
mean, why are American boomers so concerned about the Jewish state and its survival? How exactly does a tiny apartheidesque ethnostate half-way around the world
affect their everyday lives? Are they simply mind-slaves to a mainstream media dominated by
powerful Jews and powerful Jewish interest groups? Is this all really about scripture as
Christian radio likes to contend? Or is there something else afoot here? Well, in short, there
is.
White Westerners, white Americans in particular, are a thoroughly vassalized, deracinated
people. We aren't allowed to celebrate our own race's host of historic accomplishments anymore.
That would be racist. We aren't allowed to put our own people first either, as all other
peoples do. That would likewise be racist. White Western peoples aren't even allowed to have
nations of our own any longer, nations which exist to advance our interests, and which are
populated by and overseen by people like us, who share our interests and our attitudes. That
also would be, you guessed it, racist. Our very existence is increasingly little more than an
unfortunate, racist obstacle to a brighter, more diverse future, in the eyes of the Cultural
Marxist sociopaths who rule the Western World. Needless to say, most white Americans would
rather be dead than racist, and so we are naturally, quite literally dying as a result.
The white American psyche has been tamed, broken as it were. Ziocucking is a symptom of that
psychic injury. Because white boomers possess no group/tribal identity any longer, or
collective will, or sense of race pride, or civilizational prospects, because they have been enserfed by a viciously anti-white Cultural Marxist overclass, they have opted to live
vicariously through another race. White Americans can not, they must not, stake claim to an
identity or a future of their own, so they have essentially committed themselves to another
people's identity and future instead of their own. Indeed, just as the cuckold doesn't
merely permit another man to penetrate his wife, but actually takes a kind of perverse pleasure
in the pleasure of that other man, in large measure by fetishizing his dominance and sexual
prowess, the Ziocuck likewise doesn't merely allow his civilization to be debased, he takes an
equally perverse pleasure in the triumphs of other peoples and nations, and by so doing
imagines, mistakenly of course, that America itself is still as free and proud a nation as
those foreign nations he fetishizes.
Actually, Donald Trump's electoral victory is at least partially attributable to a very
similar psychological phenomenon. White Americans, who have largely lost the self-confidence to
stand behind their traditions and convictions, still had the gumption to vote for a man who
possesses in oodles and cringy oodles, the self-same self-confidence they lack. White Americans
are thus engaged in an almost unstated, indirect, vicarious defiance of Cultural Marxism via
Trump/Trumpism, a tangible, albeit somewhat incoherent, symbol of open revolt against Western
elites. The repressed group will of whites is longing for an authentic medium of civilizational
expression, but can only find two-bit demagoguery and Israel worship. The weather is not fair
in the white, Western mind.
Through this sordid, vicarious identitarianism, threats to Jewish lives become threats to
their own white lives. Jewish interests become tantamount to their own interests. It is a sad
sight to behold anyhow, a people with no sense of dignity or shame, too cowed by political
correctness to stand up for their own group interests, too brainwashed to love themselves, too
reprogrammed to be themselves, idolizing alien peoples. Nevertheless, the need for belonging in
place, time, and history, and for collective purpose, doesn't just go away because Western
elites say being white signifies nothing but "hate". As white civilization aborts and hedonizes
itself into extinction, as whites practice suicidal altruism and absolute racial denialism,
atomized white individuals seek out other histories, other stories, other peoples to attach
themselves to and project themselves onto.
White Americans have thus foolishly come to see their own destiny as inseparable from the
destiny of a people whose destiny they don't really share.
After all, the birthrates of Jews in Israel are at well above replacement level .
Israelis are optimistic
about the future. As whites in the West fall on their proverbial sword to atone for their
racist past, Jews in Israel are thriving.
As whites in America suffer from various epidemics of despair , their fellow white
Americans seem more interested in the imaginary plight of Israelis who can't stop winning
military skirmishes, embarrassing their Arab enemies, and unlawfully acquiring land and
resources in the Levant. The actual, visceral plight of their own people seems almost an
afterthought to most white Americans. The whole affair is frankly bizarre and shameful.
This peculiar psychological phenomenon of vicarious identitarianism is at least partially
responsible for the Zioboomer's undying devotion to Israel. Furthermore, that unwholesome
obsession will not dissipate until whites reclaim their own history, rediscover their roots,
learn to take their own side, and demand a place in the planet's future (yes, I said
demand , since the white race's many enemies have no intention of saving a place for
them or willingly handing them a say in that future). Until whites have a story and a spirit of
their own, they will only, and can only, live through the identities and triumphs of other
races. And perhaps most critically, they will continue to be a ghost people on the march to
extinction.
A related phenomenon is Russia-cucking. White American conservatives who have seen through
Jewish bullshit often seem to conclude that the racial predicament in America is hopeless, so
they switch to Russia-cucking. Being pro-Russia is obviously more sensible than being
pro-Israel, but it's nationalism by proxy all the same.
Seeing that both the Canadian ambassador to Banderastan and his boss the Canadian Foreign
Minister having family histories rooted in western Ukraine / Banderastan Ground Zero –
Waschuk's father and Freeland's maternal grandmother both from Ivano-Frankivsk – what
thoughts are we expected to have on Waschuk's participation and Freeland's approval for him
to attend other than that cliche: "Birds of a feather flock together?"
Ivano-Frankivsk; formerly Stanyslaviv, Stanislau, or Stanisławów. Became part of
the UkSSR within the USSR as per the shifting of the pre-WWII Eastern Polish frontier (set by
the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, but ignored by Poland) westwards and the transference of the
Habsburg Austro-Hungarian Empire's Kronland of Galitsia, capital Krakow and
administrative language Polish and not German as in other Kronländer , with the
exception of Hungarian in the Hungarian part of the dual Hapsburg Empire.
Religion: Roman Catholic or Greek Uniate, depending whether you are a Polish Pan or a
Ruthenian peasant shitkicker.
Built in the mid-17th century as a fortress of the Polish Potocki family,
Stanisławów was annexed to the Habsburg Empire during the First Partition of
Poland in 1772, after which it became the property of the State within the Austrian
Empire.
The fortress was slowly transformed into one of the most prominent cities at the foothills
of the Carpathian Mountains. After World War I, for several months, it served as a temporary
capital of the West Ukrainian People's Republic.
Galitsia, as Porky Poroshenko said, is the essence of Banderastan the Ukraine.
"Higher Justice is always done Once again, using humanistic principles, I address the
enemies of the Ukraine: 'Surrender to Ukrainian law enforcement! Voluntarily go to Ukrainian
prisons and don't leave them! Because God's punishment will inevitably come! Glory to the
nation! Death to enemies!'" -- Dmitry Yarosh, commenting on his Facebook page on the
murder of a DPR militiaman in Mariupol.
What can be said about this? A day has already passed since this extremist statement
was made, but no human rights organisation or international observer has reacted. The murder
of a DPR militiaman in Mariupol is obviously on the hands of nationalist battalions, but this
case, like many others, will be registered as unsolved or fabricated. The fact of the
exemplary punishment of people who supported the creation of the People's Republics testifies
to the true attitude of Kiev towards the residents of Donbass. That is why Zelensky is
against amnesty and wants elections after the People's Militia lays down their arms. As soon
as the UAF come here, objectionable persons will be simply slashed and killed, and Yarosh
only confirms this
I'll say it again, the world's great democracies don't have a problem with little
nazis and extremists. After all, they can be put back in their boxes when time is due,
just as they did with Adolf Hitler and just as they did with ISIS in Syria.
You wonder how many times these countries go around this bush of backing 'small groups'
that they then 'lose control of' leading to a much larger conflagration.
Accidental? Unintended? Repetitive? You won't have the great and good democratic
institutions or the representatives of the great free press publicizing cause and
effect much at all. What a bunch of Britneys!
As I understand it if a scope equipped assault automatic weapon can be targeted at point A to
point B, its versatility enables it to operate the other way 'round..from B to A.
And as regards the "crimes" in the Ukraine that he mentions, I should not imagine that
amongst those he includes the very recent and public murder of a Mariupol "Vatnik" and the
praise for which crime the murderer/s has/have very publicly received in Banderastan.
The clipped paragraph in Boyes' Times article above reads:
Now we're at it again. Thirty-five Ukrainians, including a film director and two dozen
hapless sailors, were this month traded for some hardnut separatists including Vladimir
Tsemakh, the commander of a Russian-backed unit in Donetsk which shot down the civilian MH17
airliner in 2014.
Plenty of Dutch and Australian relatives of the victims of that Malaysian Airlines
flight are unhappy that Tsemakh is
Perhaps it seems to Trump that Putin is the lever that will raise his moral weight and
authority. Perhaps he seems to him to be a useful partner in times of extreme global
confusion and volatility. It is possible that, in the opinion of the American president, a
rapprochement with Putin will strengthen his reputation in the world, and will by no means
will look like a fatal retreat. However, the principle should be that relations with Russia
cannot return to normal, as long as it keeps the Crimea, cynically taken away from the
Ukraine five years ago.
The Kremlin will try to fool the new and inexperienced president of the Ukraine, hoping
that Western leaders will put pressure on him and forget a lot. However, the country where
Sergey Skripal and his daughter were poisoned right before everyone's eyes should not
silently watch this rehabilitation.
[back translation from the Russian]
Hear him, hear him, I say!
Let's hear it again for Great Britain!!!!
Those British are no fools and know full well what those damned Russkies are up to!
"... Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive, writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party. ..."
"... History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[ 1 ] ..."
"... Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals. ..."
"... LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany. The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without arms." ) ..."
"... Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten. Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was a political choice of its own making. ..."
"... There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece of green paper backed by nothing. ..."
"... This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [ 12 ] ..."
"... A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior. The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent. ..."
"... Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over ..."
"... The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial . ..."
"... The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic price. ..."
"... All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements. ..."
"... The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank. ..."
"... The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted. ..."
"... Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes, basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced in cigarettes in postwar Germany. ..."
"... Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting that Guns will bring Butter. ..."
"... The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful global citizens. We can and must do better. ..."
"... American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them? ..."
"... American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny' was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering Military Industrial Complex. ..."
"... Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that was top dog. ..."
"... You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits) that have engineered the problems you point out. ..."
"... To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking. ..."
"Aftermath" is the latest addition to three previous publications by Rickards, Currency Wars (2011), The Death of Money (2014),
The Road to Ruin (2016). Together, with the present offering (Aftermath, 2019), the author uses the analogy of the Four Horsemen
of the Apocalypse to illustrate the themes of his four books. The latest book is thematic in its approach to the events which have
taken place in the world in general and the United States in particular during this period.
HIGH SOCIETY
Rickards had previously worked for the CIA (possibly still does – who knows?) but now seems to be a free-wheeling business executive,
writer and strategic analyst. He tends to circulate outside of the usual middle-ranking semi-elite circles preferring to consort
with the less observable, higher-ranking coteries of the inner-party. Moreover, he has nothing but disdain for the run-of-the-mill
talking heads to be found (in abundance) in the media and academia – the outer-party.
His observations of this social stratum are unapologetic and caustic:
History is the first casualty of media micro-second attention span. An army of pseudo-savants saturate the airways to explain
that tariffs are bad, trade wars hurt growth and mercantilism are a throwback to the 17th century. These sentiments come from
mainstream liberals and conservatives and tag-along journalists trained in the orthodoxy of so-called free-trade and the false
if comforting belief that trade deficits are the flipside of capital surpluses. So, what is the problem? The problem is that perpetual
trade deficits have put the United States on a path to a crisis of the US$."[
1 ]
As is apparent, his contempt is palpable.
It should be said that much of his writing and theorising is at times occasioned by a high level of sophistication, alas sadly
lacking in most of his contemporaries. But for all his refinement and eloquence that doesn't stop him being, from Off Guardian's
perspective (and mine), on the other side – the side of the Anglo-Zionist empire.
THE GREAT BETRAYAL
Throughout this book and previous books there runs a familiar leitmotif; a sense of betrayal by the present dominant section of
the US elite. This is not by any means an unusual political phenomenon and bears comparison with the stab-in-the-back myth – a notion
doing the rounds in Germany circa 1918.
It held that the German Army did not lose World War I on the battlefield but it was 'traitors' on the home front, especially the
traitorous republicans who overthrew the Hohenzollern monarchy in the German Revolution of 1918–19.
This precedent loosely corresponds to Rickards' belief in the perfidy of the current leadership of the US and his vitriol is directed
against this globalist faction who are firmly ensconced in both Democrat and Republican parties and whom, he argues, have sold the
pass in terms of America's strategic interests. He writes:
Obama, both Bushes, and Bill Clinton were globalists, defined as those willing to trade-off or compromise US interests for
the sake of a stronger global community even conservative hawks like Reagan and JFK were firmly in the globalist camp, as they
relied on NATO, the UN and the IMF to pursue their cold war goals.
However, all was not lost. As a result of
the Presidential election of 2016 when Donald Trump was sworn in on 17 January 2017 as the strongest nationalist since Theodore
Roosevelt. For the first time in 100 years a committed nationalist was sitting in the Oval Office." [
2 ]
The event was obviously political grist to Rickards' mill.
However, precisely how this liberation of the US from the domestic globalists' stranglehold was to be brought about wasn't made
clear, and in fact is barely touched upon by Rickards.
Trump, for all his bombast and promises to Make America Great Again (MAGA), and pursue a radical foreign policy of withdrawal
from globalist wars of choice and military adventurism, has been conspicuous by its absence.
Moreover, from the outset he has been beset by the ancien regime of neo-conservatives and neo-liberals – Bolton, Pompeo and Pence
– entrenched in key US institutions, as well as various think-tanks and media who are still doggedly set upon the realization of
neo-con foreign policy goals.
It seems odd that Rickards doesn't see fit to comment on this important development given that Trumps' campaign promises have
disappeared almost without trace since he entered the Oval Office.
IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID
Rickards is on firmer ground, however, when dissecting the 8th wonder of the world – US economic policy. The US sovereign debt
(i.e., the debt of the Federal Government) to GDP is now at a record, this is unprecedented for a peacetime administration.
In addition, it is also worth noting the magnitude of US private debt and unfunded future liabilities, pensions, Medicaid, social
security and so forth.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign debt
and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according to many
– see David Stockman, John Mauldin et al).
According to Rickards, the present situation has been largely the result of excess spending by both Democratic and Republican
administrations. The spending has either been on 'Defence' – a Republican favourite – or social like L.B. Johnson's 'Great Society'
programme – a Democratic favourite.
LBJ's administration contrived to conduct the Vietnam War as well as an expensive social programme, simultaneously. A guns plus
butter economy. (The original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany.
The then Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels stated: "We can do without butter, but, despite all our love of peace, not without
arms." )
LBJ's guns-and-butter policies were enacted in the late sixties at the height of the Vietnam war and the Tet Offensive. The utopian
attempt to have the best of both worlds brought LBJ's administration to an end; more importantly, perhaps it was also the beginning
of the process which brought down the curtain on the post WW2 economic world order established at the Bretton Woods conference in
1944.
Because the costs of the Vietnam war were superimposed on the economy not far effectively from full employment, the US domestic
sector was severely destabilised.
Instead of taxing the nation to pay for the war, the government engaged in the more acceptable practice of deficit financing
Vietnam showed that neither the United States nor any other democratic nation can ever again afford the foreign exchange costs
of conventional warfare, although the periphery was still kept in line by American military initiatives most recently in Yugoslavia
and Afghanistan.
The lesson in the long term is that peace will be maintained only by governments refusing to finance the military and other
excesses of the increasingly indebted imperial power." [
3 ]
The figure for the US sovereign debt – began to rise relentlessly from the 1980s onwards approaching wartime levels by the time
of the 2008 blowout.
It has been estimated by some economic theorists that any sovereign Debt-to-GDP figure greater than 60% represents a tripwire
whereby governments should act to rein in government expenditures.
The EU Maastricht criteria, for example, stipulated that EU Debt-to-GDP should not go over 60% except in certain circumstances
and an annual budgetary deficit should not be more than 3%.
That is a pretty tight monetary and fiscal policy EU style, but not to be outdone the spendthrift US was to go on a wild binge
in both fiscal and monetary terms the result of which is a now an unpayable mountain of debt. This gives an indication of how far
US economic policymaking has drifted away from any viable economic strategy.
Rickards fulminates:
To see how America came to this pretty pass we, one needs to review almost 40 years of fiscal policy under Presidents Reagan,
Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2, Obama and Trump from the period 1981-2019." [
4 ]
Under Reagan in 1981 US Debt-to-GDP ratio was 32.5%. The President was gung-ho for tax cuts and big spending increases, particularly
'defence' spending. This trend was continued under the tutelage of the Bushes and Clinton, and Debt-to-GDP ratio rose to 56.4% when
Bush Jr, took office and had risen to 82% by the time he left.
The Obama years saw the Debt-to-GDP rise to 100%. The diagram below 2009 debt-to-GDP was 82.3% This figure has risen inexorably
to over 100% in 2018. Yep, here we have the dreaded law of Diminishing returns. Every new dollar of input gives you 90 cents of output.
The above diagram illustrates the growth of debt vis-ŕ-vis National Income (GDP) since the 2008 blowout. Debt has been growing
progressively faster than National Income.
The US economy, like the US shale oil industry, has become a Ponzi scheme in all but name. The Fed's issuance of new debt to pay
off existing debt signals the key moment of the Minsky crisis.[
5 ]
There doesn't appear to be any viable way out this predicament short of a straight default. But Rickards argues that 'the United
States will never default on its debt because the Fed can simply print the money and to pay it off.' This will involve an engineered
inflation to wipe out the debt. But in fact, inflation is the default, a default by the back door. Getting paid in worthless currency
is in essence no different than not getting paid at all.
NO EXIT
As for solutions to a crisis which has seemingly reached the point of no return, all that Rickards can offer is a Japanese scenario
of low or zero growth punctuated by recession for the United States and by implication for the rest of the world. The United States
had its first long decade from 2007 to 2017 and is now into its second decade.
This growth pattern will persist absent of inflationary breakout which the Fed seems powerless to ignite in the short run;
a war; or severe depression perhaps caused by a new financial crisis.[
6 ]
Not much of a prospect for the average family then. But Rickards does give some useful advice to his more opulent readers on how
they should diversify their assets.
There are apparently "luxury bombproof bunkers built in former missile silos and expansive estates in New Zealand loaded with
rations and good wines."
Really? At this point one wonders if Mr Rickards is being serious or just smug.
SOCIAL IMMOBILITY AND THE RISE OF OLIGARCHY
The social and economic impact on levels of inequality in both the US and globally have been extremely deleterious and seem set
to continue. Inequality in income and wealth – a phenomenon identified and outlined by Thomas Piketty – is resulting in societies
which more and more resemble feudal economic and social structures rather than textbook capitalism. Social class is hardening into
social caste and rates of social mobility are decelerating at an alarming rate.
The liberal notion that the individual is the author of his/her own destiny has become a very dubious proposition when the drawbridges
of advantage, birth and preferment are drawn up. Moreover, high levels of income/wealth are not conducive to growth since the new
aristocracy owns most of the wealth/income which is hoarded rather than spent on investment and/or consumption. Stagnation, idled
capital and rent extraction becomes the economic norm.
Inequality is common in college admissions where the wealthy and connected continue to send their sons and daughters to elite schools
while the middle-class are restrained by sky-high tuitions and the burden of student loans.
It's true in the housing market where the rich picked up mansions on the cheap in foreclosure sales whilst the middle-class were
frozen in mortgage negative equity.
It's true in health care, where the rich could afford all the insurance they needed while the middle class were handicapped by
unemployment and the loss of job-related benefits. These disparities also affected the adult children of the middle-class. There
are no gold-plated benefits packages in the gig society
Research shows that fewer than 50% of all children aged 30 today earn more than their parents did at the same age. This 50% figure
compares with 60% who earned more in 1971, and 80% who earned more in 1950.
The American dream of each generation earning more than the prior generation is collapsing before our eyes The middle class is
getting poorer on a relative basis and lagging further behind the rich whose incomes absorb an increasing share of total GDP The
manner in which the rich become rich is variable.
It could be due to a number of unrelated factors Problems arise in the way that the rich stay rich become richer and pass on wealth
to their children and grandchildren." [
7 ]
It is a matter of common knowledge that the traditional techniques of preserving and creating wealth have been long established
in law, customs, education and socialization; these traditional methods being practised over decades, if not centuries, have produced
a system of elite self-recruitment, one moreover which endures through time.
Many of the richest US citizens – e.g., Buffet, Bezos, Zuckerberg – pay minimal tax demands. Much of the wealth of the richest
Americans is never taxed because they hold onto real estate and stocks and pass them onto their beneficiaries tax-free. This is one
of a perfectly legal method of avoiding tax; there are many more too numerous to cite which include various other examples of tax
avoidance/evasion.
Levels of income and wealth inequality within states are usually measured by what is called the Gini Co-efficient. This measure
is a commonly used measure of income inequality that condenses the entire income distribution for a country into a single number
between 0 and 1 or 0% to 100%: the higher the number, the greater the degree of inequality. A rough estimate of inequality is a figure
above 40%.
The United States and China are in the low forties, surrounded by underdeveloped and developing states such as The Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Burundi and El Salvador. At the other end of the spectrum are Sweden, Norway and Iceland.
In this connection the by now well-known study carried out by two American academics at Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens
and North western University Prof Benjamin Page argue that the US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial
independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent
influence."
In plain English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.
The two professors came to this conclusion after reviewing answers to 1,779 survey questions asked between 1981 and 2002 on public
policy issues. They broke the responses down by income level, and then determined how often certain income levels and organised interest
groups saw their policy preferences enacted.
Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association
and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations
and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to be a democratic society are seriously threatened."
In summation, both gentlemen concluded that in essence the US was an oligarchy not a properly functioning democracy. All very
true but somewhat self-evident.
Rickards regards the present situation as being irreversible. He does not present any alternative to this trend other than some
vague hopes that the 'nationalist' President in the Oval Office will turn things around – MAGA in fact.
The golden age of post WW2 capitalism ended when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in August 1971, which was in effect
a default by the US. Holders of surplus dollars in Europe who were no longer able to swap these dollars for gold but were merely
presented with other US$s with which they had to purchase US Treasurys (Bonds) debts which were never going to be repaid. In the
age of fiat currencies Europe and various other holders of US Treasuries were in fact subsidizing the United States.
POOR LITTLE AMERICA
At this point the book becomes one long whinge about how hard done-by America has been and how the rest of the world has taken
advantage of this benign gentle giant. This rather bizarre belief calls for further analysis. The US pays some of the bill for NATO
whilst European nations pay insufficient amounts for the 'defence' of their countries.
It should be pointed out, however, that in terms of military hardware the NATO alliance is standardized to American specifications.
This means large-scale purchasing of US war materiel which is a gift bonus to the US armaments industry.
Then Germany has the nerve to buy Russian gas transported to Europe via Nordstream 2 which is cheaper and more reliable than US
Liquified Natural Gas (LNG), when in fact they should be buying more expensive and less reliable US LNG. Apparently, Germany ought
really to be subsidising the US shale oil Ponzi racket. Bad, ungrateful Germany.
Then comes the incessant carping regarding trade policy and trade deals. The US in its speed to become a cool, post-modern, financialised
economy apparently forgot about the importance of production. In the automobile industry the once dominant US triad of General Motors,
Ford and Chrysler are no longer in the vanguard and Japan, with South Korea catching up, is now the leading country in the export
of auto vehicles, a position which the US once held. It was the Japanese auto industry which pioneered production methods including
just-in-time deliveries and lean production (Toyota). Was anyone stopping the Americans from innovating?
In rank order. Figures quoted in Global Shift – Peter Dicken.
Globally, the leading manufacturer of auto-vehicles is Volkswagen followed by Toyota. GM are 4th and Ford are 8th of ten.
Hardly market leaders anymore, but Rickards apportions the blame to 'unfair practices' by foreign manufacturers and argues instead
for tariffs. The same goes for other trade partners. Fact that the United States has to a large extent been deindustrialised was
a political choice of its own making.
If the US has lost ground in the competition for trade on world markets that is because of its own insular provincialism and hubris,
not foreign competitive malpractice. Moreover, much of its productive industry which remains has been outsourced to low cost venues
such as China. The US more than anyone should know that its competitors are simply using the same policies that it itself used during
the 19th century to break British trade hegemony.
It has been the same story with agriculture. Trade liberalization (this must rank as the greatest misnomer of trade theory) and
trade treaties have been an example of the blatant unfairness of such agreements. During the Uruguay round of 'talks' (1982-2000):
the United States pushed other countries to open up their markets to areas of 'our' (i.e. the US's) strength, but resisted, successfully
so, to efforts to make us reciprocate.
Construction and maritime services, the areas of advantage of many developing countries were not included in the new agreement.
Worse still, financial services liberalization was arguably even harmful to some developing countries: as large international (read
American) banks squelched local competitors denying them the funds they garnered would be channelled to the international firms with
which they felt comfortable, not the small and medium-sized local firms
As foreign banks took over the banking systems of like Argentina and Mexico worries about small and medium sized firms within
these countries being starved of funds have been repeatedly voiced.
Whether these concerns are valid or not, whether they are exaggerated or not, is not the issue: the issue is that countries should
have the right to make these decisions themselves, as the United States did in its own country during its formative years; but under
the new international rules that America had pushed, countries were being deprived of that right.
Suffice it to say that agriculture has always been a flagrant example of the double standards inherent in the US trade liberalization
agenda. Although we insisted that other countries reduce their barriers to our products and eliminate the subsidies for which those
products competed against ours, the United States kept barriers for the goods produced by the developing countries, and the US continued
massive subsidies to its own produce. [
8 ] EXORBITANT PRIVILEGE
Oh, I almost forgot: the imperial tribute that the world pays to the hegemon; aka the reserve status of the dollar. The role of
the US dollar in the world's political economy gives it advantages which the rest of the dollar surplus-states are dragooned into
accepting. In the late sixties early seventies, the US was on the verge of technical bankruptcy due to its spending profligacy at
home and military adventurism in Indochina. It had three choices of how to deal with this acute problem.
[The] 3 courses open to the US government on the collapse of the Gold Pool in London in 1968 were: immediately pull out of
the war in South-East Asia and cut back overseas and domestic military expenditure to allow the dollar to firm again on world
markets; to continue the war paying for its foreign exchange costs with further outflows of Fort Knox gold; or to induce the Europeans
and other payments surplus areas to continue to accumulate surplus dollars and dollar equivalents (US Treasuries) not convertible
into gold." [ 9 ]
Of course, it was option three that appealed and Nixon in his television broadcast was to announce a 'temporary' suspension of
gold sales by the US to its overseas 'partners'.
The date in question, 15 August 1971, marked the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. The temporary suspension soon
morphed into a permanent one and a global fiat currency regime based on the dollar came into being. This represented a culmination
of a situation in which the US manipulation of the dollar was termed the 'Exorbitant Privilege' by the senior French politician Valery
Giscard d'Estaing. And privilege it was.
The central political fact is that the dollar standard places the direction of the world monetary policy in the hands of a
single country which thereby acquires great influence over the economic destiny of others. It is one thing to sacrifice sovereignty
in the interests of interdependence; it is quite another when the relationship is one-way.
The difference is that between the EEC(EU) and a colonial empire. The brute fact is that the acceptance of a dollar standard
necessarily implies a degree of asymmetry in power which, although it actually existed in the early post-war years, had vanished
by the time that the world sliding into a reluctant dollar standard." [
10 ]
There were a number of advantages which accrued to the dollar contingent on the ending of gold convertibility which Eichengreen
listed these in his book. But the principle one was making the surplus nations of the world pay for America's wars with an unconvertible
currency. Instead of being paid for in gold, or at least a gold-backed currency the world produced goods and services for a piece
of green paper backed by nothing.
Quite a clever little racket when you think about it.
Better still is the way that the two biggest surplus nations, Japan and China, have been the US's main creditors, bankrolling
the US by buying its Treasuries. This had another intended, or perhaps unintended effect: long term interest rates on US bonds came
down (since bond prices and bond interest rates move in opposite directions) and enabled the property bubble to expand until the
inevitable blow-out in 2008.
In mafia terms the US dollar has been a 'made' currency enjoying a set of privileges and protection which it did not earn but
foisted upon others. This is a unique dispensation which is enjoyed by the US to which the rest of the world is excluded.
However, it is in the nature of things that privileges will ultimately get abused. In pushing its luck to the point of abuse the
US should be aware that initial signs are that the world is sloughing off the US dollar. As it proceeds in that direction, the US
currency will lose its position as the global reserve asset. Holders of trillions of dollar-denominated assets will become sellers
eventuating in a collapse of the currency.
The US economy lives like a parasite off its partners in the global system, with virtually no savings of its own. The World
produces whilst North America consumes. The advantage of the US is that of a predator whose advantage is covered, by what others
agree, or are forced, to contribute.
Washington uses various means to make up for its deficiencies: for example, repeated violations of the principles of liberalism,
arms exports, and the hunting-down of oil super-profits (which involves the periodic felling of producers; one of the real motives
behind the wars in Iraq and Central Asia).
But the fact is that the bulk of the American deficit is covered by capital inputs from Europe and Japan, China and the South,
rich oil-producing countries and comprador classes from all regions, including the poorest, in the third world, to which should
be added the debt-service levy that is imposed on nearly every country in the periphery of the global system. The US superpower
depends from day to day on the flow of capital which sustains its economy and society. The vulnerability of the United States
represents a serious danger to Washington's project." [
11 ]
In light of the above we may conclude that – in spite of the irritating name-dropping – Rickards' books are interesting well written
and well-argued; per contra they are very light on facts which have been left deliberately unexamined as well as counter-narratives
which have also been ignored.
This was to be expected quite simply because at bottom Rickards is a sophist much in the tradition of Protagoras, Gorgias
and Thrasymachus "I say that justice is nothing other than the advantage of the stronger" [
12 ]
A view which Rickards would certainly endorse. Beneath the Upper Manhattan, polished chic, there resides a ruthless Cold Warrior.
The further one digs into the book, the more this becomes apparent.
NOTES:-
[1] Rickards – Aftermath – page.21
[2] Ibid., – page.65
[3] Michael Hudson – Super Imperialism – pp.298/99, 32.
[4] Rickards – Ibid. – page.66
[5] Hyman Minsky's theories about debt accumulation received revived attention in the media during the subprime mortgage crisis
of the late 2000s. The New Yorker has labelled it "the Minsky Moment". Minsky argued that a key mechanism that pushes an economy
towards a crisis is the accumulation of debt by the non-government sector. He identified three types of borrowers that contribute
to the accumulation of insolvent debt: hedge borrowers, speculative borrowers, and Ponzi borrowers.
The "hedge borrower" can make debt payments (covering interest and principal) from current cash flows from investments. For
the "speculative borrower", the cash flow from investments can service the debt, i.e., cover the interest due, but the borrower
must regularly roll over, or re-borrow, the principal. The "Ponzi borrower" (named for Charles Ponzi, see also Ponzi scheme) borrows
based on the belief that the appreciation of the value of the asset will be sufficient to refinance the debt but could not make
sufficient payments on interest or principal with the cash flow from investments; only the appreciating asset value can keep the
Ponzi borrower afloat.
[6] Rickards – Ibid., page.85
[7] Rickards – Ibid., page.239
[8] Joseph Stiglitz – The Roaring 90s – pp.206/207
[9] Gold Pool 1968. The price of one troy ounce of gold was pegged to US$35. The larger the gap, known as the gold window,
between free market gold price and the foreign exchange rate, the more tempting it was for nations to deal with internal economic
crises by buying gold at the Bretton Woods price and selling it in the gold markets. It couldn't last and it didn't.
[10] Michael Hudson – Ibid. – p.309
[11] Barry Eichengreen – Exorbitant Privilege – passim.
Frank Lee left school at age 15 without any qualifications,
but gained degrees from both New College Oxford and the London School of Economics (it's a long story). He spent many years as a
lecturer in politics and economics, and in the Civil Service, before retirement. He lives in Sutton with his wife and little dog.
Guy
Excellent article by Frank Lee. Many of us are aware of the problems of the USD but few are able to so succinctly explain
why and connect the dots to expose the true picture. The bottom line is that the lifespan of the USD as king is almost over
.There will not be any rabbit pulled out of the hat to make America great again.That is a feel good cliché used to further
induce the population to go back to sleep.
The US has been exposed, and so well said, as a predator nation .There must be a reason why China and Russia are buying
up as much gold as their economy will permit .The exchange medium used for trade since time immemorial .
FoodBowl
Measuring 'National Debt as a Portion of the US Economy' is for economics classes and for newspapers to publish. The Criminal
Elites look at things differently. They measure the National Debt as a Portion of the 'FEROCIOUS BOMBING POWER the US Possess'.
Also, 'Spreading Chaos Capabilities' is added to the Bombing Power.
From this point of view, they see enormous assets, and the debts becomes less worrying as they see less urgency to deal with
this ever growing liabilities.
Fair dinkum
No analysis required because it's always been the same. The few exploit the many. This has fed the cancers of psychopathy, messiah
complexes and endless wars.
We are rushing towards the midnight sun.
MASTER OF UNIVE
The Wall Street ethos has always been 'kill or be killed' where bears eat, and bulls eat, but pigs get slaughtered! The problem
with today's market & stock valuations is that they are as hyperinflated as Real Estate Commercial & Residential sectors are which
leaves no wiggle room for price discovery until there is a system wide crash that mean reverts the valuations back to a realistic
price.
Warren Buffett is currently sitting on $55 billion in cash so that he does not get destroyed on the upcoming systemic wide
crash. Buffett has never pulled this kind of bread from the table in his lifetime whilst waiting for a systemic crash & the inevitable
fat tail blowout that is poised to rip the face off of the USA & EU as their eyeballs get ripped out too.
Ripping a face off & ripping eyeballs out is day trader speak for kicking counterparties in the groin for the deal. The French
Revolution was all about teaching the financial elite predator class of monetary control freaks who the boss really is when the
gravy train slows during Financial Winter.
And if they can't take the heat they should get out of the kitchen!
RW
mark
All that is happening now is that Trump is trying to solve his country's intractable economic and financial problems by looting
the rest of the planet. This is not a new development, but Trump is at least refreshingly honest in his public pronouncements.
It has always been thus.
The Roman Empire imposed tribute on its subjects. You have to send us so much grain, cattle, so many slaves, so much timber
for shipbuilding, so much precious metal and base metal, so many wild beasts for our circuses. In return we won't kill you.
The Nazi Empire imposed tribute on its conquests in identical fashion. Send us your industrial output, agricultural
produce and raw materials. In return we'll give you a big credit balance at the Reichsbank.
Uncle Sugar says send me your BMWs, fine wines, electronic gadgets, oil and minerals. In return I'll give you some worthless
little pieces of green paper you can exchange for worthless IOUs called Treasury Bills.
The current (real) military budget is $1,134 billion, around 60% higher than the fictitious figure that is normally touted.
The trade deficit is $900 billion. The budget deficit $1,175 billion, over 20% of the overall budget.
America is borrowing around $4 billion a day from the rest of the world. Uncle Sam is the biggest scrounger, parasite, leech,
bludger, and panhandler in the history of the planet.
The official national debt of $22.5 trillion understates the true position by a factor of over ten. Every US man, woman, child,
and babe in arms is in hock to the tune of over $700,000.
The global economy is about to crash, yet again (because it's never really recovered from the 2008 crash)'. Answers on a postcard,
please (and one that doesn't involve giving the banksters eye-watering amounts of money).
Frank Lodge
Without reading the book in question, this seems like an thoroughly sound and incisive review. Just one thing, "cometh" takes
a singular subject.
BigB
Rickards attitude is famously: "Buy gold" to which he creates a fear porn scenario around the coming recession. His solution:
"Buy gold". Not, lets look at the conditions that are causing the underlying boom and bust business cycles and find a solution
that works for humanity. His solution: "Buy gold" which the likes of he and the others who are driving the business cyclical waves
of mutilation have already done to hedge their portfolios. Fuck Ricards. I have no time for those who wish to profit from the
overfinancial immiseration of humanity. And you know where you can stick your gold.
Good luck to anyone who produces gold in an actual collapse scenario. So you need to buy guns and bodyguards for self-protection
if you buy gold...
mark
Gold could form some kind of basis for exchange in a collapse setting. Other desirable barter items would be alcohol, cigarettes,
basic drugs like aspirin and paracetamol, electrical batteries, fuel and similar goods. Maybe ammunition as well. Goods were priced
in cigarettes in postwar Germany.
Gold would probably be of use. Gemstones, jewellery, would not. 99.9% of people are unable to distinguish a real diamond from
a piece of glass.
bevin
"he original version of the Guns versus butter argument was given in a speech on January 17, 1936, in Nazi Germany." Not for the
first time Wikipedia is wrong here. Bismarck is normally credited with the choice between Guns and Butter. Goebbels was suggesting
that Guns will bring Butter.
Martin Usher
Its nice to see this in a book but its really common knowledge. The only thing I'd dispute is this notion of an 'elite', there
is no such thing, its just greed holding the reins -- its like a mass FOMO, nobody's willing to take the long view because it
might mean they'll miss out on what they can grab right now.
The danger we face from this is that if a large enough economic bloc runs by more rational rules then its going to eventually
cream us economically. This forces us to destroy it. This is what's at the bottom of our problems with China. The USSR wasn't
strong or well organized enough to pose a real threat to us so it could be taken down primarily by economic means. The Chinese
learned their lesson from the Russian experience and 'played nice' which they built their country up -- we all heard the commentariat
from a few years ago about them 'not really being communists any more'. Now they're in a position to look us in the eye so we've
got to confront them, to take them down. (You'll notice that one of the conditions that will end the trade war is the 'liberalizing
of capital markets' -- that is, we need to take over their banking system and currency.) If -- when -- this fails then the only
recourse would be actual war.
The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- ultimately a wholly artificial concept -- we're wasting immense amounts
of resources and human potential, spreading misery and despoliation all over the planet and generally behaving like really awful
global citizens. We can and must do better.
wardropper
And we certainly must stop talking about "taking down" the Chinese, and instead actually try to understand where they come from,
with their roots in a far more ancient civilized society than ours.
American exceptionalism, for example, takes it for granted that we in the West are good, and therefore the East must become
more like us. But we are logically, and morally, obliged to look at this from the opposite perspective too: What if the Chinese
take it for granted that they are good, and therefore the West must become more like them?
I have been to China, and found the people there to consist of the same mixtures of honest, good, nondescript, sinister and
deplorable as we have here at home.
They also share exactly the same fundamental problem as we do: Their politicians and their people, like ours, are two entirely
separate things. Of course the origins of Chinese, or Russian, society are different from ours, but that is no reason to despise
them. Our origins are often pretty despicable too.
Antonym
The Chinese people are as materialistic or spiritual as any; it is the local deep state (CPC) totalitarian culture that needs
to change.
Robbobbobin
"The crime in all this is in the pursuit of money -- [w]e can and must do better."
Three thousand years?
He that loveth silver shall not be satisfied with silver; nor he that loveth abundance with increase: this is also vanity.
–Ecclesiastes 5:10
Two thousand years?
For the love of money is the root of all evil –1 Timothy 6:10
Surely the Anti Deceased Equine Distress Society has lobbied some sort of statute of limitations onto the books by now?
MASTER OF UNIVE
American parasitism writ large over the last half century has amply signified to the entire world that 'manifest destiny'
was merely a ruse to foist American hegemony onto all sovereign nations at the behest of an out-of-control American Oligopoly
that was power-tripping post WW2 & drunk on the souls of the poor sots all over the entire world with their power hungry warmongering
Military Industrial Complex.
Proof of their combined ignorance with respect to Cybernetics & Systems Theory was their willingness to follow the likes of
the Vietnam War architects that assumed incorrectly that they could impose a closed-looped cybernetic control system over world
finance & mercantilism throughout the entire world at the behest of academic failures like Macnamera who would not know a 'closed-looped
cybernetic' from an open-looped cybernetic if his life & legacy depended on it.
Simply put, American printing presses at the privately owned Federal Reserve cannot even remotely help or assist in anymore
financial profligacy for the Neoconservative or Neoliberal camps of the cerebrally sclerotic & Early Onset Dementia riddled, &
uneducated, financial buffoons that emanated out of the now defunct Chicago School headed up by Strauss et al. in the 60s & 70s.
All the macroeconomic indicators over the last two decades have clearly indicated that the Greenspan era of asset inflation
was nothing more than the undoing of Federal Reserve Chair Paul Volcker's hard won success during his tenure pre-Greenspan 'Maestro'
halcyon days of animal spirits run amok.
In brief, the United States of America can eat my shorts as it is solely responsible for manufacturing a finance control system
& requisite money pump fraud that is nothing more than a worldwide Ponzi scheme to defraud the entire world of disposable income
& discretionary income gain so that all gains accrue to the rentier class of speculative investors like Warren Buffett & Bob Paulson.
Bottom line is that Warren Buffett will have to purchase all the new automobiles, trucks, houses, mansions, cottages, farms,
cites, towns, railroads, roads, & precious metals as the emerging markets & first world markets all decouple just as Professor
Emeritus Benoit Mandelbrot hypothesized they would just before he died.
Go ahead, America, print the fake fiat greenbacks to infinity in vain hope of extricating yourselves from the intractable financial
muck & mire you are most assuredly going to find yourselves in this approaching October 2019.
Go ahead, Punk, make my day!
Are you feeling lucky, Punk?
RW
Martin Usher
Its not "American". We just happen to be the chosen host for this part of history. Before us it was the British Empire that
was top dog.
Money has no particular loyalty to a country. In pre-WW1 Europe the bourgeois were all intermarried, connected primarily by
wealth and power regardless of their nominal nationality, our present equivalent are similarly connected. Just like WW1 when the
chips are down we -- the ordinary people -- will be sacrificed on the alter of patriotism while they'll survive and prosper.
MASTER OF UNIVE
March 10th 2008 around 11:00am Bear Stearns time New York shitty was the virtual end of American hegemony worldwide forever more
into the obvious future of Macroeconomics & Macroprudential Policy as an ongoing concern. Debt-to-GDP of all sovereign Western
imperialist nations is intractably North of any semblance of sustainability vis-a-vis Finance worldwide or within Emerging Economies
or First World Developed Economies.
Intractable debt limits were broached when Nixon declared the bankruptcy of the Bretton Woods infrastructure of gold backed
USA Reserve Currency Status and then opted in ignorance for the petro-dollar bait & switch fiat USD Finance capture worldwide
which has now come home to roost across the rust belt of the heartland USA, and in places that were once bastions of manufacturing
for the middle class USA blue collar worker such as Detroit or Chicago. Today the business model of the USA is transnationalist
whereby places across the USA are not even remotely financed into that transnationalist Wall Street model of Finance that is wholly
parasitic to the point of crashing mainstreet USA across all sectors of the Service Sector Industries that were supposed to be
replacing the long lost USA Manufacturing Base that was offshored to the Third World sovereigns that would temporarly increase
profit margins for the transnationalist class of corporate parasites run amok to collectively destroy all life on Planet Earth
for centuries to come if we are lucky.
RW
martin
You have made the common mistake of asserting that it is America, instead of those who govern (the USA and its pundits)
that have engineered the problems you point out.
Why would the two parties in congress (Article II followers) and the two fellows with the Article II power, continue to [expand
the debt in fake, made up and useless expenses], unless they were controlled by external forces?
Maybe bankers and their high powered corporations are finding they can no longer easily dupe Americans into delivering their
resources into the pockets of the wealthy. Maybe the American people have drawn the line, no more, will they produce for the IMF,
world bank?
Maybe Americans have decided to refuse the tax burdens imposed to retire the fed debt? Maybe foreign nations have denied the
banks and their corporations access to their resources as a means to pay the USA debt? Maybe script has been recognized as a false
capital in-capable of ruling the world? Maybe organized criminals have taken up positions in the western governments and used
those positions to force on the governed many things? Maybe burdening the USA with debt is part of the plan to bankrupt America?
<==but why should the banks bankrupt America, why has access to education been limited, why has the USA spied on Americans? Why
have the governed Americans been denied access to the USA? Has the USA retired Americans from productive jobs, in order to accelerate
the demise of America? The USA has made Americans into debtors obligated to pay bankers in the form of taxes to be collected by
the USA and remitted to the bankers. <= just as is now occurring in Britain, Greece, France, and other places. Privatization,
monopolization and conversion from public to private franchising and ownership have served as the transforming agents that have
made the elite so wealthy.
Economic Zionism. as opposed to government regulated capitalism, condones no competition, allows no prisoners and either
takes or destroys all likely competitive elements (persons, corporations, or nations) Economic Zionism demands the government
that governs (as in USA governance over Americans) assist in rendering Americans broke. Is it because until Americans are broke,
the EZ bandits are hampered? Is scooping resources into private, monopoly powered, already wealthy hands, the goodies to be had
the goal? Maybe the USA is a privatizing agent instead of a benefactor serving Americans?
In USA governed America, there is much very-productive farm land, millions of tons of minerals, many productive seaports, and
tons and tons of money making monopolies (patents, copyrights, royalties, government franchised goodies, lucrative government
contracts, and plenty of government services and resources) to be privatized for profit. The goodies are located in thousands
of acres of rich farmland, the major ports and services attached thereto, and embedded within little domestic American companies
which the USA debt will eventually burden into bankruptcy. After all "scalping a bankruptcy" is historically a speciality of economic
zionism.
MASTER OF UNIVE
In 1994 JPMorgan management & traders went on a little holiday in Miami to concoct the Global Ponzi of debt & risk associated
with loans into what is known today as the Financialization Process whereby bank risk would be shuffled off of investment bank
balance sheets and onto those speculators that wanted to purchase all that risk involved in the bank portfolios en masse because
they knew how to offload that risk to unsuspecting greater fools that were always certain to come knocking in a climate of upward
growth and yield curve convexity. But the chink in their financial alchemy was obviously debt limits and the ability to track
the risk to the system as a whole given that all transactions in the derivatives world are dark & unregulated due to the helmsmen
like the Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson who previous to being nominated as Treasury Secretary was in fact the top man at Goldman
Sachs where he raked in approximately a smooth billion before traversing the revolving door between the Whore House & Goldman
Sachs New York shitty offices.
Casino Banking morphed into Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism when Bob Paulson wanted more Residential Mortgage Backed Security issuance
and pressured Goldman Sachs into providing more issuance via NINJA loans & Liar Loans after 05 when the Wall Street speculators
had to go bottom feeding for loan issuance in order to meet investor demand & apatite for their unhinged Gordon Gecko greed.
'Maestro' Greenspan emphasized his 'flaw' in his macroeconomic model of the world when the investor greed broached fat tails
on the order of a 10% crash of the power laws of distributions of loan issuance. Greenspan never assumed that the Financialization
Process would exceed a default scenario greater than 5-7% of no-performing loans in the subprime issuance tranche.
American exceptionalism via Henry Paulson USA Treasury Secretary 08 is what rendered American Late Stage Ponzi Capitalism wholly
defunct going forward into 2020 & beyond with a permanent lower bound CB Interest Rate Regime & specter of WW3 hot conflagration.
My money is on the pinko Commie bastards this time round the sovereign insolvency loop of domestic misery USA.
WELCOME to the New World Disorder!
RW
nottheonly1
To condense this lengthy essay: This ship is sinking.
This would include household debt, student debt, financial debt, corporate debt, and municipal debt. Add this to sovereign
debt and you get a figure roughly 5 times US sovereign debt, and even this is regarded as being a conservative figure according
to many
One – at least on this side of the screen – cannot but think that all this is by design. The cart is driven intentionally off
the cliff. To start off with a clean slate? Where the wealthy still have their wealth, but the suckers are depending on hand-outs?
An old proverb alledges that: To borrow brings sorrow.
To which only those who make loads of money from lending will disagree. Where are the solutions? No solutions, just listicles
as to how bad it all is? Sure, the West is reminiscent of the HMS Titanic – with the slight difference of the hole made by the
iceberg (debt) extending over the whole length of the ship. It is listing beyond dancing.
Well, I am willing to tell a secret (that isn't one anymore for quite some time):
Outlaw/prohibit Interest .
Prohibit capital gains . Or tax them with 99%.
Prevent under all circumstances a continuation of Performanceless Profits .
Make them punishable with prison time of no less than half of the age at which they were perpetrated. You're 30? You're going
in for 15. You're 65? Easy math.
Fact is, that there are solutions galore to save our souls. Problem is, those whose lives are depending on them, don't demand
them to be implemented. And why would the wealthy tax non-payers like Bezos et al want to change their 'winning team'? That is
a well known no-no. The only solution the masses of the little people can hope for is 'Force Majeur' that works to their benefit.
Shall we wait for that to happen?
"... Palestinians are:- "beasts walking on two legs" (Begin), "drugged cockroaches in a bottle" (Eitan), "hungry crocodiles" (Barak), who "must be crushed like grasshoppers" (Shamir). ..."
"... We have fringe racist groups in the UK and US and elsewhere. But the KKK in the US just get drunk and burn a few crosses now and again. They are totally irrelevant. If they supplied ALL the heads of state, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, ALL the heads of the armed forces, ALL the religious leaders, and the media in the country, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would have to acknowledge there is a difference. ..."
"... You can't criticise ANY of these people because it "offends" AIPAC, the Board of Deputies, the Friends of Israel, and "hurts their feelings." You are not allowed to call them out without incurring unprecedented draconian penalties unless you have first solved world hunger, global warming, criticised every other nation on the planet, and obtained a written permit from the Board of Deputies specifying exactly what terms and language you are authorised to use. ..."
"... Why obsess about Talmudistan? Because it is the tail that wags the dog. It exercises a complete stranglehold over the politics and foreign policy of the US and its satellites like the UK. It incites endless wars which those countries are expected to prosecute on its behalf. ..."
mark
I'll give you some "truly horrible expressions of bigotry." Palestinians are:- "beasts walking on two legs" (Begin), "drugged cockroaches in a bottle" (Eitan), "hungry crocodiles" (Barak),
who "must be crushed like grasshoppers" (Shamir).
Truly horrible racist stuff. 8 -4 Reply Aug 22, 2019 1:39 AM Reader
Mandy Miller
What is it with you Mark, that you keep just bringing up the same four or six quotes from the most bigoted Jews you can find who
are mostly dead? I am curious what you think it proves about anything?
Sure there are lunatics and there are racists and some of both are Jews, just as some are not Jews. Taking the words of the
racist Jews and using that to fire up your own racist hate of all Jews, even those like me who think Begin was a one-eyed
lunatic, is a waste of your life and breeds nothing but more hate. I hope God grants you peace in your heart, Mark.
mark
These are not four random annoying saloon bar bores blowing off steam after one too many. They are three successive prime ministers
and the head of the armed forces. Four typical political and military leaders. You could say the same about any other political
and military figures. Or religious figures like the Chief Rabbi. This is normal and routine. There is a great deal that is far
worse, like "Justice" Minister Shaked, who called for all Palestinian mothers to be murdered so that no Palestinian children could
be born. Or a national newspaper called The Times of Israel openly advocating the extermination of the Palestinian people at concentration
camps in the desert, "When Genocide Is Justified." Or two leading rabbis calling for the murder of all Palestinian children.
Imagine that Cameron, or May, or Johnson, called Jews cockroaches or grasshoppers, let alone calling for Jews to be murdered.
And every leading UK politician and military figure had done the same as a matter of routine for decades. Imagine the outrage.
Rightly so.
I would never call Jews cockroaches. But ALL these Zionist figures ROUTINELY speak of Palestinians in these terms. This is
completely normal. And nobody so much as raises an eyebrow. It is perfectly okay for the Chosen Folk to do this.
That is the point. It would be of benefit to the world if there was a little peace in the hearts of these people as well.
Mandy Miller
I didn't say they were insignificant I said they were regarded by most sensible Jews that I know as lunatics.
Begin did not speak for most Jews while he was alive and certainly doesn't now he's dead. I'm sure he liked to think he did,
but why believe that racist schmuck? Ditto for Binyamin, who is as stupid and racist as he is crazy.
Like I said you might as well quote Hitler or Goebbels as being representative of today's Germany or claim they speak for all
gentiles everywhere unless individuals specifically state otherwise. I was born a Jew, my kids were born Jews, we didn't volunteer
to join! We should not need to officially repudiate Zionism or the crazy ravings of our leaders past or present in order to be
assumed good people, any more than you, Mark, should have to repudiate Nazism or Mr Churchill's racism or mr Johnson's anti-Russian
schtick to be considered a good person.
I would like to see a good study of Zionism here, I support the Palestinians in their struggle as again do many many Jews of
my acquaintance (though, sadly not all I will admit). But do you not see how alienating and hurtful it is to see comments such
as "the chosen people did 9/11", or (as was talked about a short while back) "Hebrews have a tendency toward pedophilia"? Please!
Have a little respect is all. Talk about the evils of Zionism but don't conflate that with Judaism or with everyone lucky or unlucky
enough to be born a Jew!
And all that oy vey goy stuff you do feels quite hurtful also, I am just curious what you think it brings to the conversation
by way of enlightenment, communication and brotherly love, Mark? It just looks like you are hating on Jewishness in the same way
those Nazi images of guys with hook noses etcetera did. It feels nasty. What does it achieve? Would it be a nice and helpful gesture
to at least drop all that?
mark
We have fringe racist groups in the UK and US and elsewhere. But the KKK in the US just get drunk and burn a few crosses now
and again. They are totally irrelevant. If they supplied ALL the heads of state, Begin, Shamir, Sharon, Barak, Netanyahu, ALL
the heads of the armed forces, ALL the religious leaders, and the media in the country, anyone with two brain cells to rub together
would have to acknowledge there is a difference.
You can't criticise ANY of these people because it "offends" AIPAC, the Board of Deputies, the Friends of Israel, and "hurts
their feelings." You are not allowed to call them out without incurring unprecedented draconian penalties unless you have first
solved world hunger, global warming, criticised every other nation on the planet, and obtained a written permit from the Board
of Deputies specifying exactly what terms and language you are authorised to use.
Why obsess about Talmudistan? Because it is the tail that wags the dog. It exercises a complete stranglehold over the politics
and foreign policy of the US and its satellites like the UK. It incites endless wars which those countries are expected to prosecute
on its behalf. It destabilises the entire planet causing indescribable suffering and human misery. It expects and receives
a free pass to commit genocide and possess a huge illegal arsenal of WMD it constantly threatens to use. It extorts unimaginable
amounts of tribute from other countries. It commits terrorist atrocities like 9/11 with complete impunity. Its endless intrigues
and subversion poison the whole public space in entire countries. The smear campaign against Corbyn and the Epstein organisation
are just two fairly trivial recent examples. Politicians and ordinary people are not required to swear loyalty oaths to Botswana
or Bolivia on pain of instant dismissal. That is the difference.
A bit of kvetching about all the above seems a little bit justified under the circumstances.
Mandy Miller
Ok, Mark, I understand that you think Israel is a bigger racist problem than the UK and all the NATO non-democracies, and I can
agree with you about that. Israel is for me and many (not all) of my family and friends a place of terrible evil and shame. I
hate that the suffering of so many Jews under the Nazis has been turned into an excuse to impose more suffering on other innocent
people simply because of their race. So, let's agree Israel is indefensible in its treatment of the Palestinians and in its appalling
foreign policy. Just awful.
My question is, how helpful is it to express those facts in racial terms? Why do you use these words that only have the effect
of turning people away from you and closing down there receptiveness?
Ok, what I'm saying is, if you try to tell the average non-political nice well meaning Jewish person or liberal, of which my
sister is a good example (both) that Israel is the aggressor nation in so many instances and if you tell them about the terrible
plight of the Palestinian people it will be hard for you to get them to listen even if you don't use words that make you sound
like a racist. But as soon as you start throwing around words such as Talmudistan and "chosen folk" and mockery of Yiddish with
your "oy vey goy" routine, you are giving them a route to the exit door., which is what they want. You are giving them permission
to ignore you! They can say "oh what a racist", and just leave the building.
So, my question is, why use that language? What good is it doing you that makes it worthwhile to lose so much credibility among
people you could perhaps convert if you approached it differently?
I guess my question is, what does this aggressive use of offensive terms do for you that you hold on to it to the point of
undoing any good you could do? Why not just say "Israel"? Why terms such as goy and chosen folk and language that can sound soooo
racist and threatening?
I believe you Mark that you don't entertain real racist thoughts, but can you communicate with me why you use that language
that makes it sound as if you do? Maybe you don't realize it but to a Jew it feels like a slap across the face. It triggers centuries
of dormant fears of persecution. I have to try hard to put that aside and approach you without fear or anger. So I'm asking you,
as a gesture toward understanding, to please not use those terms in our conversation? And maybe you might find you don't need
that armour, or comfort blanket or whatever it is to you. Maybe you will find your message, which as put above is something I
can get on board with, gets across more clearly.
Can we take that step, Mark? I am asking with peace and love in my heart.
"The other significant force in the Ukraine is the West Ukrainian (Galician) Nazi
death-squads and mobs."
Where are death camps for the Jews? Where are racial laws that expel non-Ukrainians? Where
is the propaganda of eugenics and healthy lifestyle? Where are construction projects bringing
in jobs, and state-subsidized recreation tours?
Ukraine is a Jew-driven shithole that has nothing to do with National Socialism. They
don't even honour the sacrifice of the SS Galizien.
"but what they are genuinely fantasizing about is the territory, and only the territory.
As for the 2 million-plus virulently anti-Nazi people currently living on these lands, they
simply want them either dead or expelled)."
A lie. Currently, more than a half of those "expelled" have migrated inside Ukraine. A
stark contrast to Croatia where the Serbs were driven out of the country, and their land
given to Croats.
Again, Ukraine is suicidal and full of civic nationalism, nothing about it is
blood-based.
"They and their Polish supporters want Russia to break apart in numerous small state-lets
which they (or, in their delusional dreams, the Chinese) could dominate."
Why do you consider this as a negative for the Russian people? The current Russian state
is in its death throes as much as the US and France – the ethnic Russians are dying
out, fleeing and being replaced. Any alternative might prove out more hopeful.
"In contrast, the LDNR forces seem to be doing pretty well, and their morale appears to be
as strong as ever (which is unsurprising since their military ethos is based in 1000 years of
Russian military history)."
I have to remind you that the Donbass was colonized far more recently than Ukraine –
in the 18-19th centuries. What "ancient" traditions?
"but Novorussia also is a never healing wound in the side of Nazi-occupied Ukraine"
The Donbass has never been part of Novorussia which is to the west, from Dniepropetrovsk
to Odessa. Admittedly, Novorussia's colonists were mostly from Ukraine – it is clearly
seen on the language maps.
"The problem with this slogan is that there is simply no way the (relatively small)
Galician population can ever succeed in permanently defeating their much bigger (and,
frankly, much smarter) Jewish, Polish or Russian neighbors."
Khmelnitsky managed to do just that – 100k dead Jews. And he's on the Ukrainian
currency. Too bad modern "Nazi" Ukrainians have elected a Jew President. This is not the
Khmelnitsky uprising, this is Kiev under the Khazar Khaganate before Oleg came from the
North.
Thursday, July 4, 2019"Loyalty to the Nation All the Time, Loyalty to the
Government When it Deserves It." Mark Twain wrote an essay back in 1905 called "The Czar's
Soliloquy" ( North American Review, Vol. 180.No. DLXXX). The essay was
triggered by a sentence in the London Times , reporting: "After the Czar's morning bath
it is his habit to meditate an hour before dressing himself." Twain imagined that the Czar,
standing naked in front of a mirror, was for a few moments honest with himself about the
injustices and cruelties that he had allowed and perpetrated, and hoped for a better future.
Imagining the Czar's words to himself, Twain wrote:
There are twenty-five million families in Russia. There is a man-child at every mother's
knee. If these were twenty-five million patriotic mothers, they would teach these
man-children daily, saying : "Remember this, take it to heart, live by it, die for it if
necessary: that our patriotism is medieval, outworn, obsolete; that the modern patriotism,
the true patriotism, the only rational patriotism, is loyalty to the Nation all the time,
loyalty to the Government when it deserves it.
On the Fourth of July in particular, it makes me sad to run into people whose
patriotism ebbs and flows according to what political party occupies the White House. There
ought to be a large and real line between support of whoever who is in government at a
particular time, and a broader patriotism. A country is a mixture of people, ideals, geography,
history, cultures, and more. It should be possible to love your country, whether your feelings
about the government are positive, negative, neutral, ambivalent, or don't-give-a-damn.
Pretty superficial article, but some points are interesting. Especially the fact that the collapse of neoliberalism
like collapse of Bolshevism is connected with its inability to raise the standard of living of population in major Western
countries, despite looting of the USSR and Middle eastern countries since 1991. Spoils of victory in the Cold War never got to
common people. All was appropriated by greedy "New Class" of neoliberal oligarchs.
The same was true with Bolshevism in the USSR. The communist ideology was dead after WWII when it became clear that
"proletariat" is not a new class destined to take over and the "iron law of oligarchy" was discovered. Collapse happened
in 45 years since the end of WWII. Neoliberal ideology was dead in 2008. It would be interesting to see if neoliberalism
as a social system survives past 2050.
The level of degeneration of the USA elite probably exceeds the level of degeneration of Nomenklatura even now.
Notable quotes:
"... A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level. ..."
"... As a result, the traditional liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists of external protectionism and internal liberalisation ..."
"... Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real incomes in a generation. ..."
"... The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450 (£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc of GDP." ..."
"... "British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote against globalisation much more than immigration " ..."
"... As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left. Why? Often globalization impacts. ..."
"... The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The unfortunate host will eventually die. ..."
"... "negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public services" ..."
"... he ruling elites have broken away from the people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the overwhelming majority of the people. ..."
"... One of the things we must do in Russia is never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a better future. ..."
"... "If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~ Michael Hudson ..."
"... I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them. ..."
The more a local economy has been negatively affected by the two shocks, the more its
electors have shifted towards the radical right and its policy packages. These packages
typically combine the retrenchment against international openness and the liberalisation of the
internal market and more convincingly address the demand for protection by an electorate that,
after the austerity following the Crisis, no longer trusts alternatives based on more liberal
stances on foreign relations and the parallel promise of a stronger welfare state.
A big reason why liberal democracies in Europe have remained relatively stable since WWII is
that most Europeans have had hope that their lives will improve. A big reason why the radical
vote has recently been on the rise in several European countries is that part of the electorate
has lost this hope. People are increasingly worried that not only their own lives but also the
lives of their children will not improve and that the playing field is not level.
On the one hand, despite some progress in curtailing 'tax havens' in recent years, there has
never been as much wealth in tax havens as there is today (Zucman 2015). This is seen as unfair
because, if public goods and services (including those required to help the transition to a
'green economy') have to be provided in the regions where such hidden wealth comes from, lost
tax revenues have to be compensated for by higher taxes on law-abiding households.
On the other hand, fairness is also undermined by dwindling social mobility. In the last
decades, social mobility has slowed down across large parts of the industrialised world (OECD
2018), both within and between generations. Social mobility varies greatly across regions
within countries, correlates positively with economic activity, education, and social capital,
and negatively with inequality (Güell at al. 2018). Renewed migration from the South to
the North of Europe after the Crisis (Van Mol and de Valk 2016) is a testimony of the widening
relative lack of opportunities in the places that have suffered the most from competition from
low-wage countries.
Concluding Remarks
Globalisation has come accompanied by the Great Convergence between countries around the
world but also the Great Divergence between regions within several industrialised countries.
The same holds within the EU. In recent years, redistributive policies have had only a very
limited impact in terms of reversing growing regional inequality.
As a result, the traditional
liberal package of external liberalisation and internal redistribution has lost its appeal with
the electorate, conceding ground to the alternative package of the radical right that consists
of external protectionism and internal liberalisation.
This is both inefficient and unlikely to
lead to more regional convergence. What the political and policy debate in Europe is arguably
missing is a clearer focus on two of the main underlying causes of peoples' growing distrust in
national and international institutions: fiscal fairness and social mobility.
Right. It would be better to say "the traditional New Deal liberal package " has not lost
its appeal, it was killed off bit by bit starting with NAFTA. From a 2016 Thomas Frank essay
in Salon:
That appeal to [educated credentialed] class unity gives a hint of what Clintonism was
all about. To owners and shareholders, who would see labor costs go down as they took
advantage of unorganized Mexican labor and lax Mexican environmental enforcement, NAFTA held
fantastic promise. To American workers, it threatened to send their power, and hence their
wages, straight down the chute. To the mass of the professional-managerial class, people who
weren't directly threatened by the treaty, holding an opinion on NAFTA was a matter of
deferring to the correct experts -- economists in this case, 283 of whom had signed a
statement declaring the treaty "will be a net positive for the United States, both in terms
of employment creation and overall economic growth."
The predictions of people who opposed the agreement turned out to be far closer to what
eventually came to pass than did the rosy scenarios of those 283 economists and the
victorious President Clinton. NAFTA was supposed to encourage U.S. exports to Mexico; the
opposite is what happened, and in a huge way. NAFTA was supposed to increase employment in
the U.S.; a study from 2010 counts almost 700,000 jobs lost in America thanks to the treaty.
And, as feared, the agreement gave one class in America enormous leverage over the other:
employers now routinely threaten to move their operations to Mexico if their workers
organize. A surprisingly large number of them -- far more than in the pre-NAFTA days -- have
actually made good on the threat.
Twenty years later, the broader class divide over the subject persists as well.
According to a 2014 survey of attitudes toward NAFTA after two decades, public opinion
remains split. But among people with professional degrees -- which is to say, the liberal
class -- the positive view remains the default. Knowing that free-trade treaties are always
for the best -- even when they empirically are not -- seems to have become for the
well-graduated a badge of belonging.
The only internal redistribution that's happened in the past 25 – 30 yearsis from
the bottom 80% to the top 10% and especially to the top 1/10th of 1 %.
Not hard to imagine why the current internal redistribution model has lost its appeal with
the electorate.
I think there are two different globalizations that people are responding to.
1. Their jobs go away to somewhere in the globe that has lower wages, lower labor
protections, and lower environmental protections. So their community largely stays the same
but with dwindling job prospects and people slowly moving away.
2. The world comes to their community where they see immigrants (legal, illegal, refugees)
coming in and are willing to work harder for less, as well as having different appearance,
languages, religion, and customs. North America has always had this as we are built on
immigration. Europe is much more focused on terroire. If somebody or something has only been
there for a century, they are new.
If you combine both in a community, you have lit a stick of dynamite as the locals feel
trapped with no way out. Then you get Brexit and Trump. In the US, many jobs were sent
overseas and so new people coming in are viewed as competitors and agents of change instead
of just new hired help. The same happened in Britain. In mainland Europe with less inequality
and more job protection, it is more of just being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of
newcomers in a society that does not prize that at all.
I saw the warning signs when Golden Dawn appeared in Greece
The liberals said it was just a one off, as they always do, until it isn't.
How did successful Germany turn into a country where extremism would flourish?
The Hartz IV reforms created the economic hardship that causes extremism to flourish.
"Germany is turning to soft nationalism. People on low incomes are voting against authority
because the consensus on equality and justice has broken down. It is the same pattern across
Europe," said Ashoka Mody, a former bail-out chief for the International Monetary Fund in
Europe.
Mr Mody said the bottom half of German society has not seen any increase in real
incomes in a generation. The Hartz IV reforms in 2003 and 2004 made it easier to fire
workers, leading to wage compression as companies threatened to move plants to Eastern
Europe.
The reforms pushed seven million people into part-time 'mini-jobs' paying €450
(£399) a month. It lead to corrosive "pauperisation". This remains the case even though
the economy is humming and surging exports have pushed the current account surplus to 8.5pc
of GDP."
This is a successful European country, imagine what the others look like.
"British referendum on EU membership can be explained to a remarkable extent as a vote
against globalisation much more than immigration "
As an FYI to the author immigration is just the flip side of the same coin. Why were
immigrants migrating? Often it's because they can no longer make a living where they left.
Why? Often globalization impacts.
Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment, with
no answers. More "I can't believe people are sick to death of experts of dubious skills but
networking "
What it is just admitted that a system that can only work great for 20% of any given
population if they are born in the right region with the right last name just simply not work
except as an exercise in extraction?
And about the EU as if it could never be taken over by bigger authoritatians than the ones
already populating it.
Then see how much those who think it is some forever bastion of liberalism over sovereignity
likes it .
"Another recap about that really just mourns the lack of trust in the establishment,
with no answers."
Usually it involves replacing the establishment or creating an internal threat to
reinstate compliance in the establish (Strauss and Howe).
Strategies for initiate the former may be impossible in this era where the deep state can
read your thoughts through digital media so you would like it would trend to the latter.
Mmmmm, yes, migration, globalisation and such like.
But, unregulated migration into an established environment, say a country, say, UK, on one
hand furthers profits to those benefiting from low labour wages (mainly, friends of people
working for governments), but on the other leads to creation of parallel societies, where the
incoming population brings along the society they strived to escape from. The Don calls these
sh***hole societies. Why bring the f***ing thing here, why not leave it where you escaped
from.
But the real betrayal of the native population happens when all those unregulated migrants
are afforded immediate right to social security, full access to NHS and other aspects of
state support, services that they have not paid one penny in support before accessing that
particular government funded trough. And then the parasitic growth of their "family and
extended family" comes along under the banner of "human rights".
This is the damnation of the whole of Western Civilisation which had been hollowed out
from within by the most devious layer of parasitic growth, the government apparatus. The
people we pay for under the auspices that they are doing some work for us, are enforcing
things that treat the income generators, the tax paying society as serfs whose primary
function in life is to support the parasites (immigrants) and parasite enablers
(government).
The laws of biology and physics and whatever else say that the host that is being
parasitised upon, cannot support the endless growth of the parasites attached upon it. The
unfortunate host will eventually die.
Understanding of this concept is most certainly within mental capabilities of all those
employed as the "governing classes " that we are paying for through our taxes.
Until such time when legislation is enacted that each and every individual member of
"government classes " is made to pay, on an indemnity basis, through financial damages,
forced labour, organs stripping or custodial penalties, for every penny (or cent, sorry,
yanks), of damage they inflict on us taxpayers, we are all just barking.
This piece does an admirable job conflating globalisation and the ills caused by the
neoliberal capture of social democratic parties/leaders. Did people just happen to lose hope,
or were they actively betrayed? We are left to guess.
"negative effects of globalisation: foreign competition, factory closures, persistent
unemployment, stagnating purchasing power, deteriorating infrastructures and public
services"
Note that these ills could also be laid at the feet of the austerity movement, and the
elimination/privatisation of National Industrial Policy, both cornerstones of the neoliberal
infestation.
Not only is globalization not new, all of the issues that come with it are old news.
All of it.
Part of the problem is that the global economic order is still in service to the same old
same old. They have to rebrand every so often to keep the comfortable even more comfortable.
Those tasked with keeping the comfortable more comfortable have to present this crap as "new
ideas" for their own careerism or actually do not realize they haven't espoused a new idea in
500 years.
Putin's recent interview with Financial Times editor offers a clear-eyed perspective on
our changing global structure:
"What is happening in the West? What is the reason for the Trump phenomenon, as you said,
in the US? What is happening in Europe as well? The ruling elites have broken away from the
people. The obvious problem is the gap between the interests of the elites and the
overwhelming majority of the people.
Of course, we must always bear this in mind. One of the things we must do in Russia is
never to forget that the purpose of the operation and existence of any government is to
create a stable, normal, safe and predictable life for the people and to work towards a
better future.
You know, it seems to me that purely liberal or purely traditional ideas have never
existed. Probably, they did once exist in the history of humankind, but everything very
quickly ends in a deadlock if there is no diversity. Everything starts to become extreme one
way or another.
Various ideas and various opinions should have a chance to exist and manifest themselves,
but at the same time interests of the general public, those millions of people and their
lives, should never be forgotten. This is something that should not be overlooked.
Then, it seems to me, we would be able to avoid major political upheavals and troubles.
This applies to the liberal idea as well. It does not mean (I think, this is ceasing to be a
dominating factor) that it must be immediately destroyed. This point of view, this position
should also be treated with respect.
They cannot simply dictate anything to anyone just like they have been attempting to do
over the recent decades. Diktat can be seen everywhere: both in the media and in real life.
It is deemed unbecoming even to mention some topics. But why?
For this reason, I am not a fan of quickly shutting, tying, closing, disbanding
everything, arresting everybody or dispersing everybody. Of course, not. The liberal idea
cannot be destroyed either; it has the right to exist and it should even be supported in some
things. But you should not think that it has the right to be the absolute dominating factor.
That is the point. Please." ~ Vladmir Putin
He's talking about the end of neoliberalism, the economic fascism that has gripped the
world for over 40 years:
"If you're not willing to kill everybody who has a different idea than yourself, you
cannot have Frederick Hayek's free market. You cannot have Alan Greenspan or the Chicago
School, you cannot have the economic freedom that is freedom for the rentiers and the FIRE
(finance, insurance, real estate) sector to reduce the rest of the economy to serfdom." ~
Michael Hudson
Let's get back to using fiscal policy for public purpose again, to granting nations their
right to self-determination and stopping the latest desperate neoliberal attempt to change
international norms by installing fascist dictators (while pretending they are different) in
order to move the world backwards to a time when "efforts to institutionalize standards of
human and civil rights were seen as impingements on sovereignty, back to the days when no one
gave a second thought to oppressed peoples."
Very interesting article, and even more interesting conversation! There is a type of
argument that very accurately points out some ills that need addressing, and then goes on to
spout venom on the only system that might be able to address those ills.
It may be that the
governing classes are making life easy for themselves. How to address that is the hard and
difficult issue. Most of the protection of the small people comes from government.
Healthcare, schools, roads, water etc.(I'm in scandinavia).
If the government crumbles, the
small people have to leave. The most dreadful tyranny is better than a failed state with
warring factions.
The only viable way forward is to somehow improve the system while it is
(still) running. But this discussion I do not see anywhere.
If the discussion does not
happen, there will not be any suggestions for improvement, so everything stays the same.
Change is inevitable – it what state it will catch us is the important thing. A cashier
at a Catalonian family vineyard told me the future is local and global: the next level from
Catalonia will be EU. What are the steps needed to go there?
Same old, Same old. Government is self-corrupting and is loath to change. People had
enough July fourth 1776.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty
and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever
any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to
alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness."
FWIW: The fireworks we watch every Fourth of July holiday are symbolic!!!!
The cashier seems to be envisioning a neoliberal paradise where the nation-state no longer
exists. But who, then, collects the taxes that will pay for infrastructure, healthcare,
education, public housing, and unemployment insurance? The European Parliament?
Will Germans
and Finns be willing to pay high taxes in order to pay for those services for Greeks and
Spaniards?
Look at the unemployment rate in Greece the Germans would simply say that the
Greeks are lazy parasites and don't want to work (rather than understand that the economic
conditions don't allow for job creation), and they would vote for MEPs that vote to cut taxes
and welfare programs.
But maybe this was the plan all along you create this neoliberal paradise, and slowly but
surely, people will dismantle all but the bare bones of the welfare state.
I believe that one of the fundamental flaws in the logic behind the EU is this assumption
of mobility. Proponents of the EU imagine society to be how it is described in economics
textbooks: a bunch of individual actors seeking to maximize their incomes that don't seem to
exist in any geographic context. The reality is that people are born into families and
communities that speak a language. Most of them probably don't want to just pack up all of
their things, relocate, and leave their family and home behind every time they get a new job.
People throughout history have always had a very strong connection to the land on which they
were raised and the society into which they were brought up; more accurately, for most of
human history, this formed the entire existence, the entire universe, of most people
(excluding certain oppressed groups, such as slaves or the conquered).
Human beings are not able to move as freely as capital. While euros in Greece can be sent
to and used instantly in Germany, it is not so easy for a Greek person to leave the society
that their ancestors have lived in for thousands of years and move to a new country with a
new culture and language. For privileged people that get to travel, this doesn't sound so
bad, but for someone whose family has lived in the same place for centuries and never learned
to speak another language, this experience would be extremely difficult. For many people over
the age of 25, it might not even be a life worth living.
In the past, economic difficulties would lead to a depreciation of a nation's currency and
inflation. But within the current structure of the Eurozone, it results in deflation as euros
escape to the core countries (mainly Germany) and unemployment. Southern Europeans are
expected to leave everything they have ever known behind and move to the countries where
there is work, like Germany or Holland. Maybe for a well-educated worldly 18 year old, that's
not so bad, but what about a newly laid-off working class 35 year-old with a wife and kids
and no college degree? He's supposed to just pick up his family and leave his parents and
relatives behind, learn German, and spend the rest of his life and Germany? His kids now have
to be German? Would he even be able to get a job there, anyway? Doing what? And how is he
supposed to stop this from happening, how is he supposed to organize politically to keep jobs
at home? The Greek government can hardly do anything because the IMF, ECB, and European
Commission (all unelected officials) call the shots and don't give them any fiscal breathing
room (and we saw what happened the last time voters tried to assert their autonomy in the
bailout deal referendum), and the European Parliament doesn't have a serious budget to
actually do anything.
I'm surprised more people don't vote for neo-fascist parties like the
Golden Dawn. Ordinary liberal politics has completely failed them.
"... The term multi-cultural is propaganda, the shift from "nation" to "culture" is used to atomise the perception of belonging that nation implies, into becoming one amongst many under the authority of state, which at this point has usually become an impersonal law and structure from which a bureaucratic elite govern and thrive off of private enterprise, where before a feudal lordship profited by taking a share of personal endeavour. The extremes might be Frankfurt school vs serfdom, with various combinations of philosophy in-between. ..."
"... The economic zionism you describe is via knowledge of finance, monetary theory, trade, weaknesses in society, political reality and more. It uses international realities as a tool. Where before international banking was a measure of trust in the clearing of accounts, this left room for manipulation, and the ability to pressure by holding control of that accounting. ..."
"... And although immigrants should feel free to speak their language at home and even in society, they will have to accept that the language of the law, commerce, education and civil authority is that of the host nation and it is up to them to learn it or at least learn how to work with or around it. ..."
"Nationality, is a named object, programmed by propaganda."
Nationality in the formal sense, derives from two or more feudal monopolies defining their
differences and according a separate recognition to the other, usually including geographical
markers. The extension of personal identity to national identity is product of the
recognition of belonging to one specific feudal hierarchy. This might be natural or imposed,
the theme of nation literally implies the environment or peoples one is born into.
The term multi-cultural is propaganda, the shift from "nation" to "culture" is used to
atomise the perception of belonging that nation implies, into becoming one amongst many under
the authority of state, which at this point has usually become an impersonal law and
structure from which a bureaucratic elite govern and thrive off of private enterprise, where
before a feudal lordship profited by taking a share of personal endeavour. The extremes might
be Frankfurt school vs serfdom, with various combinations of philosophy in-between.
The evolution of the above has been observed to occur by financial means, but is itself
also an ideology. The capitalist side to this ranges from the granting of favours (as per
permission to reside) through to fractional lending backed only by national debt (spending).
The taxation that must still occur to provide a sense of connectedness to real economy, and
hence to provide a sense of value to the currency, punishes the established and functional
society. The sum when mispent goes towards recruiting new nationals, and on paying the elite
bureaucracy for their pet projects. The old hierarchy tends to maintain much control the
private financial sphere, and works with the state by granting it a certain legitimacy, as
well as receiving positions, contracts and favours.
The economic zionism you describe is via knowledge of finance, monetary theory, trade,
weaknesses in society, political reality and more. It uses international realities as a tool.
Where before international banking was a measure of trust in the clearing of accounts, this
left room for manipulation, and the ability to pressure by holding control of that
accounting. The reality though is that nations (leaders) became weak or corrupted,
decided on grand enterprise they could not repay, and so broke trust in the old order by
resorting to or accepting manipulation of accounts (for example ending the original European
Monetary Union of the 19th century), and eventually resorting to war amongst themselves where
outward conquest was no longer profitable enough.
Were, or are they, clients of monopolies though ? Well no, because it is an illusion that
anyone holds monopoly of finance or money. However they did commit themselves to a system
without which they would then be left weak, where they would lose public honour and respect
if they did not produce a result of some kind. The resulting corruption between various sides
became a feature of national policy, a kind of symbiosis at elite levels. "Multiculturalism"
helps hide that reality, as well as serving in terms of having population with weakened
identity at their disposal.
The only monopoly states are truly client to is that of the use of force.
On a more social side, there are corners of the world where various cultures exist well
side by side, and where interaction is positive. This even within the boundaries of one
country. However it is not that country that makes that work, the different cultures tend to
hold a deeper respect and understanding for one another, but if you look you will find that
they do keep to themselves voluntarily, and simply reside next to each other peacefully. They
don't call themselves multiculti or anything. I expect multiculturalism theoretically could
exist, but because it is so artificial a concept, it seems more like an ersatz for loss of
own culture, so being sad cheap and empty once trying to celebrate it returns to common day
to day reality.
You are right about the correct form being a society that knows itself, that naturally
governs and watches over itself. This is often criticised as simplistic or idealised, and the
reason for that is that those who seek more centralised control only have the view of putting
down vast law as scripture and then forcefully imposing it, they love complexity so as to be
those that clarify it. If we live outside of that the rules, and life, are much simpler, and
fortunately most people have an innate understanding of right and wrong somewhere. The local
culture explains or represents the true form of interaction, so if that becomes confused, so
does society, and strife and unhappiness results.
Here is an interesting and very readable explanation on monetary theory, it gives a quite
clear explanation of how finance actually works in social and political terms
"Multiculturalism" is a loaded term: if it is used to mean different styles of food, music
and dress, then I am all for it. But it does not mean that the host nation should accept
misogyny, homophobia, honor killings or other "traditional values" that immigrants bring
along.
And although immigrants should feel free to speak their language at home and even in
society, they will have to accept that the language of the law, commerce, education and civil
authority is that of the host nation and it is up to them to learn it or at least learn how
to work with or around it.
'Christian Zionism' is the direct fruit of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism broadly understood. Over its
life, it has manifested itself in many ways. The beliefs were so powerful even before the
Puritan revolution that groups of English Dissenter/Low Church Protestants existed that taught
that the original natives of Britain, barbarians in every sense, had been uplifted by the
arrival of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel – this was taught to prove that the English had
Hebrew blood and so were the Chosen Race, which meant that Anglophone Protestantism (Low
Church) was the true faith.
By the dawn of the Victorian age, standard Brit WASP Judaizing had become secular and had
discovered that Arabs are also Semites linguistically and culturally. That allowed many of the
Brit WASP Elites to adopt Arabs and/or Mohammedanism as their pet Semite to elevate over the
vast majority of British Isles natives that they despised.
The religiously pro-Jewish original focus of the culture produced by the Judaizing heresy
that was Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was still alive and very powerful at the dawn of the 20th
century. That is how the Oxford UP came to publish the Scofield Study Bible.
Churches across the South were remarkably free of any taint of overt Judaizing in the WASP
vein until well after WW2. The growth was slow but steady until after the Reagan years, when it
exploded. I have seen no signs of a regression in the 21st century.
You also are way off about the economic notions held by rural Evangelicals in the South.
"... Just recently, John Judis, undisguisedly a political commentator of the Left, made an important argument in favor of nationalism. "Nationalist sentiment," he writes in his book The Nationalist Revival , "is an essential ingredient of a democracy, which is based on the assumptions of a common identity, and of a welfare state, which is based on the acceptance by citizens of their financial responsibility for people whom they may not know at all, and who may have widely different backgrounds from theirs." ..."
"... Of course, nationalism can be "the basis of social generosity or of bigoted exclusion." It is therefore important, according to Judis, that enlightened state leaders push nationalism in the proper direction. ..."
"... The presence of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives at this gathering also suggests that at least some of the panelists will be offering two approved concepts of nationalism: propositional nationhood for the United States and solidarity with Israeli nationalism. In both cases, however, the nationalism being advocated ends up tied to an aggressive foreign policy. ..."
"... The nationalist label has now fallen into the hands of the neocon establishment, which has managed to identify it with international meddling and a creedal nation. In other words, it's been appropriated by those who already wielded power. ..."
"... But what makes American nationalism even more unpalatable now than when Robert Nisbet famously denounced it in The Present Age: Progress and Anarchy in Modern America is its rhetorical availability. It serves different agendas, depending on which power bloc appeals to it. ..."
"... Until recently, nationalism had portentous associations for much of the political class. It signified, rightly or wrongly, ethnocentricity and dislike for outsiders. Now that's all changing. Those in power have tamed the concept and are recycling it for their own purposes. Stay tuned. ..."
Just recently, John Judis, undisguisedly a political commentator of the Left, made an
important argument in favor of nationalism. "Nationalist sentiment," he writes in his book
The Nationalist Revival , "is an
essential ingredient of a democracy, which is based on the assumptions of a common identity,
and of a welfare state, which is based on the acceptance by citizens of their financial
responsibility for people whom they may not know at all, and who may have widely different
backgrounds from theirs."
Of course, nationalism can be "the basis of social generosity or of bigoted exclusion."
It is therefore important, according to Judis, that enlightened state leaders push nationalism
in the proper direction.
Judis points out that while "globalism" is a force that nationalists understandably oppose,
"internationalism" need not clash with nationalist sentiment. In a op-ed
in TheNew York Times last October, Judis praised his kind of nationalism as
being beneficial to a successful and growing welfare state and a happier world. It can
also be, he said, a stepping stone that leads beyond itself to international cooperation
.
For those who study European socialism, it is clear that Judis is reprising the position of
French sociologist Pierre
Bordieu , who argued for decades that a socialist regime must create some kind of social
glue to hold its subjects together. Judis is now transferring Bordieu's view to the American
political scene.
Advertisement
Now, a conference on "conservative nationalism," which will take place in Washington in July , may be
pushing a "nationalism" that is at least as adaptable as Judis's.
One featured speaker , Claire Lehmann, the founder of Quillette, will be talking about how
nationalism "is
the antidote to racism." Presumably the more inclusive the operative term, the less likely
will be the Left's attack on those wielding it.
The presence of Daniel Pipes and other neoconservatives at this gathering also suggests
that at least some of the panelists will be offering two approved concepts of nationalism:
propositional nationhood for the United States and solidarity with Israeli nationalism. In both
cases, however, the nationalism being advocated ends up tied to an aggressive foreign
policy.
Nationalism, in any case, means different things for different peoples. It doesn't hold the
same meaning for Estonians or Hungarians, who belong to ethnic, historic communities, as it
does for a pluralistic country with hundreds of millions of people and a constantly expanding
immigrant population.
In the latest issue of the Rassemblement National monthlyL'Incorrect ,
Steve Bannon speaks of the natural fit between European nationalism and the nationalist
movement that he has been promoting in the United States. Both these ideologies, Bannon says,
derive from the same national principle. In an interview with me in the same publication, I
treated Bannon's contention as wishful thinking. The United States has become too diverse and
too culturally disunited to fit a traditional national model. Our use of nationalism will
likely lead to something less quaint and less organic but more explosive than what comes from
the Baltic nationalists or Viktor Orbán.
The nationalist label has now fallen into the hands of the neocon establishment, which
has managed to identify it with international meddling and a creedal nation. In other words,
it's been appropriated by those who already wielded power.
The same protean label is also likely to wander onto the Left, given the nontraditional and
very pliable nature of our "nationalism." John Judis may in fact be the harbinger of a new
American Left that celebrates nationalism, provided that Left is allowed to define that term
for the rest of us. Indeed, it may be possible to frame LGBT rights and reparations for blacks
as "nationalist" issues. Nationalism also need not hinder us from letting in lots of
undocumented immigrants who are only trying to join our team and learn our values.
Men and women of the interwar Right, down to such later figures as Russell Kirk and Robert
Nisbet, were understandably critical of American nationalism. They identified it with social
engineering and centralized government and preferred localism and regionalism to any
justification for an expansionist administrative state.
But what makes American nationalism even more unpalatable now than when Robert Nisbet
famously denounced it in The Present Age:
Progress and Anarchy in Modern America is its rhetorical availability. It serves
different agendas, depending on which power bloc appeals to it. The hope once entertained
by Pat Buchanan that a nationalist cause would help slow down immigration and preserve
America's traditional moral and cultural identity has not worked out as planned. Those who
control our politics and culture determine the meaning of terms, which is as true of
nationalism as it is of other political labels like "freedom" and "equality."
Until recently, nationalism had portentous associations for much of the political class.
It signified, rightly or wrongly, ethnocentricity and dislike for outsiders. Now that's all
changing. Those in power have tamed the concept and are recycling it for their own purposes.
Stay tuned.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at
Elizabethtown College, where he taught for 25 years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale
Ph.D. He is the author of 13 books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents .
Looks like firms like 23andMe opened
the can of worms... Use of genetics to substantiate racist stereotypes
For almost two decades, Farber and his colleagues have advocated for this immigrant
community in the face of what they see as targeted discrimination. In cases of marriage, Farber
acts as a type of rabbinical lawyer, pulling together documentation and making a case for his
clients in front of a board of rabbinical judges. He fears that DNA testing will place even
more power in the hands of the Rabbinate and further marginalize the Russian speaking
community. "It's as if the rabbis have become technocrats," he told me. "They are using
genetics to give validity to their discriminatory practices."
Despite public outrage and
protests in central Tel Aviv, the Rabbinate have not indicated any intention of ending DNA
testing, and reports continue to circulate in the Israeli media of how the test is being used.
One woman allegedly had to ask her mother and aunt for
genetic material to prove that she was not adopted. Another man was asked to have his
grandmother, sick with dementia, take
a test.
Boris Shindler, a political activist and active member of the Russian speaking community,
told me that he believes that the full extent of the practice remains unknown, because many of
those who have been tested are unwilling to share their stories publicly out of a sense of
shame. "I was approached by someone who was married in a Jewish ceremony maybe 15, 20 years
ago, who recently received an official demand saying if you want to continue to be Jewish, we'd
like you to do a DNA test," Shindler said. "They said if she doesn't do it then she has to sign
papers saying she is not Jewish. But she is too humiliated to go to the press with this."
What offends Shindler most is that the technique is being used to single out his community,
which he sees as part of a broader stigmatization of Russian speaking immigrants in Israeli
society as unassimilated outsiders and second-class citizens. "It is sad because in the Soviet
Union we were persecuted for being Jewish and now in Israel we're being discriminated against
for not being Jewish enough," he said.
As well as being deeply humiliating, Shindler told me that there is confusion around what
being genetically Jewish means. "How do they decide when someone becomes Jewish," he asked. "If
I have 51% Jewish DNA does that mean I'm Jewish, but if I'm 49% I'm not?"
"... By putting Mr. Biden forward as the establishment presidential candidate, the Democrats affirm that they see themselves well-served by reactionary illiberalism. Otherwise, their rhetorical rejections of white nationalism and xenophobia could be supported by robust critiques of their own policies of the last four decades and a well-considered political program to counter their consequences could be put forward. But Mr. Biden is the antithesis of both. ..."
Two related tendencies have sown confusion over the crisis of liberalism that continues to
unfold across the U.S. and Europe. On the one hand, the forces of the political right are
ascendant. Right-wing leaders are being elected as an apparent rebuke of the serial failures of
neoliberalism. On the other, the will of the polity is increasingly irrelevant to the
formulation and concerns of nominally public policies.
In the U.S., the political establishment continues to put forward candidates which its
functionaries appear to believe can best perpetuate this illusion of democracy. Befuddlement at
the rise of reactionary forces is met with an increasingly strident insistence that there is
nothing to react against, that all is well if people would only shut up and follow the
directions of their betters.
Despite the conspicuous failures of the existing order here and abroad -- a series of
murderous vanity wars intermingled with economic crises of increasing scale and scope, the
seemingly unstoppable trajectory toward full-blown environmental crisis, nuclear weapons that
serve as background psychic violence and political economy that is organized to milk the polity
dry at every opportunity, the political powers-that-be seek to perpetuate this radically
dysfunctional status quo.
In this environment, the rise of illiberal, reactionary forces seems not only predictable,
but to be the ugly cousin of the neoliberal resolve that all is well. Adding insult to injury
is the insistence that the neoliberal order, the bi-partisan governance that fronts for the
oligarchs, bears no responsibility for the consequences of four decades of neoliberal rule. It
is the polity's unwillingness to comport with the dictates of rule by and for the oligarchs
that is the point of contestation, goes the chide.
An entire functionary class that smiled and nodded approvingly when Bill Clinton
launched his 1992 presidential bid at Stone Mountain, Georgia, birthplace of the twentieth
century KKK, while standing in front of neatly ordered black prisoners, is mystified by the
re-emergence of white nationalism. And while the Clinton / Biden
1994 Crime Bill wasn't exactly a white nationalist manifesto, it inflicted more racially
targeted human misery than the late twentieth century Klan ever could have hoped for.
If enacting punitive measures against the poor is separable from the full throated and
bi-partisan endorsement of the quasi-market -- heads, the rich win, tails, everyone else loses,
economics of neoliberalism, where is the evidence? And how, precisely, does this con recover
from the panicked giveaways of 2009 when the '
runway was foamed ' with the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of working people
and poor to prevent oligarchs from losing their fifth yacht or their seventh vacation home?
The alternative to the vile misdirection of xenophobia would be for the oligarchs and their
servants in the political class to confess that their faux-market economics -- trade agreements that created the
asymmetry of mobile capital and immobilized labor, was a tragic mistake that displaced millions
of workers for the benefit of the oligarchs. With honest accounting of what happened and who is
responsible 'off the table,' xenophobia appears to be the preferred tactic of the
oligarchs.
The farce of Democratic Party functionaries shouting 'racist' at the thoroughly predictable
fruit of their labors has subsided with the political ascendance of Joe Biden to complicate the
line between white nationalism and liberal loathing of the audience it helped create. The
neo-Nazis marching in Charlottesville were / are white nationalists. But what does this make
professional-class liberals who supported the Clinton / Biden 1994 'Crime' Bill under feigned
ignorance of its racial subtext?
The sub-textual connotation of the term 'dog whistle' behind the Crime Bill doesn't do
justice to the social violence of its facts. The subject-object relation of the political
panderer to his / her audience carries with it the moral formulation 1) we agree that overt
racism is objectionable because 2) if it weren't, we wouldn't be opaque expressing it. But how
is this not to assert that race represents a real, as opposed to manufactured, line of
division, something akin to the white nationalist's premise of its essential character?
The dog-whistle is, to the extent that there is an audience for it in the terms given,
politically motivated misdirection. The speaker won't be explicit if the audience is clear as
to the true meaning of what is being said. But isn't this even more insidious than the
straightforward (if ontologically implausible) claim of essential difference by race? The
rhetorical layer of 'crime' gives a social logic to a host of punitive consequences. With the
Crime Bill, the Clintons and Joe Biden grievously harmed the lives of hundreds of thousands, if
not millions, of human beings.
There is, of course, a long history behind this relation of law and racial repression. Law,
the legislative, judicial, policing and penal functions, was used to maintain the institution
of slavery and later, following the Civil War, to recreate its broad contours for purposes of
economic taking. Convict leasing, Black Codes, Jim Crow and mass incarceration are part of an
historical trajectory. However, to the point made by Adolph Reed, degree matters -- current
conditions aren't analogous to those of the Jim Crow South or slavery.
But with this history behind it, what legitimate basis is there for the sub-textual use of a
relation of race to criminality? As the patriarch of modern political marketing, did Bill
Clinton really believe that there was no racial subtext to his vile stunt at Stone Mountain?
More pointedly, through promoting the compound storyline of race and crime, how is Mr. Clinton
not promoting a slightly more complex, and insidious, version of white nationalist
'difference?' Alternatively, if crime has a social basis, why would proposed solutions be
punitive rather than restorative?
All of this could be ancient history if it didn't exist at the center of current travails.
Without an accounting of the failures of liberalism, these compound storylines from history
provide the rhetorical core of contemporary politics. It is hardly coincidental that Joe Biden
is 1) a dedicated corporatist, 2) a long-time purveyor of racist tropes, 3) the Democrats
latest, if improbable, hope for restoration of the neoliberal order.
Joe Biden opposed the racial integration of public schools. He wrote most of the Clinton's
1994 Crime Bill. He was an enthusiastic proponent of NAFTA. He joined the Clintons to support
George W. Bush's catastrophic war against Iraq. And he supported the TPP (Trans-Pacific
Partnership) until the very end. He authored many, if not most, of the policies of modern
liberalism / neoliberalism that are being contested.
By putting Mr. Biden forward as the establishment presidential candidate, the Democrats
affirm that they see themselves well-served by reactionary illiberalism. Otherwise, their
rhetorical rejections of white nationalism and xenophobia could be supported by robust
critiques of their own policies of the last four decades and a well-considered political
program to counter their consequences could be put forward. But Mr. Biden is the antithesis of
both.
The Democrats co-invented identity politics to defer blame for the consequences of their
policies. If they cared about combatting racism and xenophobia, none of the Democratic Party
establishment would be considered for public office. The rhetorical distinction between dog
whistles and white nationalism begs the question of what objective dog whistles are intended to
convey. These aren't precisely the same. Dog whistles are more insidious in that they include
compound storylines (e.g. race and criminality) that are more onerous to disentangle.
White nationalism is frightening for its direct ties to the history of racialized violence.
However, the scientific racism that served as the 'natural' basis for alleged racial difference
used by the Nazis was an American invention. Its proponents were the professional class of the
late nineteenth and early twentieth century. And the intersection of these two tendencies, the
brutal, barely reflexive racial loathing of the Stone Mountain KKK and the educated, liberal
use of racist subtexts to facilitate 'respectable' racism amongst the modern professional
class, is the apparent point of Bill Clinton's 1992 photo op.
At what point is politics about leading rather than manipulating people via a shared
vocabulary? Phrased differently, how is this shared vocabulary not tied to consensus around the
logic it represents? So-and-so understands the logic of racism well enough to convey it through
coded language and still chooses to perpetuate it for political gain. Why not give his audience
the benefit of the doubt and use this understanding to challenge the logic?
The broader backdrop of an ascendant political right in Europe emerges from a similar
unwillingness / inability of European liberals / neoliberals to atone for the consequences of
their policies and develop alternative political programs. Xenophobia is portrayed as arising
from the shadows of twentieth-century European history as a moral failing of the polity rather
than the manufactured, and predictable, political crisis that it is.
As with the American refugee 'crisis' arising from U.S. military interventions in Central
America, the refugee crisis across Europe is the product of American / NATO led military
incursions in the region as well as economic dislocations emerging from the structure of the EU
(European Union). One reason why George H.W. Bush decided against occupying Iraq after the
first Gulf War was for fear of destabilizing the region. This fear was realized when George W.
Bush, with widespread support from the Democratic Party establishment, launched the U.S. war
and occupation of Iraq.
Furthermore, as has been addressed ad infinitum over the last decade, through the creation
of the EU, member nations exchanged fiscal sovereignty for membership in a trading bloc. When
crisis struck, the inability of member nations to respond with fiscal stimulus meant that
'externally' imposed austerity was the only alternative. This flawed structure supported the
interests of some member nations (Germany) against those of the European periphery. This
institutionalized class warfare, carried out under the cover of fiscal probity, has led to
widespread questioning of the nature and purpose of the liberal institutions the EU
represents.
Across the U.S. and Europe cottage industries have arisen proclaiming critiques of the EU,
globalism and liberalism / neoliberalism to be the work of nascent fascists and neo-fascists.
While historical parallels exist, missing is analysis of the parallel failures (then and now)
of neoliberal policies as well as a social accounting for the consequences of these
failures.
More pointedly, such claims require historical parsing that lacks a cohesive logic outside
of political posturing. American slavery and genocide against the indigenous population
constituted the initial conditions of American industrial success going into the early
twentieth century. Considered in combination with the scientific racism of eugenics,
contemporaneous American imperial endeavors and oligarchic control over the U.S. economy going
into the Great Depression, the Nazi political program looked
remarkably similar to the American program .
Additionally, the genesis of racialized violence in economic relations has been materially
misrepresented in current accounts of the rise of European fascism. This history is given
substance in Howard Zinn's
A People's History of the United States . Mr. Zinn provides evidence of race being
knowingly used by capitalists to divert attention away inconvenient class interests. This
history places the modern Democrat's use of identity politics in a different light. Dog
whistles and identity politics are premised in pre-existing and concrete racial divisions.
In contrast to white nationalism, these divisions can have a social basis, rather than in
'nature.' This would seem to make racial identity more malleable, and therefore more amenable
to being resolved. But as establishment Democrats demonstrated through their use of dog
whistles and racialized policies, rhetorical compounding can put a superficially respectable
face on racialized violence. The professional class can respond to 'crime' without considering
its history as a strategy of racialized economic taking, its genesis in capitalist class
relations, or the violence inherent in policing and incarceration.
The Democrat's apparent strategic confusion in putting Joe Biden forward as the
establishment candidate should put an end to identity politics as more than cover for the class
interests that the Democrats represent. The studied ignorance embedded in the question: 'If we
broke up the big banks tomorrow would that end racism' is oblivious to the relationship between
Bill Clinton's neoliberal programs and his racially targeted public policies. Given the
historical use of racial division as a tool of class control, the correct answer is yes,
breaking up the big banks would be a step toward ending racism.
None of this is to pick on the Democrats per se. Republicans have long fostered / aligned
with white nationalism. But again, given the historical genesis of the idea of race, what this
suggests is that both political parties serve the interests of capital. Moral distinctions
between pandering to white nationalists and the use of dog whistles and racially targeted
public policies depend on parsing history in ways that the political elevation of Joe Biden
calls into question.
The bitter rhetorical battle over the use, or even the theoretical coherence, of identity
politics, has had no apparent impact on the Western political establishment's march into the
abyss. A quick bet is that part of the political calculus behind the elevation of Mr. Biden is
that he wouldn't hesitate to use dog whistles, racially divisive language and xenophobia if he
thought it would help him win the election. The conceit that such would only be a tactic was
belied when Bill Clinton used it to craft punitive policies like ending welfare and the Crime
Bill.
The West, led by liberal / neoliberal establishments, is in a terrible way. As recent
European elections demonstrate, the rise of hard-right governments has followed serial public
disappointment with their liberal / neoliberal predecessors. Far from being irrational
rejection of functioning liberalism, it is the inability of liberals to accept and address the
consequences of their own mal-governance that is leading the move rightward.
Bill Clinton's answer to Reaganism was to triangulate Reaganite policies from the right. Joe
Biden is a product of this same time, place and ethos. Whomever the Democrat's choice for
president ends up being, without a fundamental redistribution of political power, the outcome
will be the same -- a long march into the political abyss.
"Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have lost an important instinct towards
group -- and thus genetic -- preservation. Once a society, as a whole, espouses
Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is acting against its own genetic
interests and will ultimately destroy itself."
Ed Dutton
Watching his incredibly entertaining Jolly Heretic You Tube channel, it's easy to
forget that Ed Dutton is also an extremely serious, and increasingly prolific, researcher,
author, and scientist. The recent publication by Arktos of Dutton's Race Differences in
Ethnocentrism follows closely in the wake of Dutton's At Our Wits' End: Why We're
Becoming Less Intelligent and What it Means for the Future (2018), How to Judge People
by What They Look Like (2018), J. Phillipe Rushton: A Life History Perspective
(2018), and The Silent Rape Epidemic: How The Finns Were Groomed to Love Their Abusers
(2019). In Race Differences in Ethnocentrism, Dutton, who has collaborated with Richard
Lynn on a number of occasions, builds impressively on the work of the latter and has offered,
in this text, one of the most informative, formidable, pressing, intriguing, and poignant
monographs I've read in years.
ORDER IT NOW
Dutton's book is a work of science underscored by an inescapable sense of social and
political urgency, and has been explicitly prompted into being by the need to address two
questions "particularly salient during a period of mass migration": 'Why are some races more
ethnocentric than others?' and, most urgently of all, 'Why are Europeans currently so low in
ethnocentrism?' In attempting to answer these questions, Dutton has designed a book that is
accessible to readers possessing even the most modest scientific knowledge, without
compromising on academic rigor or the use of necessary scientific language. The text is
helpfully replete with explanatory commentary and useful rhetorical illustrations, and its
opening four chapters are dedicated exclusively to placing the study in context and exploring
the nature of the research itself. This is a book that can, and should, be read by
everyone.
In the brief first chapter, Dutton explains ethnocentrism or group pride as taking two main
forms. The first, positive ethnocentrism, involves "taking pride in your ethnic group or nation
and being prepared to make sacrifices for the good of it." Negative ethnocentrism, on the other
hand, "refers to being prejudiced against and hostile to members of other ethnic groups."
Typically, a highly ethnocentric person or group will demonstrate both positive and negative
ethnocentrism, although it is very common for people and groups to be high in one aspect of
ethnocentrism but not in the other. It is also apparent that some countries and ethnic groups
are very high in both forms of ethnocentrism while others are extremely low in the same. The
author sets out to explore how and why such variations and differences have occurred, and are
still fluctuating. This is clearly a piece of very novel research. Dutton remarks that "there
exists no systematic attempt to understand why different ethnic groups may vary in the extent
to which they are ethnocentric." Dutton's foundation is built on a deep reading of existing
literature on the origins and nature of ethnocentrism, pioneered to some extent by R. A. LeVine
and D. T. Campbell in the 1970s, and built upon most recently by Australia's Boris Bizumic.
These scholars advanced the argument that ethnocentrism was primarily the result of conflict.
Another highly relevant theory in the study of ethnocentrism has been the concept of 'inclusive
fitness,' which argues that ethnocentrism provides a method for indirectly passing on one's
genes.
Dutton closes his introductory chapter by providing an interesting overview of historical
observations of differences in ethnocentrism. During the so-called 'Age of Discovery,'
Europeans encountered large numbers of different and distant tribes, and many remarked on the
reception they received from these groups. Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit
were noted as being extremely friendly, while the negrito tribes of the Andaman Islands, near
India, remain notoriously hostile to outsiders, shoot arrows at passing aircraft, and kill
intruding foreigners, including
an American missionary in November 2018 . The Japanese appear throughout history to have
combined a moderate level of negative ethnocentrism with very high levels of positive
ethnocentrism, resulting in a society typified by high levels of social harmony and in-group
co-operation, and willing sacrifice for the nation in times of war. By contrast, the
Yąnomamö tribe of Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in
positive ethnocentrism, resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor
social harmony, and an inability to form stable social structures of any kind. Differences in
general levels of ethnocentrism are important because, as Dutton points out, those societies
most welcoming of outsiders were subsequently colonized and fundamentally and permanently
changed by migration. Meanwhile, those societies that displayed extreme hostility to outsiders
have remained almost intact, and remain unchanged even centuries after the European 'Age of
Discovery.'
In the second chapter, Dutton answers the question 'What is 'Race'?' Although many of our
readers will be familiar with most of the material presented in this chapter, it is
nevertheless a very well-presented defense of the concept of race and its unabashed employment
as a scientific system for categorizing and studying humans. In Dutton's presentation, 'race'
is employed to refer to what in the animal kingdom would be a subspecies: a breeding population
separated from another of the same species long enough to be noticeably evolved to a different
environment but not long enough to be unable to have fertile offspring with the other group.
After discussing the processes through which different races or subspecies evolve, Dutton
offers a summary of historical taxonomies of race, before finally answering a number of
criticisms of the concept of race. In the third chapter, and following much the same framework,
Dutton sets out to answer the question, 'What is Intelligence?' Here Dutton answers a number of
criticisms of the concept of intelligence, particularly as they relate to Blacks, before moving
to a discussion of race differences in intelligence. The debt to Richard Lynn's research is
quite clear in this chapter, but Dutton presents past findings with style, conviction, and
novel context, meaning that familiar elements such as Cold Winters Theory are worth getting to
grips with once more.
The fascinating fourth chapter is where the study begins in earnest, and answers the
question 'What Are 'Ethnocentrism' and 'Ethnicity'?' It goes without saying that both terms
have entered, if not dominated, the lexicon of White advocacy, and I found it very refreshing
to become more familiar with the scientific basis for them. Dutton, referring to the work of
Bizumic, notes that the term 'ethnocentrism' was coined by the Polish sociologist Ludwig
Gumplowicz (1838–1909) before entering English with the work of the American economist
William Sumner (1840–1910). In order to better explain the nature of ethnocentrism,
Dutton lays out various lexical definitions of ethnicity and discusses competing schools of
thought in relation to the origins of ethnicity. The division between scholars of ethnicity can
be broadly discussed in terms of two camps: 'Primordialists,' and 'Constructivists' or
'Subjectivists.' Primordialists, representing an older school of thought, assert that ethnic
groups are extremely ancient and are ultimately based around common ancestry. Supporting this
position, Dutton, borrowing from Frank Salter, points out that genetic data shows that ethnic
groups really are distinct genetic clusters. Constructivists, on the other hand, assert that
ethnic identities are merely a product of culture and environment, and are therefore arbitrary
and subject to change. The author spends a great deal of time dissecting the arguments of the
Constructivists and, for me personally, one of the great pleasures of Race Differences in
Ethnocentrism is reading as Dutton prods and teases and the manifold weaknesses in the
Constructivist position.
The author closes the chapter with an extended discussion of the sociobiological origins of
ethnic identity, before providing a summary of proffered causes for ethnocentrism. These
include threat and conflict, psychodynamic theory as advanced by Freud, terror management (a
variation on the theme of threat and conflict), self-aggrandizement theories (ethnocentrism
boosts in-group self-esteem), Marxist theory (ethnocentrism is a tactic employed by one group
in order to gain power over, and exploit, another group), social dominance theory
(ethnocentrism as a side-effect of certain types of personality), socialization explanations
(children learn to be ethnocentric), and the sociobiological model (ethnocentrism is a product
of evolution and adaptation). Dutton argues convincingly that only the sociobiological model
offers answers which explain group behavior in both animals and humans, arguing that
"ethnocentrism is most parsimoniously understood via a partly biological theory wherein the
ethnic group is a kind of extended family."
In the fifth chapter, Dutton surveys recent evidence for the sociobiological model of
ethnocentrism and ethnicity. At the core of the chapter is J. Philippe Rushton's ' Genetic
Similarity Theory ,' which is treated with respect but also caution by the author, who
insists that "it does not fully explain all manifestations of ethnocentrism and, accordingly,
it needs to be nuanced and carefully developed." Put simply, ' Genetic Similarity Theory
' is the idea that animals will instinctively behave more pro-socially to those who share more
of their genes, and that ethnic groups, which are essentially extended families, will
demonstrate the same inclination towards the genetically similar in the form of ethnic
nepotism. It is this inclination to support the genetically similar that paves the way for
'inclusive fitness' -- indirectly passing on at least some of one's genes by supporting kin --
and thus provides some explanation for the origins of altruism. Rushton provided a great deal
of research strongly indicating that humans very much tend to marry, befriend, and otherwise
associate with those who are genetically similar to them, and this is succinctly explored. Some
controversy surrounds the issue of whether or not ' Genetic Similarity Theory ' is
applicable to circles beyond genealogical kin, and Dutton explores the work of Frank Salter in
support of the idea that it is indeed applicable. The only criticism of the concept that Dutton
concedes is that 'Genetic Similarity Theory' does not fully explain variations in ethnocentrism
and therefore does not appear to attribute sufficient weight to environmental factors,
especially external threats to the interests of the ethny -- a factor that has demonstrably
inflamed ethnocentrism throughout human history. Dutton also suggests that fluctuations in
ethnocentrism may also be rooted in the dynamics of human personality, both as humans age, and
as far as personality is influenced by 'Life History Strategy.'
ORDER IT NOW
The sixth chapter, 'Ethnocentrism, Personality Traits and Computer Modelling,' focuses in
detail on the issue of personality. Dutton explains that "we have to examine the concept of an
'ethnocentric personality' because there are race differences in modal personality. So, if
there is an 'ethnocentric personality,' then this would neatly explain why race differences in
ethnocentrism exist." Dutton ultimately dismisses the idea of an 'ethnocentric personality,'
particularly the work of Adorno on prejudice, as having very little relevance to meaningful
research on ethnocentrism. He concludes rather that it seems very likely that "ethnocentrism is
not the by-product of a series of partly heritable personality traits." Instead, "ethnocentrism
is a human universal and is significantly genetic, in the sense that propensity to genetic
similarity is partly genetic." The chapter then moves to the concept of 'group selection,'
during which is it explained and demonstrated that ethnocentric groups are more likely to win
the battle of group selection. "The more ethnocentric group should always triumph in battles of
group selection. This would mean that, all else being equal, races that were compelled, by the
nature of their environment, to combat other groups (by being internally cooperative by
externally hostile) would be more ethnocentric." Computer modelling of such battles has
demonstrated conclusively that ethnocentric strategies will always triumph, leading Dutton to
conclude that universalist humanitarianism is ultimately a losing strategy, "unable to sustain
high levels of in-group cooperation." Humanitarian groups invariably "waste their precious
reproductive potential helping out free riders who give them nothing in return."
In Chapter 7, one of the best and most provocative in the book, Dutton explores the genetics
of ethnocentrism. Dutton takes as his starting point the high level of positive and negative
ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians, and attempts to find candidate genes that may play a role
in producing this situation. Building on research suggesting that oxytocin may contribute to
in-group bias by motivating in-group favouritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group hostility,
Dutton points to scholarly findings that Northeast Asians disproportionately possess ("much
higher than Europeans") genes identified with fear of social exclusion and higher oxytocin
levels (A118G – OPRM1). Further research has indicated that the serotonin transporter
gene polymorphism (5-HTTLPR) combines with environmental factors to shape in-group bias. Dutton
cites studies showing that "70–80 percent of an East Asian sample carried the short form
of this gene, that is to say the form that makes you more ethnocentric. Only 40–45
percent of Europeans in the sample carried the short form of the gene. Indeed, it was found
that across twenty-nine nations, the more collectivist a culture was the more likely it was to
have the short form as the prevalent allele in the population." Dutton adds that his own work
found such correlations to be weak, and he is reluctant to attribute ethnocentrism to small
numbers of specific genes. He instead finishes the chapter with the suggestion that specific
genes such as these may play a small role, but only in conjunction with Life History Theory --
for example, he provides data suggesting that populations with Slow Life History strategies
(typified by higher intelligence, delayed gratification, and higher investment in children) are
likely to be higher in positive ethnocentrism.
In Chapter 8, Dutton presents data on race differences in ethnocentrism, and he then
explores the impact of cousin marriage and religion on ethnocentrism. The chapter opens with a
very interesting discussion of racial dating preferences derived from the OKCupid dating site.
The data suggest that, at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group,
overwhelmingly preferring to date men from their own ethnic group. By contrast, most non-White
groups seemed to have a preference for dating Whites. Dutton explains that this data cannot be
meaningfully employed in the study of ethnocentrism because the fact non-Whites want to have
sex with Whites merely means that "Whites have value." He continues: "this does not, of course,
mean that black people would be necessarily more inclined to lay down their lives for white
people, show preference for white interests over those of their own race, vote for whites over
members of their own race or any other behaviour of that kind that might be regarded as low in
ethnocentrism." Dutton instead utilizes the 'World Values Survey' as a more reliable indicator
of ethnocentric feeling, and finds that East Asians are among the most ethnocentric
populations. At this stage, the author returns to Genetic Similarity Theory, pointing out that
the East Asian gene pool is much smaller than the European gene pool -- in other words, two
random Japanese men will be more closely related than two random English men. This is important
because
any act of ethnic altruism by the Japanese man would have a greater payoff in terms of
inclusive fitness than would precisely the same act by an Englishman. As such, we would
expect higher levels of positive ethnocentrism among Northeast Asians than among Europeans.
By the same token, were a Japanese person to be confronted by a foreigner, this would
potentially damage his genetic interests to a greater extent than would be the case if a
European, from a larger gene pool, was confronted by a foreigner.
Genetic Similarity Theory, as outlined above, is particularly salient in Dutton's discussion
of ethnocentrism among Arabs and South Asians, populations with high levels of cousin marriage.
Arabs and South Asians are more ethnocentric than Europeans but, unlike East Asians, the nature
of Arab and South Asian ethnocentrism tends more towards negative ethnocentrism -- something
Dutton links to relatively lower average intelligence. Consanguineous marriage, itself a
response to a stressful and/or conflict-riven ecology and a means of developing a functioning
society in populations with Fast Life History strategies, will accelerate and deepen negative
ethnocentrism.
This phenomenon is deepened further by high levels of religiosity, which, Dutton argues, has
been demonstrated as boosting both positive and negative ethnocentrism. Among the aspects of
religion that contribute to ethnocentrism and group selection, Dutton cites high levels of
fertility, matrimony, physical punishment of children, bodily mutilation, honor killing,
martyrdom, celibacy, and intense violence or enmity directed at non-believers. I found Dutton's
work here to be especially interesting, though I was left with some significant questions about
the nature of modern Christianity, something disappointingly absent from Dutton's text despite
his rich background in the study of Christian fundamentalists. Why is modern Christianity so
entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of ethnocentrism? My own instinct is that it
has something to do with the development and spread of the belief in a "personal Jesus," a
largely nineteenth-century American innovation, rather than the older belief in folding oneself
into a community of believers under a more distant and overarching God of nations. But this
would require an essay, or several, to fully articulate, rather than an aside in a book review.
It should suffice to state here that more detail or illustration from Dutton in this regard
would have been most welcome.
Dutton spends several pages discussing Jewish ethnocentrism, and is appreciative of the work
of Kevin MacDonald in this area. Jews are clearly very high in positive ethnocentrism, as
demonstrated by very high levels of in-group philanthropy, belief in themselves as members of a
Chosen People with a special world-historical destiny, and the prolific production of
self-congratulatory and apologetic literature about themselves that is frequently accompanied
by a widespread refusal to make any concessions on negative aspects of the history of the
ethnic group. Jews have also distinguished themselves throughout history with very high levels
of negative ethnocentrism, including their genocides of other peoples (real or imagined) in
their religious texts, very negative portrayals of non-Jews in their religious commentaries,
frequent outbursts against Greek cultural influence in the Classical period, exploitative
economic relationships with Europeans since at least the Carolingian dynasty, the preference
for suicide over conversion in the Medieval period, high levels of culturally disruptive
behaviors among host populations in the modern period, and most recently their extraordinarily
hostile treatment of the Palestinians. This can be partly explained, as Dutton points out, by
the highly consanguineous nature of the Jews. For example, "it has been found that the world's
10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves
in Eastern Europe about the year 1400." High levels of inbreeding have led to the noted
prevalence of several genetic disorders among the Jews, including Tay-Sachs Disease, Gaucher's
Disease, and Riley-Day Syndrome. Dutton argues that Jews would have been more ethnocentric than
Europeans from the earliest stages of their settlement in Europe, and that this ethnocentrism
would have been deepened even further over historical time, in successive cycles, by their
continued breeding within a small gene pool (intensifying the impact of Genetic Similarity
Theory) and their presence in a high stress environment typified by periodic outbursts of
reactive persecution (resulting in "harsh selection" for the most ethnocentric Jews). Dutton
then discusses the findings of one study carried out by developmental psychologists, in which
it was found that Israeli infants displayed unusually intense fear reactions in response to
strangers when compared with North German infants. Whereas the North German infants had
relatively minor reactions to strangers, the Israeli infants became "inconsolably upset."
The author brings his eighth chapter to a close with a discussion of low ethnocentrism among
Europeans and sub-Saharan Africans. Low ethnocentrism among Africans is explained briefly via
their very pronounced r -strategy, resulting in low rates of consanguineous marriage and
a much broader gene
pool and genetic diversity . On the other hand, Europeans, argues Dutton, occupy a
'Goldilocks Zone' of very low ethnocentrism because they are less K -selected than East
Asians, have a larger gene pool, and their environment is less harsh, leading to lower levels
of group selection. There appears to be a position on the r – K spectrum,
lower than East Asian K strategies, where cousin marriage is selected for (boosting
ethnocentrism) and this position is occupied by Arabs and South Asians rather than Whites, who
instead occupy a position below East Asians but above Arabs and South Asians. The trade-off for
this relatively weakened position of Europeans is that for a population with moderate-to-high
intelligence, "low ethnocentrism would permit a greater ability to trade and pool resources and
so, ultimately, the creation of an extremely large coalition with a very large gene pool. This
group would be more likely than a smaller group to produce geniuses."
Dutton thus argues that, in a sense, some level of selection took place for low
ethnocentrism in Europeans -- a "genius" group evolutionary strategy. Dutton argues that groups
with high levels of genius but low levels of ethnocentrism will triumph over groups with high
levels of ethnocentrism but low levels of genius so long as certain conditions are met. The
most important condition is that the genius group should maintain a basic level of
ethnocentrism. Should this base level decline or collapse, the genius strategy would fail and
highly ethnocentric groups would eventually dominate. European ethnocentrism has clearly been
stronger in the past than it is at present, a fact the author very capably discusses within the
framework of broader fluctuations in ecology (especially the advent of the industrial
revolution) and ongoing evolutions in race itself.
In Chapter 9, Dutton explores in detail several variables that may impact ethnocentrism at
individual and group level. Highly stressful situations in which survival is at risk have been
shown to boost ethnocentrism, and researchers have found that playing violent video games is
even sufficient to increase aggression to perceived out-groups. Mortality salience, or the fear
of death, has also been shown to lead people to believe in a way which is highly defensive of
their in-group. Although Dutton does not explore the theme in any great depth, I was moved to
reflect on how anti-stress Western civilization has become during the last 60 or so years, not
only in terms of industrialization, radically lowered infant mortality, and medical advances
(all of which Dutton explores), but also in the extraordinary emphasis placed by modern culture
on individual transient pleasures and prolonging youth (and therefore delaying or avoiding
confronting death). Decadence, which is what such a culture essentially decays into, is
therefore obstructive or oppositional to the development of ethnocentrism, and 'weaponized
decadence' therefore strikes me as a particularly useful strategy that could be employed by a
highly ethnocentric group with significant cultural influence in a host society with
pre-existing moderate-to-low levels of ethnocentrism -- a way of pushing a stronger "genius
evolutionary strategist" into a fatally lower level of ethnocentrism and thus, ultimately, into
defeat and destruction. Other variables impacting upon levels of ethnocentrism, and discussed
by Dutton, include age, gender, pregnancy, intelligence and education, and ethnic
diversity.
ORDER IT NOW
I found the last of these the most salient. Dutton, following from Vanhanen and Salter,
argues that multi-ethnic societies are much less capable of successfully defending themselves
against incursion from outsiders. This is for three key interrelated reasons. The first is
lower levels of trust, as sapped confidence in one's group leads to radically fewer sacrifices
on behalf of the group. The second is that a multi-ethnic society will be able to draw on
significantly lower reserves of positive ethnocentrism. The third is that ethnic minorities
will tend to support immigration, essentially acting as a fifth column; allies to the outsiders
engaged in incursion. So much for the "diversity is our greatest strength" mantra.
In the penultimate chapter, Dutton makes the argument that the industrial revolution and its
consequences have been a disaster for European ethnocentrism. Industrialization has
significantly reduced human ecological stress in the West, and has accelerated the decline of
European religion -- one of the key supports for an already low level of European
ethnocentrism. Advances in medicine and developments in the welfare state have led to wholesale
dysgenic impacts such as the extraordinary rise in numbers of people with moderate to severe
genetic disorders (26 percent increase in hemophilia, 22 percent increase in cystic fibrosis,
and a 300 percent increase in phenylketonuria). The author posits that the increased
proliferation of unhealthy mutations has further precipitated the decline of healthy instincts
rooted in healthy genes that promoted survival (on a related note, it is interesting that those
identified as ethnocentric score very highly in
disgust sensitivity -- a trait associated with disease avoidance ). Dutton and some of his
colleagues have come to describe such negative mutations as "spiteful mutations" which "cause
people to act against their own genetic interests." He continues:
If [carriers of 'spiteful genes'] influence society, they can persuade even non-carriers
of these 'spiteful' genes to act in self-destructive ways and they can undermine structures
-- such as religion -- which help to promote group interests. Woodley of Menie et al. call
this 'social epistasis.' As a consequence, modern (liberal) religion and ideology -- far from
being an indirect means of genetic preservation -- would in fact reflect a sick society's
growing desire to destroy itself. An obvious example can be seen in the ideology of
Multiculturalism and Political Correctness.
In Dutton's reading of our present situation then, the worst of our traitors are in fact
what perhaps Nietzsche was referring to when he condemned "the botched and the bungled" --
malformed and maladapted offspring eager for self-destruction, and dragging the healthy down
with them.
The final, brief, chapter of Race Differences in Ethnocentrism offers a neat summary
of the findings and central arguments of the book before ending on a warning and offering some
meagre light at the end of the tunnel. The warning is clear:
Europe is increasingly allowing into its borders people who are extremely high in
ethnocentrism as predicted by their high levels of religiousness, low median age, their
practice of cousin marriage, low average intelligence, and (likely) low mutational load. We
have noted that the ethnocentric strategy will, eventually, tend to dominate all other
strategies in the battle for group survival. Alternate strategies can also work, such as the
development of large and highly inventive coalitions, but these cannot last if they promote
ideologies which are actively to the detriment of their genetic interests, as it happening
with Political Correctness, which actively promotes an effective destruction of European
people.
And yet this may be a night that is necessary before the dawn, as Europeans are once more
plunged into a cleaning cauldron of harsh, selective conditions:
We are now living under these conditions. But it will be the collapse of [European]
civilisation and power that will likely lead, many years hence, to their becoming more
ethnocentric once again.
It is the humbling, unenviable, and largely thankless task of websites like The
Occidental Observer
obwandiyag says: May 24, 2019
at 2:37 am GMT Oh, positive ethnocentrism is all well and good. It's just that you have
to ignore how rotten the actual individual members of your own group that you actually know
are. Then, it's pride all the way! Read More • Replies: @Endgame
Napoleon , @Anon ,
@Parsnipitous
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Colin Wright says:
• WebsiteMay 24,
2019 at 3:23 am GMT • 100 Words ' By contrast, the Yąnomamö tribe of
Venezuela are very high in negative ethnocentrism but very low in positive ethnocentrism,
resulting in a society riddled with lawlessness, extreme violence, poor social harmony, and
an inability to form stable social structures of any kind.'
It would be a cruder version of Israel, then. Read More • Replies: @AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
At least in the short term, this would seem questionable.
At one extreme, consider the US from 1780 to about 1970. By very willingly accepting and
incorporating newcomers, it increased in size roughly fifty-fold, and grew to be the most
powerful state in the world. Our subsequent history demonstrates that it's possible to have
too much of a good thing, but
At the other extreme, consider Jews -- a group very assiduously devoted to preserving
its group identity, and not at all interested in absorbing outsiders. Over the last
century, roughly a third have been exterminated, another third are rapidly being
assimilated in the US notwithstanding their efforts at self-preservation, and the last
third have decided the course of wisdom is to pack themselves into a strip of semi-desert
and attack all their neighbors without actually crushing any of them.
Whatever the failings of the strategy of the US, it's far from demonstrated that the
opposite course makes for an improvement. Read More • Replies: @Wally
, @notanon2
, @RobRich
, @John
Gruskos Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Ron
Unz says: May 24,
2019 at 4:01 am GMT • 200 Words Well, most of the article was pretty interesting.
But I'm quite skeptical about this claim:
Dutton instead utilizes the 'World Values Survey' as a more reliable indicator of
ethnocentric feeling, and finds that East Asians are among the most ethnocentric
populations.
This doesn't really make any sense. Until the last hundred years or so, I'd guess that
something like 99% of Han Chinese had almost never even *seen* a non-Han during their
entire lives, and that was also true for almost all of their ancestors for many, many
centuries. Probably the same for Japanese and Koreans.
But if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly
100% ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity
ever evolve or be maintained? Wouldn't they be about as useful as wings on a gopher?
In support of this theoretical framework, isn't it an empirical fact that China has
always been one of the most "absorptive" nations in the world, with some of the lowest
barriers to ethnic intermarriage and assimilation? That's why the Chinese have absorbed so
many other groups over the millennia, including all the groups that conquered them.
Moreover, there's that famous dictate by Confucius that foreigners who come to China and
act like Chinese should be considered Chinese. Indeed, I think you could make a reasonable
case that China is the world's oldest "Propositional Nation." Read More • Agree:
Godfree Roberts ,
Mr.
XYZ • Replies: @Thulean
Friend , @micheal8
, @AaronB
, @notanon2
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Colin Wright says:
• WebsiteMay 24,
2019 at 4:03 am GMT • 100 Words ' "it has been found that the world's 10
million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves
in Eastern Europe about the year 1400." '
Given the large Jewish populations expelled from Britain, France, and the German states
in previous centuries, this statement seems almost fantastically improbable. Surely there
were more than 350 Ashkenazim in Eastern Europe in 1400, and surely more than 350 of them
contributed to the genes of the modern population of Ashkenazim. This leaves aside the
visible resemblance of German Jews to Gentile Germans, of Polish Jews to Gentile Poles, etc
-- and the implications of that. Read More • Replies: @Ron
Unz , @Johnny
Rottenborough , @notanon2
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
' "it has been found that the world's 10 million Ashkenazi Jews are all descended from
about 350 Ashkenazi Jews who found themselves in Eastern Europe about the year 1400."
'
Given the large Jewish populations expelled from Britain, France, and the German
states in previous centuries, this statement seems almost fantastically improbable.
I'm not up on the latest genetic research, but it does sound a little garbled
From what I recall seeing a decade or so ago, almost European Jews are descended from
the offspring of a few hundred Middle Eastern males and Northern Italian females who lived
around 500-800 AD (the date was disputed and it's also fuzzy in my memory).
However, by the time the Jews established themselves in Eastern Europe, perhaps around
1000 AD or later, there were probably some tens of thousands of them.
So maybe new scientific findings have updated the history or (more likely) the writer is
getting the two different foundation events mixed up. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Endgame Napoleon
says: May 24, 2019
at 4:42 am GMT@obwandiyag
Glorifying other groups doesn't help to purify your own group, either. Humans are "all too
human," as the man said. Where is BatMan when you need him? He is enjoying himself in Gotham
& Gomorra. Read More • LOL: Tusk Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon [932] • Disclaimer says: May 24,
2019 at 5:42 am GMT@obwandiyag
Ignoring that is harder for some groups who are lousy with rotten members (nearly everyone).
Other groups merely have to deal with an unavoidable standard deviation that is part of the
human condition. Those groups invented advanced prison systems, long ago, along with the rest
of advanced civilization. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon [932] • Disclaimer says: May
24, 2019 at 5:52 am GMT • 200 Words Ethnocentrism is about two things:
psychological health and political protection.
That humans require identity and belonging, things that by definition require barriers,
isn't debatable in terms of their salubrious effects on the individual's mental health.
Humans require political protection from other groups. Humans without political or other
protection that arises from the in-group traditionally had de facto or actual slave status
in the presence of other groups. The same is true today.
Slavers, with slaver religions, push for an end to out-group ethnocentrism for their
desired slaves because it eradicates that group's ability to politically or physically
defend themselves in an effective manner. Due to lack of effective in-group
cooperation.
Those resisting slavery should always work to build a deep and single ethnic culture and
the genetic in-group that it incubates over time.
Once this is formed, political power will follow via the deep in-group cooperation that
this genetically and culturally deeply linked group encourages.
Self-protection, independence, and self determination are all attainable thereafter. All
which are correctly seen as fundamental Human Rights.
Those that fail to cooperate effectively enough, even when allowed their ethnocentrism,
will continue to be controlled by out-groups. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More...
This Commenter Display All Comments
A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today's
Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the
medieval era, between 600 to 800 years ago.
The math also indicates that today's sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews -- there
are more than 10 million around the world -- derived from just 350 people or so.
Read More • Replies: @res ,
@Colin
Wright Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
How would one go about ranking groups, organizations, individuals, social networks and
publications by intensity or degrees of ethnocentrism?
Could one use automated methods to produce and update these rankings in real time by
tracking and mining social media and all media in general?
One obvious approach: count up the number of times an agent mentions its ethnic
identity, issues, problems, enemies, etc. in its communications.
Questions that would be interesting to answer: which are the most ethnocentric groups in
contemporary American politics? In contemporary European politics? In contemporary global
politics?
Which are the most significant and strategic ethnic conflicts in contemporary global
politics? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All
Comments
One issue here is that the effective population size may be (much) less than the census
population size at any given time. This page gives some reasons for that: http://www.uwyo.edu/dbmcd/molmark/lect07/lect7.html
It would be good to hear from a real population geneticist about this. This graphic from
the first link above seems to indicate much larger effective population sizes than the
other two links. Note that AJ = Ashkenazi Jewish and FL = Flemish.
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
A model based on the genetic sequencing of 128 Ashkenazi Jews concludes that today's
Ashkenazim descend from the fusion of European and Middle-Eastern Jews during the medieval
era, between 600 to 800 years ago.
The math also indicates that today's sprawling community of Ashkenazi Jews -- there
are more than 10 million around the world -- derived from just 350 people or so.'
Then either (a) Haaretz inaccurately reported the results of the research, or (b)
the research itself was flawed.
Enough historical data exists so that we effectively know all Ashkenazim were not
descended solely from 350 ancestors living between 600 and 800 years ago.
If I announced that a genetic study showed that all whites currently living in America
were descended from four hundred Irishmen present in New York City in 1860, would you
believe it?
since most of us don't clearly understand genetics or how research into it is conducted,
there's a tendency to accept any stated result as certain truth, handed down at Mount
Sinai.
Actually, I suspect -- and some of the results proferred imply -- it's no more certain
than anything else. Read More • Disagree: Ron Unz Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
A bunch of dumbasses start being punished for their idiocy, forcing them to adapt and
become smart. Then they strut around the world like they own the place, but then relax,
become cucked and then regress to the start. At that point another group is on it's rise,
or it's a dark age until the same group starts over Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Dutton then discusses the findings of one study carried out by developmental
psychologists, in which it was found that Israeli infants displayed unusually intense
fear reactions in response to strangers when compared with North German infants. Whereas
the North German infants had relatively minor reactions to strangers, the Israeli infants
became "inconsolably upset."
Interesting.
By the way, a very good review &, as far as I can tell, an intriguing book. Read
More • Agree: Thulean Friend ,
anon19 • Replies:
@AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
isn't it an empirical fact that China has always been one of the most "absorptive"
nations in the world, with some of the lowest barriers to ethnic intermarriage and
assimilation? That's why the Chinese have absorbed so many other groups over the
millennia, including all the groups that conquered them.
These foreigners have been Mongolians, Manchu etc. People who are closely related kin.
It's like various tribes of Europe absorbing each other and forming greater nations.
It's qualitively different when you talk about people who look radically different from
you, because that implies the genetic distance is also far greater. There is no reason to
assume that North East Asians are on par with Northern Europeans in their low
ethnocentrism, though it is likely lower than many assume since intermarriage rate with
Whites is quite high (but only really with Whites. Whereas Whites mix with a lot of
groups). Read More • Replies: @Ron
Unz , @david
fields Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
anon19 says: May 27,
2019 at 4:44 am GMT All races, except for brainwashed-by-Jews, unorganized whites are
extremely ethnocentric. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display
All Comments
Cyrano says: May 27,
2019 at 5:03 am GMT • 200 Words I don't think I buy this theory about low European
ethnocentricity at all. I think it's all the rich degenerate elites who are to blame for
the "decline" in ethnocentricity.
The rich degenerates think that being rich is their ethnicity – and the only one
worth defending – not some genetic similarity with the great unwashed whom they
despise.
That's why they invented that most humane of all altruisms – multiculturalism
– because it defends their ethnicity based on money, to hell with genetically based
ethnicity.
I think that ordinary Europeans are as ethnocentric as they always were, someone else is
expanding their ethnic acceptance against their will in order to preserve their financial
ethnocentricity.
And first of all why blame the Europeans – like they were the ones who invented
multiculturalism? If European civilization is going to collapse – it's not going to
happen in Europe first – it's going to happen in the birthplace of multiculturalism.
Read More • Replies: @Wizard of
Oz , @notanon2
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
These foreigners have been Mongolians, Manchu etc. People who are closely related kin.
It's like various tribes of Europe absorbing each other and forming greater nations.
It's qualitively different when you talk about people who look radically different
from you, because that implies the genetic distance is also far greater.
At least with regard to China, I just don't think that's correct
As far as I know, Westerners who've moved to China and taken up Chinese wives and
Chinese customs have been absorbed as easily as other Asians.
And here's a notable historical example. For various reasons, Jews have traditionally
been exceptionally resistant to absorption into local populations, remaining as a distinct
group sometimes after thousands of years of living within a particular host population. But
China absorbed its Jews long ago, being just about the only documented case that easily
comes to mind. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker , @Wizard of
Oz , @Thulean
Friend , @j2 ,
@Anon ,
@AaronB
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
at least in sexual terms, White women were the most ethnocentric group, overwhelmingly
preferring to date men from their own ethnic group.
So many Unzers BTFO here Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter
Display All Comments
Wizard of Oz says:
May 27, 2019
at 5:37 am GMT • 100 Words @Cyrano
Aren't you mistaken in attributing multiculturalism to the rich? Certainly they don't
participate in it as perhaps you imply when you say that being rich is their ethnicity. Mark
Zuckerberg and his wife are perhaps typical , and, I would suggest, not people of different
cultures but from one which is not that of the rich but of the upper middle class educated.
Perhaps you are suggesting that people like that underrate the importance of differences in
culture that isn't actually part of their experience and therefore rather softheadedly say
"each to his own" in libertarian style without understanding what they are thereby
encouraging amongst the lower classes. Could you spell out your case please? Read More •
Replies: @Cyrano
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Ashkenazi Jews appear to be 40-50% Italian according to DNA tests on the female
side.
Which means at some point following the diaspora from Judea in Roman times there was a
massive degree of intermarriage between Jewish men and Roman women prior to the fall of
Rome.
Also, considering that Jews trace their origins through their mothers, one would think
that they would all consider themselves Italians.
So they Jews had to absorb non-Jews into their gene pool at some point.
As for Westerners assimilating into Chinese culture, this is relatively commonplace. A
small number of Portuguese live in Macau and of course there are more recent examples. Read
More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Wizard of Oz says:
May 27, 2019
at 6:05 am GMT • 300 Words @Ron Unz
I have hardly even a vague knowledge of China's absorption of Jews (and haven't, I confess,
asked Google an obvious, let alone probing, question). But what you say raises the question
of how much more impressed with Chinese culture, custom and governance the Jews in China were
than the Jews elsewhere. Dark Ages Europe (and the ME) with Christian mobs destroying ancient
art and learning may not have looked good compared with Tang or Sung dynasty China (though I
invite someone to tell me about differences within China in those times). Alternatively one
might ask whether the Jews in Europe were only clinging to Judaism through desperately strict
reliance on the/a Talmud which helped maintain separation whereas the Jews in China may have
been free of that limiting influence. Compare indeed the rapidity with which Jews in America,
not least, I believe, the poor of Eastern Europe, began to assimilate at least in so far as
intermarriage implies assimilation. To that plenty of grouches would no doubt point to Jewish
corruption of what the grouches would like to think of as the culture they were assimilating
with (whereas I am more a "Jewish Century" interpreter) but my emphasis would tend to be
rather on the division and, for a time, arrested development, of American Jewry by the
creation of Israel and its drawing on people's need for tribalism and at least equal need to
have an object or ideal beyond themselves. (Isn't being a good American enough? Well, hardly,
when you are a prosperous part of the one superpower .). I suspect assimilation is going to
win. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Ghali says: May 27,
2019 at 6:06 am GMT Dutton's book has NO science. It is a fabricated lie that relies on
racism and prejudice. Multicultural societies are the opposite of monocluturals; they are
rich in diversity and culture. Just like monoagriculture, monocultural societies are empty of
all the organic ingredients. Read More • Disagree: Robert Dolan •
Replies: @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Westerners who've moved to China and taken up Chinese wives and Chinese customs have
been absorbed as easily as other Asians.
What percentage are they of the total population? 0.01%? Hardly relevant as an
example.
China absorbed its Jews long ago, being just about the only documented case that
easily comes to mind.
Jews in China were always an extremely small minority, several orders of magnitudes
lower than in leading Western countries as a percentage of the population. Harder to build
buffers in such an environment. Also, I would take issue with your characterisation of Jews
as unable to assimilate. Non-Orthodox Jews in the US have an intermarriage rate of 72%. The
rabbis are constantly reminding us of the 'silent holocaust'. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of
ethnocentrism?
50+ years of sustained media attack.
the only defense against television is a television station of your own. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
notanon2 says: May 27,
2019 at 7:02 am GMT@Colin
Wright with Jews very concentrated in urban areas i would have thought the Black Death
could have caused a bottleneck like that (as the plague didn't reach Poland for some
reason).
map of spread of black death
note big gap in Poland Read More • Replies: @Republic
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
At least in the short term, this would seem questionable.
the simulations used to study this set a level playing field so it won't be true in all
real world situations. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
j2 says:
May 27,
2019 at 8:10 am GMT • 400 Words @Ron
Unz Ron, the claim, when correctly understood, is correct also concerning China.
Chinese are especially negative towards Blacks, anybody with dark skin color. (They think
Blacks smell bad.) They appreciate white skin color. They avoid tanning and use whitening
creams. Yes, they absorb Whites, including Jews, but they are ethnocentric towards other
peoples.
I have this kind of a small theory why this is so. Consider a trait, like intelligence,
being not a product of additive gene alleles, but by a combination of favorable alleles of
several genes. We can assume the combinations are mostly two gene combinations. Assume a
population has two alleles of each two genes (A,a and B,b) with A,a and B,b being each of
50% frequency, and one combination AB raises the trait. Thus, 1/4 of the population has AB.
Mixing this population with a population with two other alleles for these genes, D,d and
E,e, produces a population where the trait increasing combinations, AB and DE, occur in 1/8
of the population. Thus, the average of the trait decreases from mixing.
From this one can conclude that populations with a large number of alleles increasing
the trait has a lower average on the trait, like IQ in Sub Saharan Africa. In SSA genetic
diversity is high and thus there are many alleles of all genes. While in East Asia genetic
diversity is lower than in Europe and the IQ trait is higher. Indeed, if we plot genetic
diversity against average IQ we should get more or less a Piffer plot, a straight line.
This would come from a PGS being not additive but a combination of pairs of two (or more)
IQ genes. To support this idea, notice that additive positive alleles should make a sweep
and become fixed and the variance at the both ends of the trait should be small because the
distribution converges to normal. But this is not so, we do not have populations with
average IQ of 150, while we have very tall or very short dog races produced by selection.
It indicates that the height trait is additive but IQ is not additive.
From this idea it follows that ethnocentrism is higher in populations with low genetic
diversity, average values of traits are higher in populations with low genetic diversity
(as natural selection cannot act if diversity is high: descendants too seldom inherit the
trait of the parents). It would follow that East Asians are ethnocentric, have a higher IQ
and low diversity. They would still like to mix with people possessing the trait they
admire (white skin), so it is not a contradiction. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
RobRich says: •
WebsiteMay 27, 2019
at 8:36 am GMT • 100 Words @Colin
Wright Good point. As libertarians point out the US grew 30-fold with relatively open
borders then tripled that with variations of the current more restrictive but open to
extended family/high achievers (Have a close relative, great invention or a million bucks to
invest in the US? To the head of the line! Otherwise take a number, BTW the waiting list is
100 years long–good luck!) still pretty open compared to most countries. By 1970 is was
near a 100-fold, not 50-fold, growth, so your case is even better. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Some, such as the natives of Hawaii and the Inuit were noted as being extremely
friendly,
Didn't Capt.Cook get killed and eaten by those "friendly," natives of Hawaii? Read More
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
micheal8 says: May 27, 2019
at 12:32 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron Unz
There are lots of apocryphal data saying many things about the Chinese over history.
Of course, in the US of 330 million people at least 46.6 million are foreign born (by far the
highest number of any country, according to Wikipedia).
China has a population of a billion or so, but less than a million foreign born. This despite
the dramatic improvement in their culture and economics.
So over 14% of the US population are foreign born vs 0.1% of Chinese. One can argue as to the
basis for this difference, but almost all nations are restrictive on accepting immigrants,
unless they provide value.
Would seem the Chinese are similar to the Japanese (who are now absorbing more foreigners due
to a shortage of young workers), who will not tolerate big changes in their society or mores
unless brought about internally. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Catiline says: May 27, 2019
at 12:36 pm GMT Andrew Joyce are you back on Twitter? Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter Display All Comments
While coming from a similarly ancient civilization I suspect Jews found less ability to
trade or profit in China than Europe which is why less of them gravitated there than to
Europe.
Jews did not really make much of an impact in India either.
I suspect that because money-lending was never a crime in China or India, there was not
much of living in either of those countries for Jews compared to Europe where they
thrived.
Jews in America arrived as Edison was inventing the film camera and industrialization
required many lawyers, bankers and so on. China never needed these. Read More •
Replies: @Wizard of
Oz Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
david fields says:
May 27,
2019 at 12:56 pm GMT • 200 Words @Thulean
Friend I tend to agree with Unz, that Chinese are quite open to mixing with and/or
assimilating other ethnic groups. Apart from the well-known examples of Manchus and
Mongols, a large community of Jews migrated to China during the Middle Ages and settled in
Kaifeng, China where they gradually and non-violently assimilated. If one observes the
behavior of Chinese-Americans in the U.S., a large plurality if not a majority marry
Caucasians within one or two generations, usually with little opposition from their
families.
For a literary work that touches on of this Chinese cultural trait, I refer readers to
James McKenna's excellent novel, "The Sandpebbles", which was based on his experience in
the U.S. Navy in China in the 1920s. At that time was not unusual for retiring navy
enlisted men to settle down in China, often with a Chinese woman. To paraphrase a line from
the novel, 'For the Chinese, it's quite natural for a foreigner to become a Chinese'. Read
More • Replies: @the grand
wazoo Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Ethnocentrism is not a directly selected for thing – it is unfortunate that HBD
promoters no longer understand second-order effects.
To HBD people, every trait is a simplistic directly selected for thing, not a second or
third order effect of some other trait.
This is a sign of the declining intelligence of our times, this inability to think
complexly.
Anyways, ethnocentrism is a second order effect of egoism – you love yourself, you
love your group. Your group is just a version of yourself.
An ethnocentric society is also a highly competitive and stratified by status one
internally, because it is a society with a high level of egoism – when whites were
ethnocentric, it was the same way with them. And it's the same way in other ethnocentric
societies like China.
The reason whites went from being an intensely ethnocentric group to not being one in
the space of less than a century has nothing to do with genetics, of course, but because
they lost the egocentric perspective – partly as a result of loss of religion, which
inculcated positive self image (one is in a relationship with God), and partly as a result
of the so called objectivity and neutrality required by science, which makes you lose touch
with your natural self love.
If whites ever become ethnocentric again, there will have to be a general rise in
competitiveness also.
Of course, the picture is not one dimensional, and is balanced out by warmth,
camaraderie, and brotherhood. Israelis are fiercely competitive with each other but also
extremely brotherly and helpful to anyone in need.
And whites will be the same way if they become ethnocentric again – but let there
be no illusions about the bad side as well. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Anon [282] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 2:28 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron
Unz It all depends if the other group is thought to be *higher* or *lower* , higher and
lower meaning what they quite universally mean in human business.
See how well a vast number of races are absorbed in China
(Corollary 1: a group seeing itself as *above* all others will avoid intermixing with
every other group).
I don't venture into saying this is wrong this is right these are better those are
worse. Behind the surface, everyone agrees to the rules of the game. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
AaronB says: May 27,
2019 at 2:53 pm GMT • 100 Words @Ron
Unz Individual Jewish communities, especially in extremely remote locations without
connections to the rest of the world, have disappeared. That's not at all unusual. And Jews
have been assimilating into gentile populations throughout history.
Plus, the Jews of Kaifeng have not entirely disappeared.
But I agree with your point that Chinese can and do assimilate racial outsiders –
all ethnocentric groups do. There are Chinese and Indian looking Jews in Israel, and of
course conversion to Judaism is a very real thing.
I cannot think of any ethnocentric group that isn't prepared to assimilate racial
outsiders in the right numbers, provided they demonstrate commitment to the culture –
skin in the game – and aren't numerous enough to rapidly alter the racial character.
Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
We do see a detente in politics. Jews and Irish-Americans initially distrusted and
disliked one another. Southern Democrats, who produced Clinton and Carter, obviously
harbored anti-Jewish feelings (The word anti-Semite refers more to Arabs).
However, Irish-Americans and Jews and Southerners worked together in the Democrat party.
Without the Jewish vote, Clinton would never have been elected (He was undone by his
involvement with one, however).
In this sense, ethnocentrism was replaced by politics.
As for the white identity in America, it was always based upon a value system. Whites
were from all corners of Europe and never bound by blood but by a sense of political and
moral identity.
Once this was gone, whites had no cultural anchor. Asians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and
Italian-Americans to a lesser extent always had a cultural anchor of sorts. White
Americans, for whatever reason, did not seem to. When drugs swept through America,
encouraged by Jews (As well as by Irish-Americans like Timothy Leary and Charles Manson of
course) they ravaged whites and not Jews. BEASTIE BOYS were the first "whiggers" but Jews
never sought to imitate them. Ron Jeremy and Sarah Silverman and Al Goldstein all espoused
sexual freedom and promiscuity but the out-of-wedlock birth rate never soared among
Jews.
Similarly, Asians-Americans and Hindus and Muslims have not really be affected by the
media like whites.
These are only a few of the reasons. But I agree with you that science (Rationalism and
passivity) somehow eroded belief systems essential to European-Americans. Read More •
Replies: @John
Gruskos , @AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
In a number of societies Jews did not particularly thrive. For example, in Calcutta the
Iraqi Jews failed completely and most moved to Israel simply in order to survive
economically (Not due to persecution).
I knew Jews in Kerala personally and they had fared slightly better by intermarrying
with Brahmin women to become the so-called St. Thomas Christians.
But Jews have come and gone from several major civilizations without making a great
impact.
European Jews were, you remember, just that. Sometime after the Diaspora they
intermarried with Roman women at a time when Rome was in the late stages of its glory and
the Askenazi Jews as a race began and subsequently found themselves in the Rhineland as
this rose in prominence.
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in
Europe. Why?
This is debatable. Read More • Replies: @AaronB
, @notanon2
, @Anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
By very willingly accepting and incorporating newcomers, it increased in size roughly
fifty-fold, and grew to be the most powerful state in the world.
Wrong!
Most of the increase was due to high birth rate among old stock Americans, which was in
turn due to affordable family formation (low land prices / high wages).
The highest % increases ever recorded in the decennial census occurred 1790-1830, during
a period of very low immigration levels.
America would have become the world's greatest economic and military power, even if the
total number of immigrants from 1780 to 1970 had been precisely 0. Read More • Agree:
Ron
Unz Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
for whatever reason . . . somehow eroded belief systems essential to
European-Americans
Read Culture of Critique .
American (aka real American, aka un-hyphenated American, aka old-stock American, aka
White American) ethnocentrism was deliberately attacked and destroyed by a series of Jewish
intellectual and political movements, with the intention of facilitating the group
interests of Jews.
The education system, news media and entertainment industry are all viscerally hostile
to American ethnocentrism, but supportive of the ethnocentrism of diaspora peoples living
among the Americans, especially the Jews. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Wizard of Oz says:
May 27,
2019 at 3:45 pm GMT • 100 Words @jeff
stryker It may be pedantically logical to say so, but I think what you are effectually
doing is to deny significance to what Ron said by saying there weren't really very many of
them (because of lack of opportunity for exercosing their particular skills).
As to your last paragraph, what bearing do you think it has on the assimilation, past,
present and future, in America. It could be said that the value added by lawyers and
bankers in industrialising America was very different from the activities in Eastern Europe
which, with or without justice, aroused antagonism. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AaronB says: May 27,
2019 at 4:07 pm GMT • 300 Words @jeff
stryker I'm not sure about that. I believe the Iraqi Jews who traded in India were very
successful, and Iraqi Jews in Israel have a good reputation. I believe the extremely
wealthy British Sasoon family were Iraqi Jews who made their fortune in the India trade.
Interestingly, Iraqi Jews took over many Indian dishes like curry and mango chutney
(known as amba in Israel, and put on schwarma).
The Syrian and Persian Jewish community were also very successful, and Jews had a Golden
Age in Spain.
You are correct though that nowhere did the Jews achieve the same level of prominence as
in post 18th century Europe – and the reason is obviously the European Enlightenment,
which enshrined the rule of Reason and destroyed healthy traditions that allowed Europeans
to compete against Jews.
Before this period, Jewish success in Europe was on par with their performance in Syria
or Persia – successful, but nothing amazing.
And yes, Ashkenazi Jews are indeed actually 50% European (90% and up on the mothers
side), Italian, to be specific, with northern European admixture.
There is a surprising number of Hasidic Jews who look Aryan – tall, blond, and
blue eyed. And if you stroll through the Hasidic areas of Brooklyn you will see lots of
blond kids with blue eyes and pale skin. But there are lots of darker Med types as
well.
The truth is that each Jewish community mixed heavily with the local population –
very heavily – and Jews are anything but a pure ethnic group.
There is an ethnic core, to be sure – but what really shapes them and unites them
is the culture and religion. That's what it takes to make a people and nation. Read More
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
AaronB says: May 27,
2019 at 4:19 pm GMT • 300 Words @jeff
stryker This isn't quite true. I grew up in the modern orthodox community in Brooklyn
in the 90s, and heavy drug use was extremely widespread even among kippa wearing religious
Jews, and indeed all sorts of dysfunction including wild parties and sex. It was truly wild
times – today's kids are so much tamer all across America.
Perhaps it wasn't as bad as in the white community today, and the drugs were different
but not always, but Jews are not magically insulated from social trends.
However, most of these guys that I knew are married with kids and jobs today –
Jewish culture, with its traditions, social cohesiveness, and general rejection of abstract
Enlightenment culture, provided a level of protection and resilience that deracinated and
de-culturalized whites do not have, tragically.
These are only a few of the reasons. But I agree with you that science (Rationalism
and passivity) somehow eroded belief systems essential to European-Americans.
This really key to understanding what's going on with whites, and you understand this
because you live in Asia, and can see a more organic culture first hand.
The solution is simple but very daring and bold – simply relax the role of
rational and abstract thought in life, and an organic culture based on intuition and
different ways of engaging with the world will begin to spontaneously regenerate itself
among whites.
Simply acknowledge human powerlessness and dependence on God.
But this is extremely difficult to do for people addicted to ego and control, and
probably a real collapse is needed before they are willing to accept the help of a higher
power. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Grace Poole says:
May 27,
2019 at 5:02 pm GMT • 200 Words I listened closely to several of Dutton's videos
-- he's gifted and highly knowledgeable; it would be great to see Dutton & E Michael
Jones at a grand conference, UNZpac USA.
re his, Why do the Irish have a low IQ? (93 compared to British 100)
Among other things, he argues that
a. it takes intelligence to migrate
b. the Potato famine induced massive migration; -- the best Irishmen left Ireland
At the same time, I'm trying to get some work done on a house, and in my region, only
Hispanics/Latinos do this work. I'd hire an English-speaking tradesman if I could find
same, but I can't.
The painter, electrician and wannabe carpenters working on my property do not speak
English and understand only rudimentary English; they neither read nor write -- preparing a
prioritized list for their use is pointless. They possess a certain group canniness -- the
painter suggests the electrician, etc., and they are diligent about their work. But
Honduras is not experiencing a brain-drain based on these men.
So I wonder if Dutton got it wrong in some fundamental way: Was the Potato famine
pursued and prolonged by the British precisely to drive cheap labor to Anglo-America, and /
or to pursue the Talmudic dictum, Kill all the best gentiles?
That is pretty close to what we are slowly slowly discovering happened to the German
(and Italian -- thanks, Guido Preparata) people and nation.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/TFqCiJOpWhk?feature=oembed @notanon2
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
AaronB says: May 27,
2019 at 5:05 pm GMT • 100 Words @Bardon
Kaldian Presumably, those Israeli children are seeing racially similar people. So the
response was not to different race people, but to strangers.
Secondly, Israeli culture is no doubt quite different, closely at war with a neighboring
people and subject to periodic terrorist attacks, and infants are conditioned differently
at an early age.
This does not say anything about genetic differences. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in
Europe. Why?
nepotism is one aspect of ethnocentrism.
if group A is more nepotistic than group B then they gain an advantage in small scale
competition (e.g. business) .
Jews in India/China etc hit a wall cos their competitors was the same as them –
this is the thing, Jewish nepotism isn't unusual, most peoples are like that, WEIRD peoples
are the odd ones out.
(this is why they're starting to get out-competed in the US particularly by Indians)
nb ethnocentrism operates at different scales – in peacetime most "ethnic"
competition is very small scale i.e. two extended families competing over a business
opportunity. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide
Thread Display All Comments
But if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly
100% ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity
ever evolve or be maintained? Wouldn't they be about as useful as wings on a gopher?
But most people across the world lived like this, so the whole genetic ethnocentrism or
non ethnocentrism thing seems like it doesn't really make sense. Most Swedish people
probably never saw a non European, and most Anatolian Turks probably never saw a non Turk,
and most Omani Arabs likewise.
Only a very few groups would have had the chance, for relatively short periods, to live
in cosmopolitan cities are areas with clear racial fault lines.
Ethmocentrism is surely a second-order effect and an acquired cultural trait. It also
doesn't make sense that Europeans went from being intensely ethnocentric to very little in
the space of a century. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
anonymous [145] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 5:14 pm GMT • 200 Words It is not a race/ethnicity specific thing; it
is an in-group thing. It is also very much tied to cultural unity.
Why is modern Christianity so entirely lacking in ability to promote any kind of
ethnocentrism?
Europeans lost faith in Christianity after WW2. In 1945, Europe was in ruins with
millions dead, after having fought yet another war that supposedly nobody ever wanted.
People turned inwards and reflected on the past 500 years of European history. There were
numerous wars between Christian states and between Christians and non-Christians. There was
the age of exploration, slavery, colonialism, conquistadors, etc. Christianity itself was
not necessarily blamed, but it didn't need to be; it was just enough that it was associated
with the entire time period. And in 1945, whether rightly or wrongly, these associations
were overwhelmingly negative. Christianity has remained in Europe, of course, but these
days certain aspects are emphasized ("love thy neighbor", "turn the other cheek") over
others. Even secular Europeans still retain certain Christian values which are then
conveniently incorporated into their acceptance of mass immigration.
In comparison, Christianity in the US still retains an aspect of being a force for local
unity in a way that has been lost in Europe. Recent American conflicts have usually been
subtly framed as being a triumph of Christian America over atheist commies or Muslims. Of
course, I am sure that it is just a coincidence that this exists to the benefit of a
certain tribe. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All
Comments
I don't think I buy this theory about low European ethnocentricity at all. I think
it's all the rich degenerate elites who are to blame for the "decline" in
ethnocentricity.
my understanding of ethnocentricity is although it's always there, unless people are
under a direct threat it is a relatively weak force except at the scale where people are
most related e.g. extended family, clan etc and to be a big factor at higher scales it
needs cultural reinforcement.
in the past western elites promoted that cultural reinforcement whereas now they do the
opposite.
so i think euros did gradually get less ethnocentric but it was disguised because the
elites compensated for it artificially with patriotic cultural reinforcement and then when
the elites suddenly stopped (from WW1 onwards) the underlying low ethnocentricity remained.
Read More • Replies: @Cyrano
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
re his, Why do the Irish have a low IQ? (93 compared to British 100)
based on personal experience i both believe and disbelieve this data.
one of the things you notice if you ever work in areas with lots of blue collar
immigrants is the kids are taller and smarter than the parents even if they're marrying
other immigrants from the same place.
keyword: same?
i worked construction (a long time ago) with people from rural Ireland so yeah i can see
where the 93 figure comes from but at the same time I worked with the kids or grand kids of
same and they were "normal" so i think there's a rural inbreeding effect which is being
missed – not inbreeding in the sense of actively marrying close cousins but a long
term effect of people in the same valley marrying each other for so many centuries they're
all effectively close cousins and all it takes to get rid of negative homozygous effects is
marrying someone from the next valley.
i think there's potentially big jumps in average IQ between rural and urban for this
reason and differences in average IQ between genetically similar populations may often be
the result of differences in the ratio of urban : rural : mountain rural. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Anon [421] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 5:41 pm GMT@Colin
Wright English:
"a language is a dialect with an army and navy"
Yiddish:
"a shprakh iz a dyalekt mit an armey aum yam – flot
German:
Eine Sprache ist ein Dialekt mit einer Armee und einer Marine
A comparison of three Germanic languages; where's the supposed Slavic? Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Cyrano says: May 27,
2019 at 5:51 pm GMT • 300 Words @Wizard of
Oz Multiculturalism was invented in lieu of real Socialism – in order to avoid
it. They even borrowed the main mantra from socialism – "We are all equal".
Socialism is about equality, not capitalism. When you hear capitalist talk about
equality you have to know that there is some kind of scam involved.
The whole idea of multiculturalism stinks of Nazi Germany influence. They were the first
to use the term "socialism" for propaganda purposes and the same thing is with the
multiculturalism – it was created for purely propaganda purposes to portray the west
as progressive and liberal – in order to prevent demand for social improvements.
What makes things funnier is that both the Nazis and present day "democracies" were
sworn enemies of socialism – as being the "evil" system, yet when they want to fake
humanization of their system, they borrow elements from socialism. Is than irony or
what?
They are obviously lying about socialism being the "evil" system, because with their
actions they admit that the only way capitalism can progress – is toward socialism.
Now, I am not advocating conversion towards total socialism – that has been tried
– it didn't quite work out. But the improvements that need to be made in capitalism
have to be borrowed from socialism – the only other option is to borrow from
feudalism and that's not going to work either.
"Real" socialism advocated equality among nations and among people within a nation
– provided they stayed where they are. The modern Frankenstein of socialism that they
created in the West with chopped up body parts of socialism, misaligned them and breathed
into the monster the holy spirit of capitalism and they expected it to work.
How can you achieve "equality" by bringing hordes from the 3rd world when you haven't
achieved equality among the original, native born population? But that's the whole point
– isn't it – to pretend that you are striving for some kind of equality,
because you don't want the native born population to move one inch closer to being equal
with the rich elites. Read More • Replies: @notanon2
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
if you and almost all of your ancestors have lived all of their lives in a nearly 100%
ethnically-pure social environment, how would any tendencies toward ethnocentricity ever
evolve or be maintained?
i think people are assuming the "ethno" part of ethnocentricity developed at and for the
ethnic group scale whereas i think it mostly came into being at the clan or extended family
level.
those evolved traits can then be culturally reinforced to operate at the ethnic group
level depending on various factors
– inclination of elites to promote that cultural reinforcement
– how actually related the group is at the group level
– peace or war Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
Cyrano says: May 27,
2019 at 6:13 pm GMT • 100 Words @notanon2
So what are you saying, that in order to strengthen ethnic bonds, they should organize
pow-wows? Ethnic bonds are as strong as ever in Europe.
The rich elites are ruining societies in order to preserve their personal wealth.
If they want to test how strong are the ethnic ties, why not one single country which is
now under threat of multiculturalism has organized a referendum on immigration? Then you'll
find out how strong the ethnic bonds are.
But I guess "democracy" was only designed to let you choose which clown from the deep
state you want to entertain you in the next 4 years. You were never asked for opinion on
things that really matter.
Every western country should organize "Brexit" style referendum on such a crucial issue
which threatens the survival of the state – immigration. Read More • Replies:
@notanon2
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Multiculturalism was invented in lieu of real Socialism
the multicult was invented cos slavery was abolished and Emma Lazarus' family needed a
new source of cheap labor. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
That is the general area where The Pale of Settlement was established hundred of years
later by the Jews Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread
Hide Thread Display All Comments
So what are you saying, that in order to strengthen ethnic bonds, they should organize
pow-wows?
the elites used to actively promote patriotism to reinforce ethnocentricity but now they
promote anti-nationalism.
Ethnic bonds are as strong as ever in Europe.
they're still strong in south and east Europe but less so in NW Europe.
The rich elites are ruining societies in order to preserve their personal wealth.
yes partly that but also partly an anti-nationalist reaction to the world wars because
Europeans developed technology that made war dysgenic even for the winners.
If they want to test how strong are the ethnic ties, why not one single country which
is now under threat of multiculturalism has organized a referendum on immigration? Then
you'll find out how strong the ethnic bonds are.
imo the level of overt ethocentricity displayed by a population will be a combination
of
– baseline level
– the level of elite reinforcement (or not)
– the level of external threat
so yes even with a low baseline and the elites actively suppressing the normal reaction
to being replaced in your own homeland, being replaced is clearly enough of a threat to get
people to vote against it in a referendum but so far not enough to force politicians to put
it to a referendum.
so far all most people do is move away. this may change when there's nowhere left to
run. Read More • Replies: @Vianney
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Vianney says: May 27,
2019 at 8:48 pm GMT • 100 Words @notanon2
The trials by NY Jewish lawyers of Alt Right protesters in Charlottesville COULD serve as a
referendum if a few, or better yet, a group or Law School summoned the cajones to argue on
the side of American heritage.
It's Thomas Jefferson's city, fer chrissake, that is being reduced to "remember Munich"
status.
No mere happenstance.
Is there no one left in Charlottesville with enough pride to snatch up and raise high
the American flag rather than the blue 6-star? Read More • Replies: @notanon2
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
notanon2 says: May 27, 2019
at 9:12 pm GMT@Vianney
given the education system only went fully anti-white c. 10 years ago the people who
understand what is happening and have (or will have) the skills to fight back in the courts
are probably still in college or only recently left. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon [427] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 10:16 pm GMT • 300 Words @Ron
Unz Chinese have lived in Southeast Asia since the 1800's, yet in virtually all SEA
countries, they remain distinct as an ethnic group, rarely intermarry with non-Chinese.
Growing up as an ethnic Chinese minority in Malaysia, I was taught to believe that the
Chinese were the superior race, compared to the lazy, low IQ Malays or Indians.
Since immigrating to the US in my teens in the 80's, I have watched with alarm how much
immigration from mainland China has grown in the US in the last 2 decades. My mixed race
kids tell me the Chinese kids in school tell them their mainland Chinese parents always
tell them "China #1!", and they wonder why their parents moved to the US (the answer:
because they are all corrupt and need to get out with their ill gotten gains before they
get thrown in jail). Chinese ethnocentrism is real and it is ugly.
However, as with all generalization, there are always exceptions and I am one such. I've
grown to despise my own tribe over the last 4 decades. I see how the Chinese behave the
world over, whether they are the majority or minority, they are greedy, selfish, dishonest,
rude, loud, clannish and have excessive ethnic pride, which causes many to completely lack
introspection. They are also a filthy tribe who does not take care of their environment,
their yard, and lack any kind of civic mindedness. The Cantonese are an especially
obnoxious tribe among the Chinese, absolutely abominable.
I think fewer Chinese is a good thing for the world. My tribe needs to die out, either
through childlessness or intermarriage. The world will be a better place. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
mcohen says: May 27,
2019 at 10:30 pm GMT • 100 Words "Those who advocate Multiculturalism seem to have
lost an important instinct towards group -- and thus genetic -- preservation. Once a
society, as a whole, espouses Multiculturalism as a dominant ideology then the society is
acting against its own genetic interests and will ultimately destroy itself."
Ed Dutton
Bullshit.inbreeding leads to retardation and genetic diseases
As defined
inbreed
/ɪnˈbriːd/
verb
gerund or present participle: inbreeding
breed from closely related people or animals, especially over many generations.
"persistent inbreeding has produced an unusually high frequency of sufferers from this
disease" Read More • Replies: @anon
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
the grand wazoo says:
May 27, 2019
at 10:33 pm GMT • 100 Words @david
fields I doubt the Chinese, or Asians in general are quick to assimilate by marriage. How
many mixed couples, i.e. Asian/White, Asian/Black, do we see. Not many and closer to none,
even here in liberal metro LA. I was at a party in Palos Verdes, Ca. the other day. There
were a number of Asian couples present, but not 1 mixed. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Anon [427] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 10:38 pm GMT • 200 Words @Cyrano
Lack of ethnocentrism in whites is almost entirely caused by the last 5 decades of
relentless Jewish brainwashing and browbeating through their control of the media and the
education establishment. Jews have beaten white guilts into the white psyche to the point
where whites are either afraid to express their true feelings or are completely brainwashed
into believing in their own evilness. It's a real shame as Northern Europeans especially
from Germany and Scandinavia are probably the best race: intelligent, industrious, and
quite possibly the only truly honest people on earth.
European countries are the most beautiful places on earth not because they are the
richest -- many Europeans actually live quite modestly by American standards, they live in
small apartments or homes and don't make that much money compared to many upper middle
class professionals in the US, but they take care of their environments. They build
beautiful homes, grow beautiful gardens and yards, keep their environments clean and tidy,
and obey the law. It makes their societies look rich by comparison.
People in other parts of the world need to take a page from the Northern Europeans and
take better care of their environments. Beautiful places put people in better moods, and
make them want to be better people, e.g. more honest and law abiding. Read More •
Replies: @Cyrano
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
anon [297] • Disclaimer says: May 27,
2019 at 10:46 pm GMT@mcohen I
agree, therefore all Jews should be forced to interbreed exclusively with Nigerians to solve
their severe inbreeding problem. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter
This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
For various reasons, Jews have traditionally been exceptionally resistant to
absorption into local populations, remaining as a distinct group sometimes after
thousands of years of living within a particular host population.
Throughout ancient Europe, Jews were not allowed to own land and were often despised as
the money lenders throughout the diaspora. I don't know how hard it would've been for the
Jews to ditch Judaism, adopt Christianity, intermarry and completely assimilate with the
native Europeans, but at least the Spaniards had tried to get them to do that, to no avail.
I can only surmise that the Jewish religion is a very strong religion that keeps the Jews
believing out of fear or a strong sense of kinship.
However, many Jews in the US have become secular, yet continue to identify as Jews.
Perhaps this is because membership has its privileges, Jews help out other Jews in
business, academia, politics etc. But lately I'm thinking it has a lot to do with Israel.
There seems to be more and more "Holocaust Museums" being built all over the west. Who is
building them? Nearly 80m died in WWII, yet all we ever hear about are the 6m. Israel
depends on support from the diaspora to survive, esp. those in the US, both financially and
politically, so they continue to fan up the Holocaust to keep Jews loyal to the tribe, even
as the influence of Judaism wanes. As such, as long as Israel is still around, Jews will
never fully assimilate to whichever country they live in, because Israel wouldn't let them.
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display
All Comments
Anon [427] • Disclaimer says: May
27, 2019 at 11:05 pm GMT@Ghali
Multicultural societies are all failed societies, dysfunctional, chaotic, dog-eat-dog,
every man for himself, everybody hates everybody. Just look at Malaysia or Brazil.
The US is turning into Brazil x 10, with nukes. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc.
More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Parsnipitous says:
May 27, 2019
at 11:07 pm GMT@obwandiyag
You're such an idiot, Obi Wan. I don't mind the leftist/antiracist bent, but you're making
such poor arguments. What is your connection here? You getting paid? Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Cyrano says: May 27,
2019 at 11:20 pm GMT • 100 Words @Anon
Here we go about the Jews again. Can we leave them out of at least one conversation?
Ethnocentrism is "losing strength" today because it's actively suppressed by the elites.
They do this by equating ethnocentrism with racism and accusing only the deplorables of
being racists, while they – the rich degenerates are so above it.
The elites implemented multiculturalism because it's the cheapest form of "socialism".
Cheapest for them – it didn't cost them a penny, in the long run Multiculturalism is
going to be the most expensive and destructive form of phony socialism for each country
that embraced it. Read More • Replies: @Time to
Wake Up , @Vianney
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Jews probably NEVER fared as well in Spain or India or China or Persia as they did in
Europe. Why?
Jews did well in Europe because the native Europeans are honest and easy to rip off. The
dishonest always make the honest look stupid by comparison.
But the Spaniards, Indians, Chinese, Persians are as dishonest and unscrupulous as the
Jews, so they have no advantage over these groups. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Time to Wake Up says:
May 27, 2019
at 11:58 pm GMT@Cyrano
Yep, the (((elites))) wanted multiculturalism. When every group is an outgroup, (((they)))
will no longer stick out as the only outgroup and be easily called out for all their
treacheries. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide
Thread Display All Comments
Vianney says: May 28,
2019 at 12:23 am GMT • 100 Words @Cyrano
Jewish-designed, intended and enforced brain washing -- they, themselves, call it
psychological warfare, is an historical fact and a present reality.
There may be other groups or causal factors responsible for breakdown of
ethnocentricism, but Jewish ideology and praxis ranks at or near the top of the list.
It's foolish and self-destructive to ignore an accurate diagnosis out of fear of
'offending the Jew.' That is a Jewish defense mechanism. A soldier does not refrain from
dispatching an adversary just because the adversary calls him names. Read More Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Agathocles says:
May 28,
2019 at 12:25 am GMT • 300 Words We should recognise that within Europe there is
significant disparities in levels of ethno-centrism. For example, the Greek belief in the
superiority of its culture compared to others (somewhat of a proxy of ethno-centrism) is
through the roof compared to northern and western Europe.
Despite being one of history's most important trading people, being in a part of the
world which is not isolated and also having been colonised by Muslim Turks for 400 or so
years, Greeks have retained remarkable consistency in their genetic composition with only
relatively small intrusions of Slavic ancestry primarily in Macedonia and some Levantine
intrusions in Cyprus.
The key to ethnocentricity, which is not addressed by many, is a strong and stable
family structure as ethnicity is largely passed on by genes and family education. Of
course, state education is also critical. And Greeks again show some of the healthiest
signs in the developed world on this front. Children born out of wedlock in the two
Hellenic states of Greece and Cyprus are very low.
Of course, even the Greek family is not immune to modern lifestyle-related diseases as
witnessed by the low birthrate.
As for state education, although the Greek state has sometimes been disorganised,
wherever Greeks go, they establish two things first: a church and school often with the
support of the Greek state. Both institutions are key vehicles for the perpetuation of
ethno-centric values Read More • Replies: @utu
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
utu
says: May 28, 2019
at 12:44 am GMT@Agathocles
And Greeks have been ranked with the highest in Europe anti-Semitism index by ADL. Read More
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Similarly Chinese cannot get over on Koreans or Japanese like they can on Southeast
Asians. Why? Because they have the same characteristics as Chinese.
Makes sense the Jews fared less well in Southern Europe getting over on wary and shrewd
Sicilians or Spanish. Read More • Replies: @AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
But I agree with your general point – Jewish dominance after the Enlightenment is
only because northern Europeans made themselves vulnerable to group competition.
This is undoubtedly correct. Read More • Replies: @jeff
stryker Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread
Display All Comments
Jews had their Abbie Hoffmans (A real charmer who once doled out advice on how crash Bar
Mitzvah's in STEAL THIS BOOK) and their whiggers (BEASTIE BOYS made EMINEM look positively
sophisticated) and their sexual degenerates (Goldstein, Ron Jeremy, Sarah Silverman).
But Jews never regarded these people as examples of any kind. They merely regarded them
as degenerates who HAPPENED to be Jewish.
Similarly, crack cocaine's popularity affected Jews in the boroughs of New York as well.
But statistically less.
As for wild teenage behavior among whites or Jews, this seemed to reach a peak in the
post-70's period of FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH and by 1983 dissipated during the Reagan
Revolution.
When one watches the original KARATE KID today their first thought is "where are the
police? Where's the principal?" Read More • Replies: @AaronB
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
AaronB says: May 28,
2019 at 1:32 am GMT@jeff
stryker I have always despised the Beastie Boys, I can tell you that. Utterly talentless,
vulgar, hacks. Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide
Thread Display All Comments
Spain is ostensibly easy to explain. There was less animosity between Muslims and Jews
at that time than between Muslims and Catholics, provided the Jews paid their taxes. Same
as the Maghreb. Which the Catholics were aware of and so expelled the Jews along with the
Muslims.
In addition to the Enlightenment is the European class system, from which Jews were
relatively free.
Whereas in Southern Europe, trade had existed in Rome for a long time. There was also
the issue of usury.
"... In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire, who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts. ..."
"... Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones. ..."
"... The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy. ..."
"... Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was thought to be now. ..."
"... The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami. It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions. ..."
"... The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through austerity to make up for the loss of money. ..."
During the last days a right wing politician in Austria was taken down by using an elaborate sting. Until Friday Heinz-Christian
Strache was leader of the far right (but not fascist) Freedom Party of Austria (FPOe) and the Vice Chancellor of the country. On
Friday morning two German papers, the Sueddeutsche Zeitung and Der Spiegelpublished
(German)
reports (English) about an old video that was made to take Strache down.
The FPOe has good connections with United Russia, the party of the Russian President Putin, and to other right-wing parties in
east Europe. It's pro-Russian position has led to verbal attacks on and defamation of the party from NATO supporting and neoliberal
circles.
In July 2017 Strache and his right hand man Johann Gudenus, who is also the big number in the FPOe, get invited for dinner to
a rented villa on Ibiza, the Spanish tourist island in the Mediterranean. They are told that the daughter of a Russian billionaire
plans large investments in Austria. It was said that she would like to help his party. The alleged daughter of the Russian billionaire,
who is actually also Austrian, and her "friend" serve an expensive dinner. Alcohol flows freely. The pair offers a large party donation
but asks for returns in form of mark ups on public contracts.
Unknown to Strache the villa is professionally bugged with many hidden cameras and microphones.
A scene from the video. Source: Der Falter (vid,
German)
During the six hour long party several schemes get proposed by the "Russian" and are discussed. Strache rejects most of them.
He insists several times that everything they plan or do must be legal and conform to the law. He says that a large donation could
probably be funneled through an endowment that would then support his party. It is a gray area under Austrian party financing laws.
They also discuss if the "Russian" could buy the Kronen Zeitung , Austria's powerful tabloid, and use it to prop up his party.
The evening goes on with several bottles of vodka on the table. Starche gets a bit drunk and boosts in front of the "oligarch
daughter" about all his connections to rich and powerful people. He does not actually have these.
Strache says that, in exchange for help for his party, the "Russian" could get public contracts for highway building and repair.
Currently most of such contracts in Austria go to the large Austrian company, STRABAG, that is owned by a neoliberal billionaire
who opposes the FPOe. At that time Strache was not yet in the government and had no way to decide about such contracts.
At one point Strache seems to understand that the whole thing is a setup. But his right hand man calms him down and vouches
for the "Russian". The sting ends with Strache and his companion leaving the place. The never again see the "Russian" and her co-plotter.
Nothing they talked about will ever come to fruition.
Three month later Strache and his party win more than 20% in the Austrian election and form a coalition government with the
conservative party OeVP led by Chancellor Sebastian Kurz. Even while the FPOe controls several ministries, it does not achieve much
politically. It lacks a real program and the government's policies are mostly run by the conservatives.
Nearly two years after the evening on Ibiza, ten days before the European parliament election in which Strache's party is predicted
to achieve good results, a video of the evening on Ibiza is handed to two German papers which are known to be have strong transatlanticist
leanings and have previously been used for other shady 'leaks'. The papers do not hesitate to take part in the plot and publish extensive
reports about the video.
After the reports appeared Strache immediately
stepped down and the conservatives
ended the coalition with his party. Austria will now have new elections.
On Bloomberg Leonid Bershidsky
opines
on the case:
Strache's discussion with the Russian oligarch's fake niece shows a propensity for dirty dealing that has nothing to do with idealistic
nationalism. Nationalist populists often agitate against entrenched, corrupt elites and pledge to drain various swamps. In the
videos, however, Strache and Gudenus behave like true swamp creatures, savoring rumors of drug and sex scandals in Austrian politics
and discussing how to create an authoritarian media machine like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban's.
I do not believe that the people who voted for the FPOe (and similar parties in other countries) will subscribe to that view.
The politics of the main stream parties in Austria have for decades been notoriously corrupt. Compared to them Strache and his party
are astonishingly clean. In the video he insists several times that everything must stay within the legal realm. Whenever the "Russian"
puts forward a likely illegal scheme, Starche emphatically rejects it.
Bershidsky continues:
Strache, as one of the few nationalist populists in government in the European Union's wealthier member states, was an important
member of the movement Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini has been trying to cobble together ahead of the European Parliament
election that will take place next week. On Saturday, he was supposed to attend a Salvini-led rally in Milan with other like-minded
politicians from across Europe. Instead, he was in Vienna apologizing to his wife and to Kurz and protesting pitifully that he'd
been the victim of a "political assassination" -- a poisonous rain on the Italian right-winger's parade.
...
This leaves the European far right in disarray and plays into the hands of centrist and leftist forces ahead of next week's election.
Salvini's unifying effort has been thoroughly undermined, ...
This is also a misreading of the case. The right-wing parties will use the case to boost their legitimacy.
Strache was obviously set up by some intelligence services, probably a German one with a British assist. The original aim was
likely to blackmail him. But during the meeting on Ibiza Strache promised and did nothing illegal. Looking for potential support
for his party is not a sin. Neither is discussing investments in Austria with a "daughter of a Russian oligarch." Some boosting while
drunk is hardly a reason to go to jail. When the incident provided too little material to claim that Strache is corrupt, the video
was held back until the right moment to politically assassinate him with the largest potential damage to his party. That moment was
thought to be now.
But that Strache stepped down after the sudden media assault only makes him more convincing. The right-wing all over Europe will
see him as a martyr who was politically assassinated because he worked for their cause. The issue will increase the right-wingers
hate against the 'liberal' establishment. It will further motivate them: "They attack us because we are right and winning." The new
far-right block Natteo Salvini
will setup in the European Parliament will likely receive a record share of votes.
Establishment writers notoriously misinterpret the new right wing parties and their followers. This stand-offish sentence in the
Spiegel story about Strache's party demonstrates the problem:
In the last election, the party drew significant support from the working class, in part because of his ability to simplify even
the most complicated of issues and play the common man, even in his role as vice chancellor.
The implicit thesis, that the working class is too dumb to understand the "most complicated of issues", is not only incredibly
snobbish but utterly false. The working class understands very well what the establishment parties have done to it and continue to
do. The increasing vote share of the far-right is a direct consequence of the behavior of the neoliberal center and of the lack of
real left alternatives.
Last week, before the Strache video appeared, Craig Murray
put his finger on the wound:
The massive economic shock following the banking collapse of 2007–8 is the direct cause of the crisis of confidence which is affecting
almost all the institutions of western representative democracy. The banking collapse was not a natural event, like a tsunami.
It was a direct result of man-made systems and artifices which permitted wealth to be generated and hoarded primarily through
multiple financial transactions rather than by the actual production and sale of concrete goods, and which then disproportionately
funnelled wealth to those engaged in the mechanics of the transactions.
...
The rejection of the political class manifests itself in different ways and has been diverted down a number of entirely blind
alleys giving unfulfilled promise of a fresh start – Brexit, Trump, Macron. As the vote share of the established political parties
– and public engagement with established political institutions – falls everywhere, the chattering classes deride the political
symptoms of status quo rejection by the people as "populism". It is not populism to make sophisticated arguments that undermine
the received political wisdom and take on the entire weight of established media opinion.
If one wants to take down the far right one has to do so with arguments and good politics for the working class. Most people,
especially working class people, have a strong sense for justice. The political assassination of Christian Strache is unjust. What
was done during the 2007-8 banking crisis was utterly corrupt and also unjust. Instead of going to jail the bankers were rewarded
with extreme amounts of money for their assault on the well being of the people. The public was then told that it must starve through
austerity to make up for the loss of money.
While I consider myself to be a strong leftist who opposes the right wherever possible, I believe to understand why people vote
for Strache's FBOe and similar parties. When one talks to these people issues of injustice and inequality always come up. The new
'populist' parties at least claim to fight against the injustice done to the common men. Unlike most of the establishment parties
they seem to be still mostly clean and not yet corrupted.
In the early 1990s Strache actually flirted with violent fascists but he rejected their way. While he has far-right opinions,
he and his like are no danger to our societies. If we can not accept that Strache and his followers have some legitimate causes,
we will soon find us confronted with way more extreme people. The neoliberal establishment seems to do its best to achieve that.
Posted by b on May 19, 2019 at 01:10 PM |
Permalink
It seems as if British Jewish pressure groups have achieved their goal: anti-Semitism is now
a mass movement in the UK. The rabid Zionist
Algemeiner reports that "Antisemitism and virulent Israel-hatred were rife on Saturday at a
pro-Palestinian demonstration in London."
The Jewish press seems to be upset by a pro-Palestinian march that assembled at the offices
of the BBC, not too far from a synagogue. I guess that the rationale is simple: once London is
dotted with synagogues, human rights enthusiasts will be pushed out of the city. They will have
to gather somewhere out of the green belt.
Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such
as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement? If
anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism.
Jewish outlets are also upset by images of the Star of David crossed with a swastika. To
start with, those who equate Israel with Nazi Germany actually contemplate the memory of the
Holocaust and are by no means 'deniers.' I guess that the time is ripe for Zionists and
supporters of Israel to accept that in consideration of the ongoing Israeli racist crime in
Palestine, the Star of David has become a symbol of evil in the eyes of many.
The Jewish press is upset by the slogan "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free"
that calls for Israel's destruction. I would actually expect Jews who seem to be upset by the
Hitlerian concept of an 'Aryans-only state' to accept that the concept of a 'Jews-only state'
is equally disturbing.' They should support Israel becoming 'a state of its citizens' and
accept that sooner or later this state will evolve into Palestine, from the river to the
sea.
The Jewish press is totally irritated by Jewish Voice for Labour's Secretary Glyn Secker,
who claimed that pro-Israel Labour officials were a "fifth column" in the party and asked,
"What on earth are Jews doing in the gutter with these rats?" I would remind my readers that
Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL) is itself a Jewish racist exclusive
political body that wouldn't accept non-Jews into its ranks. I have wondered more than once how
it is possible that the anti-racist Jeremy Corbyn is willing to be associated with such a body.
However, in his statement (if quoted correctly by the Jewish press), secretary Glyn Secker
actually expresses the most disturbing tribal supremacist view. He looks down at a bunch of
labour MPs whom he labels 'rats' and call for his Jewish brethren to disassociate from these
low creatures. Glyn, in practice, sustains the Jew/Goy binary divide. He should actually
receive the Kosher weekly award rather than be abused by the Zionist league.
But we can be reassured. Campaign Against Antisemitism has already confirmed that they are
"reviewing the evidence that we gathered today. Where crimes have been committed, we will work
with the authorities to ensure that there are arrests and prosecutions."
ORDER IT NOW
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against
anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist
campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most
national election polls . Branding Nigel Farage as an
anti-Semite didn't touch the man whose party is
polling higher than the Tories and Labour combined in the coming European Parliament
election. One way to look at it is to argue that Brits are not moved by the Jewish
anti-Semitism hysteria. Another way to look at it is to conclude that Brits are actually
grossly disturbed by the anti-Semitism frenzy. Being hated by the Zionist lobby has become a
badge of honour, an entry ticket to Britain's political premiership.
The facts on the ground are undeniable. The more Jewish bodies campaign against
anti-Semitism the more opposition to Jewish politics is detected. The relentless Zionist
campaign against Corbyn didn't hurt him, as he is still leading in most national election
polls.
In contrast to the 1960's Israel is starting to look unfashionable. Young people feel
embarrassed to be associated with Jewish activism and Zionism.
Being unfashionable is a very serious state of affairs. Many failing businesses will
testify to this. You do all the tried and tested stuff, and it just doesn't work.
@Grace
Poole Why is a Jewish only state disturbing? It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only
countries.
Could I move to Iran?
If Israel becomes a theocracy not a democracy, who cares. Look at the neighborhood.
If not Jewish only then what a Jihad state like the rest of the Arab world?
Give Israel the razor blade.
All you dog noses who claim the Jews made a banquet from the holocaust. Just look at the meal
the Arabs made from those original 750,000 refugees created by the State of Israel founding
war.
Cry me a river. They have an entire UN agency devoted to their every need, and status to 3rd
and 4th generation children of the originals not living in the country, who have citizenship
else where, How does that add up to the 5 million diaspora pals.
It is all such a game to see Israel go down mostly thru jealously that the Jews came from the
ashes of near by extension to create the best country over there.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and Gaza
to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve the
problem. No one wants to solve the problem they just want to see the Jews go down. Gilad
licks his lips over it.
@Fran
Taubman "There's always kind of a calming feeling I tell folks when I think of the
Holocaust, and the tragedy of the Holocaust, and the fact that it was my ancestors --
Palestinians -- who lost their land and some lost their lives, their livelihood, their human
dignity, their existence in many ways, have been wiped out, and some people's passports,"
said Tlaib.
"And just all of it was in the name of trying to create a safe haven for Jews, post-the
Holocaust, post-the tragedy and the horrific persecution of Jews across the world at that
time. And I love the fact that it was my ancestors that provided that, right, in many ways.
But they did it in a way that took their human dignity away and it was forced on them."
Because Jews hold the establishment of Israel to be a prerequisite for the destruction of
all other nations in a final world war, which the Jews seem intent on instigating with Islam.
Zohar Shemot 32a.
After which Israel is slated to be the only remaining national power (everyone else being
destroyed).
Do not forget your books. We don't.
Why is a non-Jewish European-only State disturbing to you and other Jews?
You have your own state but refuse the same to others. You are not Europeans (Brits,
Germans, etc) as these were originally ethnic-racial categories before you interfered. Yet
you claim them your yourselves as well, and in doing so deny everyone else an exclusive
identity.
Jews only allow themselves an exclusive identity, because your "god" (the writing of Jews)
only gave Judea a nation. Correct?
Asking moronic questions at this point, which everyone knows the answer to, is insulting.
You people are not innocent, are not dumb, and you know precisely why people are hostile to
your mass genocidal, supremacist tribe.
I would pay each one of the Pals 2 million to move to Jordan from the West Bank, and
Gaza to the Sinai with joint ownership with Egypt. But that is a good idea and would solve
the problem.
At a cost of $9 trillion. Who is going to pay?
Realistically, offer $100,000 per person, or $450 billion total. Double that to include
the diaspora Pals, and close the refugee camps. If the resettlement took place over a decade,
it would cost $90 billion a year, which could come from the US Defense budget. The latter
could be wound down over the same decade, as it would no longer be needed to fight wars on
behalf of Israel. Israel would get land and peace; Palestinians would be well compensated;
and the USA would be relieved of its duty as a Middle-Eastern warmonger. Everybody wins.
What's not to like?
However, to gain approval for the plan in the USA, it would be necessary to show that the
expenditure is both worthwhile and an improvement over the status quo . This would
mean explaining what the status quo actually is; and how and why it has come about.
Unfortunately, this information is so inflammatory that it can never be publicly
discussed.
I don't think this is true. A few years back, Daniel Finkelstein of the (London) Times
characterised British anti-semitism as "background noise".
The pro-Palestinian demonstrations are the "exception that proves the rule". Their support
has two cores: radical Muslims, and political activists on the Left. Neither is a mass
movement.
The British Left tends to support people who have the most "victim points". Rightly or
wrongly, they believe that Palestinians have a lot of victim points and, as the Holocaust
moves from living memory into history, that Israelis and diaspora Jews have very few.
Furthermore, the Left particularly seeks ogres who are white and Western. Paradoxically,
they dislike Israel because Israelis are similar to Britons, not because they are different.
In contrast, massacres by Saddam Hussein, ISIS, or Rwandans never attracted much opprobrium
from the Left. The idea of holding people to a lower moral standard, the less they look or
sound like oneself, is obviously racist; but it is followed by people who genuinely believe
that they are the least racist people on earth.
@nicholas
nicola I hope the collective Ummah looks at:
Somalia
All of Africa
China
Myamar
All of Arabia
Slave labor in Libya
Women's rights in the Islamic world
Genital mutilation
beheadings
The entire muslim population in Israel has quadrupled since 1948. I guess the slaughtering
of Muslims is not going so well.
You are deranged and delusional.
Jews demand their own exclusive state (subsidized by goyim), the privilege to cleanse
their sacred (and expanding) Jews-Only territory of native gentiles, and the right to travel
(and live) among the goyim as they see fit.
And don't you dare complain about these privileges. That's anti-Semitism!
And then there's the matter of speech.
Jews not only enjoy top tier access to the MSM (since they've conspired to buy up most of
it for the undisclosed purpose of advancing pan-Zionist hegemony) but they actively and
openly form teams, lobbies and NGOs to limit the right and opportunity of others to speak
freely and assemble lawfully for the purpose of expressing their own political
grievances.
Resistance and resentment to the entrenched double-standards that favor Jews, and
state-sponsored lawlessness that empowers Israel, is routinely decried as anti-Jewish
'bigotry'. It is also mislabeled as 'anti-Semitism'. This keeps the opposition weak and
off-balance.
How very clever. How very diabolical.
Why not call 'anti-Semitism what it is?
So-called 'anti-Semitism' is simply anti-Jewishness (or counter-Jewisness). It is merely
an attitude.
Depending upon the circumstances, this attitude might be right or it may be wrong. But
'anti-Semitism' is all about Jews, their behavior, and their impact on non-Jews. Why not
focus on this inescapable fact?
And since 'anti-Semitism' is not about 'Semites' at all, the very term itself is something
of a canard.
On the other hand, organized Jewry is truly powerful. Sometimes it does real damage.
Sometimes it does real harm. Sometimes it destroys. Why can't we talk about it openly?
Calling morally-grounded opposition to the real damage and real harm done by Jews
'anti-Semitism' is a calculated libel.
On the other hand, identifying and castigating organized Jewry for its various sins is
vital, courageous, and healthy. So do the right thing.
When I was much younger and in Graduate School I hosted three British students who were on a
summer sabbatical at the medical college I was attending.
There was no particular reason that the Jews in America came up over beers, many beers
(Texans and the British like beer equally well). But they told me that there was and
expression among common British about Jews, and, no it's not that the only good Jew is a dead
Jew.
It was that "antisemitism is when one hates the Jews more than is absolutely
necessary".
"Jewish outlets complain that participants brandished 'antisemitic badges and placards,' such
as "Israel provokes anti-Semitism." I am puzzled. Is this really an anti-Semitic statement?
If anything, it is an attempt to identify the cause of anti-Semitism."
Yep, absolutely true.
It's not their religion about which folks object. It's not their race, if you want to call
it a race.
IT'S THEIR
BEHAVIOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Wrong. At the time, Haj Amin al-Husseini, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, was a supporter
and ally of Hitler. When the two met, al-Husseini told Hitler that they shared the same
enemies: "the English, the Jews, and the Communists." The two went on to scheme about how
best to set upon and destroy the Jews of the Middle East. What's more, the Arabs regularly
massacred Jews in Mandatory Palestine.
Lies are the lifeblood of anti-Semitism, and there's a purpose to Tlaib's false history.
It serves to bolster the lie that the Jews waged war on a friendly and welcoming people,
stole their land, and condemned them to ruin. Anti-Semitism depends on lies because its
very motive is to hide the truth of one's own failings and lay blame on the Jews. The
history of anti-Semitism is, in a sense, a history of wicked fabrications: From Jewish
deicide, to the blood libel, to the claims of Jewish sorcery, to The Protocols of the
Elders of Zion, to the idea that Jews were tipped off about 9/11, to the claim that Jews
push the U.S. into wars, to the outrage over Jews supposedly buying politicians, to lies
about Israel's founding.
Tlaib and Omar are exemplars of this tradition, peddlers of anti-Semitic folktales. In
addition to spouting revisionist history, Tlaib has accused America's Israel-supporters of
dual loyalty. Omar has done that and more, claiming that Israel has hypnotized the world
into not seeing the evil it perpetrates, and stating that America's pro-Israel policies are
simply purchased by those who support the Jewish state.
It is a very powerful and accurate expression to say that Israel is "unfashionable" –
it is also true that most young people today feel no connection to the holocaust – when
Rashida uses the word "comforting" to refer to her people's sacrifice for the Jews, I feel
that the customary Zionist response to call these expressions "canards" will also be seen as
an unfashionable response. Thank God for brave people like Tlaid and Omar who express
distaste for the unfashionable and vulgar behavior of Israel and Zionists. Omar and Tlaib
have already emboldened millions of others who share their ambivalence and horror, when they
read about the Israel colonist settlers and their brutality to the Palestinians they displace
.
It is surrounded by 32 Apartheid muslim only countries.
Not so. Lebanon, Syria, and even Egypt have Christian minorities that have been protected
over the years. Jordan has a few, but not many. Iraq, prior to Israel's proxy war on Saddam
had plenty of Christians, including Tariq Aziz, one of Saddam's ministers.. Palestine has/had
Christians that were killed by Israelis in the same way Muslims were.
Could I move to Iran?
I don't know, I'm not in charge of the Iranian immigration policy. Why not ask the Jews
who are members of the Majles? You know, the legislative body with seats reserved for Jews
and other minorities.
Like most Zionists, you seem to ignore the part where T.E. Lawrence got the go ahead from
the British government to promise Arabs, which included Palestine, freedom from the Ottomans
and self rule, in exchange for a revolt against them. That promise was never kept. The
philo-Semite mass murderer Churchill is alleged to have organized Lawrence's
assassination. http://www.criminalelement.com/the-murder-of-lawrence-of-arabia-tony-hays/
The new millennium has seen a marked increase in parties and movements which appeal to racial
and ethnic nationalism. What's behind it? I have an idea.
Economic globalization could be a factor, as multinational corporations have shifted
operations and production around the globe, to places where labor is cheaper and there's less
official concern for public well-being. That's meant the loss of skilled-labor jobs in a
number of countries with relatively high wages and state regulation in the name of public
interest. There's doubtless anger that such jobs have been lost to Mexicans, Chinese,
Filipinos, and people of other nations. But there's also evidence that this racial-ethnic
anger is local and less abstract. Something else has triggered highly authoritarian
Conservatives, I think.
The studies of Conservatives and authoritarians which I've cited in previous essays [
here
and here ]
suggested that these individuals are more sensitive to, and more alarmed by, conditions which
present them with uncertainty. Any change from the status quo will do that. Consequently, any
perceived deviation from the traditional order, with its established culture and hierarchies,
will cause them to band together and fight for the status quo ante.
It's my hypothesis that, in many nations around the world, the 21st Century brought with
it the increased presence and upward mobility of populations which Conservative/authoritarian
citizens considered non-traditional and lower status. Conservative/authoritarian citizens
would have viewed these social changes as threats to their traditional cultures and
hierarchies, and they would have taken political actions intended to conserve or restore
their traditional orders [e.g., to "Make America Great Again"].
Between 2000 and 2015, estimated global
migration increased from about 173 million migrants to 244 million migrants, a jump of
41% (if I did the math correctly). Here are the top 10 countries to which they migrated:
The Alarming Rise of Ukraine's Neo-Nazi MPs Since the 2014 "Pro-democracy Revolution"
By Shane Quinn
Global Research, April 26, 2019 Region: Europe Theme: History In-depth Report:
UKRAINE
REPORT
Less than two years ago, the Ukraine's parliament (Verkhovna Rada) voted to outlaw the St
George's Ribbon, an emblem often worn to commemorate those who liberated the Soviet Union from
Hitler's rule. Up to seven million Ukrainian infantrymen comprised part of the Red Army during
their struggle against Nazi Germany, as Hitler was finally broken in the east.
By winter 1943, the once apparently indestructible Wehrmacht was spinning on its tail, their
officers with their heads turning about westward, as they gradually retreated towards the
German frontiers. Come the spring of 1945, about 2.5 million dead Ukrainian soldiers lay strewn
across central and eastern Europe, many of their bodies never to be recovered.
The decision by an increasingly far-right Ukrainian parliament to ban remembrance symbols
which commemorate those who fought against the Third Reich is, therefore, a desecration of
their memory. It is an attempt to wash over that awful suffering the Ukrainian state endured
during the Nazi occupation, with Hitler outlining plans to turn the country into a servile
colony of Germanic dominion.
Over elapsing time from the February 2014 US-instituted "pro-democracy revolution", an ever
expanding group of neo-Nazis has been elected to office. Notable amid these menacing figures is
the far-right military commander Yuriy Bereza (image on the right), an MP since November 2014
who was elected under the title "People's Deputy of Ukraine".
Bereza is a member of fascist-infiltrated party, People's Front, which counts among its
prominent MPs the neo-Nazi Andriy Parubiy , Chairman of the Ukrainian parliament since April
2016. In the early 1990s, Parubiy co-founded the far-right Social-National Party of Ukraine
with fellow extremist Oleh Tyahnybok, that later became known as the Svoboda (Freedom)
party.
When, in May 2017, a few of the Ukraine's conscientious MPs objected to moves in banning the
St George's Ribbon, Bereza roared down from his parliamentary seat that he would like to "grab
a machine gun and shoot those bast*rds". Bereza cuts an intimidating figure. He is a tall man
routinely clad in full army fatigues, with tightly-cropped hair, broad shoulders and stern
expression.
In December 2018, Bereza punched in the face Nestor Shufrych , an MP with the centre-left
party For Life, after the latter removed a poster from the parliamentary podium which accused
wealthy Ukrainian politician, Viktor Medvedchuk (image on the left), of being a Kremlin
"agent". Medvedchuk is said to be an associate of Russian president Vladimir Putin.
Bereza is familiar with the use of arms. Since April 2014, he has held the position of
Dnipro Battalion leader: A fascist-linked unit which has fought Moscow-backed separatists in
eastern Ukrainian regions such as the Donetsk Oblast, an area which rests directly upon
Russia's south-western border, and is a mere 400 miles from Volgograd (Stalingrad). The Dnipro
Battalion is subordinated to the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine, which among other
things implements state policy.
Bereza and his regiment were involved in fighting during the autumn 2014 Battle of Ilovaisk,
ending in decisive victory for the Moscow-supported Donetsk People's Republic.
Bereza's cause has drawn sympathy and backing from commercial media outlets like the Los
Angeles Times, which
wrote how his unit "survived on grass and rainwater as they braved five days of incessant
sniper fire". The LA Times also quotes Bereza and, despite a heightened risk of nuclear war,
the newspaper calls for increased funding to be granted to the far-right battalions.
Over Christmas 2014, Bereza's regiment was accused of war crimes by human rights groups,
such as the deliberate starvation of Ukrainian civilians. His battalion has received more than
$10 million of financial support from billionaire businessman Ihor Kolomoyskyi . There are
photographs of the oligarch shaking hands amiably with Bereza in spring 2014.
Kolomoyskyi has provided critical support too for Volodymyr Zelensky , the Ukraine's
president-elect, by guaranteeing him widespread exposure on television networks that the tycoon
owns. Kolomoyskyi is one of the most powerful and affluent Ukrainians in the world. His
corporate influence extends from the Caucasus of Eurasia to the Appalachian mountains of North
America.
In a plot befitting a Hollywood film noir, Kolomoyskyi is presently under investigation by
the FBI regarding claims of "ordering contract killings" and "financial crimes", including
money laundering and embezzlement. In 2016, Kolomoyskyi was accused of defrauding the Ukraine's
largest bank (PrivatBank) of hundreds of millions of dollars.
Also that year a criminal case was opened in Russia against Kolomoyskyi, purporting that he
had organized the killings of civilians. He has been compelled to deny other allegations in the
past relating to bribery and abduction.
Kolomoyskyi, who lived in the US for a period and retains vast business interests in states
like Ohio and West Virginia, moved to Israel last September – which may well complicate a
potential extradition to America, as he also possesses part Israeli citizenship.
Kolomoyskyi has bankrolled other far-right regiments fighting in eastern Ukraine, such as
the Azov, Aidar and Donbas battalions. These armed groups have been cited by human rights
activists for committing an array of offences, including war crimes – which have gone
unpunished – like torture, abductions, possible executions, unlawful detention, sexual
assault, etc.
An alarming number of neo-Nazis have indeed been elected to office in the Ukrainian
parliament. Over the past five years of what the Washington Post calls "fledgling democracy",
the following fascist figures have all enjoyed work as Ukrainian MPs, and they each comprise
past and current members of the neo-Nazi Svoboda party: Oleh Tyahnybok, Ihor Mosiychuk, Oleh
Osukhovskyi, Yuriy Bublyk, Oleksandr Marchenko, Oleh Makhnitskyi, Andriy Ilyenko, Ruslan
Koshulynskyi, Mykhailo Holovko, Yuriy Levchenko, Igor Miroshnychenko, Pavlo Kyrylenko and
Eduard Leonov.
The above's presence in the corridors of power has been almost undocumented in mass media
reporting. There are other fascists receiving continued employment in the Ukrainian parliament
– like Andriy Biletsky , co-founder of the now defunct white supremacist Social-National
Assembly. Since late 2016, MP Biletsky has held the leadership of National Corps, a far-right
party. This organization is reported to be expanding steadily with Biletsky saying
last month that,
"we see how successful our movement is Ukraine is tired of the chaos, it needs new people
who will protect the country".
Source: Euronews
For over two years from May 2014 Biletsky commanded the Azov Battalion, which enjoyed tacit
Western support whilst fighting Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine. Azov Battalion
soldiers can be seen in photographs giving Nazi salutes, while flanked with swastikas and other
symbols based on SS insignia.
More far-right individuals are holding seats like Andrey Artemenko, a Canadian citizen and
MP since November 2014, who claims to be a "neo-conservative" and has membership of the
fascist-led Radical Party. The Radical Party leader and MP is far-right extremist Oleh Lyashko
, whose militant activities in the east of Ukraine were condemned by human rights
organizations, in which he was described as "one particularly errant MP". Lyashko has been
accused in preceding months of corruption relating to "illicit enrichment", which he
denies.
Among the Radical Party MPs is the briefly above-mentioned Ihor Mosiychuk, a neo-Nazi who is
a past member of both the Svoboda party and Social-National Assembly. Mosiychuk, sworn to
office in November 2014, is also a journalist and editor-in-chief of the hardline newspaper
Vechirnaya Vasilkov.
Serhiy Melnychuk , former leader of the Aidar Battalion, is likewise a Radical Party MP, as
he has been since November 2014. Melnychuk is currently under investigation over allegations
regarding a false assets declaration, while he has previously been the subject of multiple
legal cases and accused of abduction. Melnychuk was stripped of his parliamentary immunity in
June 2015.
There are further far-right Ukrainian MPs embedded in seemingly respectable parties like the
People's Front. Among them is Ihor Lapin, a multi-decorated militant commander who comprised
part of the Aidar Battalion, which draped Nazi-style insignia over its armoured vehicles.
Holding membership of the People's Front too is the aforementioned Parubiy, who has enjoyed
trips to America and Canada, and is acquainted with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg .
The far-right military figure, Mykhailo Havryliuk , is himself a People's Front member and MP,
with Yuriy Bereza as stated also claiming a position in that party.
There are in addition fascists posing as "independents" in parliament such as Volodymyr
Parasyuk, a former soldier in the Dnipro Battalion, commanded by Bereza. Parasyuk is a past
member of the neo-Nazi party, Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists. He was elected in November
2014, and still enjoys a place as MP more than four years on. Parasyuk has a reputation for
physically assaulting people he does not like, including cowardly attacks on statesman
Oleksandr Vilkul and security chief Vasyl Hrytsak, kicking the latter in the head while he was
seated.
Boryslav Bereza is a separate extreme right-wing independent MP, and was elected in November
2014; he is a former spokesperson for Right Sector, a fascist party, and despite his surname he
is no relation to Yuriy Bereza.
Boryslav Bereza is an open admirer of the Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera , speaking warmly
of his "three classic principles" in interviews. Moreover, in December 2014 Boryslav Bereza
acknowledged that during the fighting in eastern Ukraine, Right Sector provided important
assistance for Biletsky's notorious Azov Battalion.
MP Dmytro Yarosh , the one-time head of Right Sector, is yet another neo-Nazi who in the
past was placed on Interpol's international wanted list, acceding to the Kremlin's request.
Since late 2014, Yarosh constitutes a Ukrainian MP, and for many years he has been leader of
the Tryzub (Trident) paramilitary group, whose full title is the Stepan Bandera All-Ukrainian
Organization.
In Western establishment dialogue – pertaining to regimes they support – the
terms "neo-Nazi" and "fascist" have been virtually erased from official records and reporting.
These unequivocal labels are instead replaced with descriptions like "ultra-conservative",
"nationalist" and "maverick". The latter ambiguous words blur the lines of neo-Nazism and
fascism, sowing seeds of doubt and confusion in the reader's mind. A fascist now becomes an
ultra-conservative or nationalist.
There are other post "revolution" MPs who have been part of fascist regiments, like Nadiya
Savchenko, an Iraq War veteran and former instructor in the Aidar Battalion. Savchenko is a
far-right extremist, and had been held in a Ukrainian jail for over a year until her unexpected
release last week – after being suspected of planning a terrorist attack on the Ukrainian
parliament building, and intending to overthrow the government. Savchenko still faces trial
regarding these claims, and prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko said her departure from prison suggests
that the country's court apparatus is "gravely ill".
In June 2014, Savchenko was arrested by Russian authorities, placed on trial, and after long
deliberation was charged in March 2016 with complicity in the killing of two state journalists.
President Petro Poroshenko championed Savchenko's cause, describing her as "a symbol of the
struggle for Ukraine"; and in March 2015 he awarded her the title "Hero of Ukraine", the
highest honour that can be bestowed upon a Ukrainian citizen.
Semen Semenchenko , the far-right Donbas Battalion commander, was sworn in as a Ukrainian MP
in November 2014. Semenchenko's election to parliament came weeks after his regiment was
accused by a UN monitoring mission of executing war crimes on Ukrainian civilians, such as
torture, beatings and sexual assault.
In September 2014, Semenchenko had arrived in Washington where he met Congress and Pentagon
representatives. That same month he publicly called for US military backing, and enjoyed
further visits to America later that year, while he is himself an admirer of Israel. In June
2017, an appeal was expounded against Semenchenko by former Donbas Battalion soldiers, who
wanted an investigation conducted after accusing him of criminal acts.
In December 2018, Semenchenko was detained in Tbilisi, Georgia and suspected of "illegal
possession and acquisition of arms". He was not arrested due to having a diplomatic passport,
and thereafter travelled by airplane to an unknown destination.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily
on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent
contributor to Global Research.
Even people on the fringe of the Jewish Israeli society, the Russian Israelis, were all for
Jewish nationalism and against socialism and Arabs. This is really silly. They are hardly
considered Jews, to begin with. The Ministry of Interior plans to check them for DNA and
whether they are Jewish at all.
The Russians are weak economically, and their participation in the national discourse is
minimal. There is not a single Russian on the national Israeli TV channels.
They have a party of their own, the party of Mr Lieberman. However, the main demands of Mr
Lieberman are (1) to bring the death penalty upon Arabs, (2) to bomb and invade Gaza, and (3)
to make Mr Lieberman the Minister of Defence. And the Russian Israelis voted for him – or
for Mr Netanyahu – anyway.
Israelis of Oriental origins who inhabit poor peripheral towns are similar to Russians. They
also vote for Netanyahu and for his nationalist right-wing party, Likud. They are proud they
vote against the Ashkenazi Blue-and-White Party, though all leaders of Likud are Ashkenazi
Jews.
Is there a chance to change things in Israel, with such a Parliament? Well, yes. A military
defeat can change minds, like it did in many countries many times. Otherwise, it is hard to
imagine what would cause Netanyahu to change his course in view of the US support, Saudi
friendship, Syrian weakness, and good election results. He is not for resolving conflicts, he
is for managing conflict, and he is doing that well.
Russia's Putin plays ball with Bibi, too. Perhaps he does not like Bibi's relentless attacks
on Syria, perhaps his heart goes for Palestinians, but he is a cautious statesman, and he does
not want to antagonise the man who can mobilise American Jews into an action against Russia.
There are enough American Jews against Russia and against Putin as things are; Putin does not
need more. Besides, the Israeli opposition is not keen on Putin; they are lining up with the US
Democrats and with Brussels Europeans. They called for direct intervention in Syria on the side
of 'moderate rebels', while Netanyahu had kept Israel out of Syrian War and did not obstruct
Putin's Syrian campaign.
Will Netanyahu annex the whole of the West Bank, as he said during the election campaign?
Probably not; as nothing will be obtained by such an act but making apartheid visible. Instead,
he is likely to annex every place where Jews live in the West Bank, turning the territory of
Palestine into a slug-eaten cabbage leaf. He also may annex Area C, a bigger part of
Palestinian territory presently under Israeli military control and Palestinian civilian
administration. The Jewish settlers demand it, for, they say, Palestinians damage the
contiguity of the Jewish settlements.
The Jewish religious parties came out stronger in the new parliament. They also enjoy a very
high natural growth with families of 5 to 8 children average. They are not eager to compete on
the labour market, and prefer to be paid for studying Talmud and having kids. While it may
annoy some Israelis, in my view, it is an internal issue of little interest or importance for
anybody outside the Jewish milieu.
Is there a possible solution for the conflict? It is definitely not the Deal of the Century
of Mr Jared Kushner, some yet undefined arrangement usually done with smoke and mirrors.
Probably One Democratic State, where Jews and non-Jews are equal, is the only possible
solution, as the place is too small to divide but large enough to share.
As people were forming up to stage this year's March 8 rally for women's rights in Kiev, a
group of about three dozen young men, clad in dark clothes, started harassing the marchers by
tearing off their lapel pins and ripping away their placards.
Some of the men tried to pull away a banner from Mariya Dmytriyeva, a well-known spokeswoman
for feminist causes. She resisted. "Woman, why are you so nervous?" they jeered at her.
Fortunately, she says, police intervened and separated them.
It's a familiar scene in Ukraine these days, where radical ultra-rightists are an
increasingly threatening presence on the streets. "I think that overall these groups are very
insignificant in size. But they are very radical and very loud," Ms. Dmytriyeva says. "If they
can get away with attacking us like that, it shows there is something dangerous there."
Though few in number overall, far-right groups operate with a high degree of impunity in
Ukrainian society, allowing them to harass and attack minorities and human rights advocates
without repercussions. Some worry that such groups, given their anti-democratic ideals,
paramilitary discipline, and freedom to operate, could have an outsize influence should Ukraine
return to political instability. Though the ultra-rightists were given much latitude due to
their help protecting the Maidan Revolution and the fledgling government that followed, now
they highlight a key weakness of the current system.
"During the Maidan there was a context that was comfortable for [the radical right]. During
the war [with rebels in the east], it was very comfortable," says Vyacheslav Likhachev, a
historian and expert on Ukraine's right-wing movements. "Today we do not have a context in
which a small minority, with street fighting skills, have the means to create instability. But
in case there is instability, they are a very dangerous factor."
Operating with
impunity
Ukraine's far-right groups, some of which include armed veterans of the war in Donbas, are
an extremely controversial topic. And despite considerable stabilization in Ukrainian society
over the past five years, the danger they pose appears to be growing.
Just a couple of days after the March 8 rally, scores of far-right activists belonging to
the new National Corps party attacked the motorcade of President Petro Poroshenko in the
Ukrainian city of Cherkasy,
injuring 19 police officers . In the past year, far-right organizations have carried out
over two dozen violent assaults on women's groups, LGBT activists, and Roma encampments that
have left many injured and at least one person dead. It is very rare,
activists say , that police intervene as they did in Ms. Dmytriyeva's case, much less bring
the attackers to justice.
Analysts say the strength of these groups derives mainly from the weakness of Ukraine's
post-Maidan state, or rather its reluctance to enforce law and order when it comes to the
depredations of radical rightists. That may be in part due to the role ultra-right fighters
played during the Maidan revolt against former President Viktor Yanukovych, as organized
defenders of the protest encampment and sometimes initiators of violence against
police.
Even more important is their status as war heroes who formed private battalions and
rushed to the front in 2014 to battle separatist rebels at a time when the Ukrainian Army was
in serious disarray. As a result they enjoy connections with authorities, and a level of social
respectability, that would probably not be the case otherwise.
It's important to point out that despite their high public visibility and the apparent
impunity with which they act on the streets, the far-right groups do not appear to represent
any social upsurge of radical nationalism. Indeed, a joint candidate put forward by five of
Ukraine's leading ultra-rightist groups in the March 31 first round of Ukrainian presidential
elections, Ruslan Koshulynskyi, won less than 2% of the votes.
Rather, the fear among many here is that if Ukraine's weak state institutions should again
suffer any sort of breakdown, these highly organized, disciplined, armed, violence-prone,
and ideologically determined groups might punch far above their weight in determining a
political outcome.
'We are not democrats'
Instability is a prospect that may not be far from the surface in post-Maidan Ukraine. The
Right Sector, a militant ultra-nationalist group that played a very prominent role during the
Maidan uprising, has since consolidated itself as a political party with an armed wing and a
youth movement. It may not be the largest right-wing movement in Ukraine, but it has maintained
its revolutionary sense of purpose and complete rejection of the existing order.
"We are not democrats. We participate in elections only because they are a step to
revolution," says Artyom Skoropadskiy, press spokesman of the Right Sector party. "We want to
change the whole system. New people, new order, new rules in the state system of Ukraine. We
oppose Russia, and we are against Ukraine joining the European Union and NATO. We want Ukraine
to be a self-sufficient, independent state."
The Right Sector backed Mr. Koshulynskyi's presidential bid simply because it offered an
opportunity for political agitation, he says, and the vote tally is of secondary interest.
"Our organization is designed to take power. If circumstances warrant, that could happen by
nondemocratic methods. Believe me, we are very capable of acting in extreme situations," he
adds. "At the Maidan we had only 300 activists, and look what we did. In fact, if you consider
that there was never more than 1 million people participating in the Maidan altogether, out of
a population of 42 million, it shows how things really work. The active minority always leads
the passive majority. Scenarios change, and we are ready. Our purpose is to save Ukraine."
The Right Sector, and other militant street groups such as C-14 and the newly created
National Corps, already pose a real and present danger to vulnerable groups of the population,
such as gay and transgender people, women's activists, Roma, as well as any dissidents who
might, rightly or wrongly,
be viewed as "pro-Russian."
Ulyana Movchan, director of Insight, a nongovernmental group that provides legal services
and other support to LGBT groups, says that people who do not belong to these vulnerable groups
of the population should wake up and be more concerned about what is happening.
"The problem is that these right-wing activists are armed; they have combat experience.
They are organized into illegal military groups," she says. "They are trying to control the
streets and maybe, in future, political life as well. We do not know what they might do. They
don't just pose a personal danger to certain activists, they are a threat to the whole
society."
Giving too much leeway to nationalists?
Many Ukrainian analysts argue that these new rightist groups are not "nationalist," but
rather racist, intolerant, and extreme social conservatives. But it may be a problem that more
mainstream Ukrainian nationalists, such as the Svoboda party – which does not participate
in street violence – tend to make heroes of 20th-century "fighters for Ukrainian
independence." Those include Stepan Bandera, whose fascist ideology, collaboration with the
Nazis, and participation in
wartime ethnic cleansing against Poles and Jews makes him and those like him poor role
models for modern Europe-bound Ukraine.
The Ukrainian parliament has passed legislation making it illegal to deny the hero status of
Mr. Bandera. In Kiev, a major boulevard was recently renamed "Bandera Prospekt." It should be
no surprise that groups like the Right Sector model themselves on such World War II-era
Ukrainian nationalist fighters.
"We are a Ukrainian nationalist group, in the image of Stepan Bandera," says Mr.
Skoropadskiy.
Tensions over these historical issues are real enough, especially in the more Russified
eastern Ukraine – where everyone's grandfather served in the Red Army – and they
may be part of the explanation for the very high first round vote for Volodymyr Zelenskiy, a
Russian-speaker from eastern Ukraine who plays down nationalist themes.
"During the past five years the government made more steps [to legitimize figures like Mr.
Bandera] than much of society is willing to accept," says Mr. Likhachev. "Most of society feels
we don't need Lenin or Bandera. But you can't really mobilize people politically with these
issues. There has been no big public movement against it."
More significant is the strong attraction these new radical right groups seem to exercise
over Ukrainian youth. They articulate a cause. They have slick promotional materials and
maintain a big infrastructure of sports clubs, training camps, and regular activities.
"I see how many young people want to be part of a movement," says Ms. Movchan. "It's kind of
fashionable these days to join something, and here they are with all kinds of tools of
recruitment, such as fight clubs, training grounds, and parades. They bring out the worst
emotions, like homophobia and racism, to channel their aggression. I wish we could broaden our
own audience to show young people there are other ways to be active, like fighting for human
rights."
Interesting but very controversial. Jewish people do possess business acumen and are more oriented toward money success. Just
look what happened in the USSR after its dissolution and Yeltsin privatization. Most "oligarchs" turned to be Jewish ;-)
Also the achievement of Jewish people in science should be be underestimated. This nation gave world a lot of top
physicists mathematicians and philosophers.
Notable quotes:
"... Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular Iraq and Syria. ..."
"... Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats' by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for its war crimes in occupied Palestine. ..."
"... It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia' – clearly another example of the Jewish genius. ..."
"... A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews. Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion. ..."
"... All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street. ..."
Ethno-religious (ER) beliefs and practices have been harmless when individuals or
groups linked to those practices have limited influence over the state and economy. In contrast,
when such groups exercise a disproportionately powerful influence over the state and economy, they
dominate and exploit majorities while forming closed self-replicating networks.
Examples of powerful ethno-centric regimes in the 1930's are well known for their brutality and
devastating consequences. These include the white Christians in the US, Germany and the European
colonial settlement regimes in Rhodesia, South Africa, India and Indonesia, as well as the Japanese
imperialists in Asia.
In the post-colonial or neo-colonial era, ethno-centrism has taken the form of virulent anti-Islamic
hysteria resulting in predatory Western regimes embarking on wars and military occupations in the
Middle East.
The rise of Judeo-centrism, as an economic and political force, occurred in the last half of
the 20th century. The Jewish-Zionist seizure, occupation and ethnic cleansing of historic Palestine
and their rising economic and political influence within the United States has created a formidable
power bloc with significant implications for world peace.
The rise of Jewish ethnocentrism (JE) has confounded its proponents as well as its adversaries;
Zionists and anti-Semites alike are surprised by the scope and depth of JE.
Advocates and adversaries, of all persuasions, conflate the power of what they call 'the Jews',
for their own purposes. Advocates find proof of 'Jewish genius' in every prestigious position and
attribute it to their own unique culture, heredity and scholarship, rather than the result of a greater
social-cultural context. The anti-Semites, for their part, attribute all the world's nefarious dealings
and diabolic plots to 'the Jews'. This creates a strange duality of illusions about the exceptionalism
of a minority group.
In this paper I will focus on demystifying the myths buttressing the power of contemporary Judeo-centric
ideology, belief and organizational influence. There is little point in focusing on anti-Semitism,
which has no impact on the economy and the exercise of state power with the possible exception of
Saudi Arabia. Even the Saudi Monarchy's occasional outbursts against Israel do not inhibit it from
engaging in large-scale financial transactions with the Jewish banking elite on Wall Street and City
of London and from forming covert alliances with Israeli intelligence in order to overthrow secular
pro-Palestinian Arab regimes – as has happened in Libya, Iraq and Syria. They have both benefited
from the massive ethnic cleansing of the highly educated minority Christian populations of secular
Iraq and Syria.
Fake Anti-Semitism: Operational Weapon of the Ethno-Centric Jews
Fake anti-Semitism is most recently seen in the launching of series of anti-Semitic 'threats'
by ethno-centric Jews to create hysteria, serves many purposes following the recent rise of populism
in Europe and the election of the American President Donald Trump who had promised to withdraw the
US from wars in the Middle East. First, it secures widespread support from North American and European
regimes, especially when Israel is criticized throughout the world and at the United Nations for
its war crimes in occupied Palestine. Widespread fake anti-Semitic attacks divert attention to Judeo-ethno
centrists and validate their claims to be the first among the history's victims. Second, widely publicized
'fake' acts of anti-Semitism arouse the ethnocentric foot soldiers and increase rich donor contributions
to the illegal Jewish settlements and the Israeli military. Third, 'fake anti-Semitism' is used to
threaten, repress and outlaw any organizations and individuals who criticize Israel and the influence
of Jewish ethnocentric organizations in their home countries.
How many 'anti-Semitic' acts are staged is uncertain: On March 23, 2017, an Israeli-American
man was arrested in Israel for sending hundreds of fake anti-Semitic threats to Jewish institutions
and schools in four European countries and nine US states. Such threats led to the emergency grounding
of two US airlines and the panicked evacuation of countless schools and cultural centers. This man
used a sophisticated system of cloaking accounts to appear to originate in other countries. Despite
his high skills at cyber-terrorism, Israeli authorities preposterously described him as a 'teenager
with a learning disability'. The Israeli-American cyber-terrorist's arrest made the 'back-pages'
news in the US for one day while his (and others') fake threats continued to make international headlines
for weeks.
These scores of fake anti-Semitic bomb threats were cited by the major ethnocentric leaders in
the US to pressure the US President and hundreds of Congressional leaders, University Presidents,
etc. to mindlessly echo their clamor for greater police state investigations against critics of Israel
and to offer special 'protection' for potential 'Jewish victims'. Moves to outlaw criticism of Israel
as 'anti-Semitism' and a 'hate crime' increased.
Not surprisingly the leading Jewish organizations never backed down or called on the US government
to investigate the source of the fake anti-Semitic threats: that is Israeli-American Zionists, who
carry both nations' passports and can enter and exit with total ease and enjoy immunity from extradition.
It is almost certain that the US FBI had identified the perpetrator of these acts as they uncovered
the sophisticated operation based in Israel. The FBI would have demanded Israeli police arrest 'the
culprit' and shut down the operation. Israeli police staged their own 'fake' investigation and concluded
that the complex cloaked cyber operations 'were the work of a shy nineteen year old with dyslexia'
– clearly another example of the Jewish genius.
It is more likely that the hundreds of false-anti-Semitic
threats were part of an Israeli state operation identified by the FBI who 'diplomatically' pressured
Tel Aviv to cut out the monkey business. The news report of the lone-wolf teenager in Israel allowed
the Israeli intelligence to cover-up their role. Once the Israelis passed off the unbelievable tale
of a brilliant, if troubled, young 'lone wolf', the entire US mass media buried the story forever.
In due time the so-called perpetrator will be released, amply rewarded and his identity re-cycled.
In the meantime the US government, as well as several European governments, was forced to allocate
tens of millions of dollars to provide extra security to Jewish institutions in the wake of these
fake threats.
Jewish Power: The Top 25 American Multi-Billionaires
In February 2017, Forbes magazine compiled a list of the world's billionaires, including a country-by-country
account. The top five countries with multi-billionaires among its citizens are: the US with 565,
China with 319, Germany with 114, India with 101, and Russia with 96. Moreover, since 2016 the net
worth of the multi-billionaires grew 18% to $7.67 trillion dollars.
While the US has the greatest number of billionaires, China is fast catching up.
Despite China's advances, the US remains the center of world capitalism with the greatest concentration
of wealth, as well as the greatest and growing inequalities. One reasonably can argue that who controls
US wealth controls the world.
'Jews' among the Top 25 Multi-Billionaires in the US
A review of the top 10 US multi-billionaires finds four who are identified as 'Jews': Mark Zuckerberg
with $56 billion, Larry Ellison with $52.2 billion, Michael Bloomberg with $47.5 billion and Sergey
Brin $39.4 billion. In other words 40% of the super-richest Americans are 'Jews' while 60% are non-Jews.
Among the top ten in the US, billionaire Jews with a total of $195.1 billion are collectively less
rich than the top billionaire Gentiles who own $282.7 billion.
Of the top 25 multi-billionaires in the US, 11 of the 25 are Jews. In other words 'the Jews'
represent 44% of the top 25 biggest billionaires – outnumbered by Gentiles but catching up.
Analysis of the 'Richest Jews'
We place 'Jews' in quotation marks because this is a doubtful signifier – more useful to both
Zionist fanatics and anti-Semitic polemicists. Most are not 'practicing' or are completely disinterested
in tribal religions. Nevertheless, half of secular Jews in the US are active supporters of Israel
or involved in Fifth Column Israeli 'front groups'.
In other words, about half of the richest 'Jews' do not consider themselves to be religiously
or ethnically 'Jewish'. Super rich Jews are divided regarding their ethnic loyalties between the
US and Israel.
Moreover what is murkier, many of the richest so-called 'Jews' were born to 'mixed marriages'.
Strictly religious Jews do not recognize the children of such marriages as Jews because their mothers
are not Jewish. The omnivorous Zionists, on the other hand, classify all of them as Jews on the basis
of their actual or potential contribution to the State of Israel. In other words, the Zionist classification
of 'Jews' becomes arbitrary, politicized and dependent on organizational affiliation. Religious practice
and ethno-cultural purity are less important.
Judeo-Centrism and the Intrinsic Superiority Fallacy
Among the many zealous advocates of the Judeo-centric world, the most tiresome are those who
claim they represent the product of superior genetics, culture and heritage – unique and intrinsic
to Jews.
For many centuries most Jews were illiterate believers of religious tribal myths, taught by anti-scientific
rabbis, who closed off the ghettos from the accomplishments of higher culture and forbade integration
or mixed marriages. The high priests punished and expelled any Jews who were influenced by the surrounding
Hellenistic, Romanized, Arabic, Renaissance and Rationalists cultures, like the great Spinoza.
In other words, Jews who had rejected Jewish law, the Scriptures and the Torah were expelled
as apostates. But these 'apostates' were most open to the modern ideas of science. Jews greatly benefited
from the emancipatory laws and opportunities following the French Revolution. Under Napoleon, Jews
became citizens and were free to advance in science, the arts and finance by attending secular universities
away from the primitive, superstitious Rabbi-controlled ghetto 'schools'.
The dramatic growth of intellectual excellence among Jews in the 19th century was a result of
their ceasing to be Jews in the traditional closed religious sense. Did they suddenly switch on their
'genius genes' or invent a fake history or religion, as the ethno-centrist would have us believe?
It seems far more likely that they took great advantage of the opportunities opened to them with
major social and political developments in the greater society. As they assimilated and integrated
in secular traditions, they ceased to be Jews in the tribal religious sense. Their scientific, medical
and financial success came from learning, absorbing and exchanging scientific ideas, high culture
and conservative, liberal and socialist ideas with the larger progressive non-Jewish society.
It is no coincidence that 'great Jewish achievers' like the totally secular Albert Einstein were
educated in German universities by German professors and drew on scientific knowledge by German and
non-Jewish scholars. His intellectual development was due to his free association with the great
scientists and scholars of Germany and Europe, not closeted away in some ethno-tribal commune.
The Jews who remained embedded in the Polish, Lithuanian and Russian ghettos, under the reign
of the leading Rabbis, remained illiterate, poor and backward. Most of the claims of 'superior' cultural
heritage or traditions are the creation of a mythical folk history serving ethno-national supremacists.
The Myth of the Contemporary Genius
The modern ethnocentric ideologues ignore the 'dilution of Jewishness' in their celebratory identification
with successful 'Jews'.
Many of the best thinkers, writers, scientists and political leaders were conversos (Christian
converts), or integrated European secular nationalists, socialists, monarchists, bankers and professionals.
Some remained 'reformed Jews' or later transformed into secular Zionists: nationalists who despised
non-Europeans as inferior and couldn't even conceive of Arab Palestine as their 'homeland'. It wasn't
until the 20th century that Zionism was in part 'Judacized'. Early Zionists looked at various locations
for a homeland, including Argentina and parts of Africa and Russia.
These ethno-chauvinist ideologues lay claim to all brilliant individuals, no matter how tenuous
as examples of 'Jewish genius'. Even those personally opposed Jewish ethno-religious beliefs and
indifferent to tribal loyalties end up being claimed as examples of the 'Jewish genius'. Once some
'matrilineal link' could be found, their success and brilliance was tied to the mystical lineage,
no matter how tenuous.
This bizarre practice became even more commonplace following the Jewish military conquest and
brutal ethnic cleansing of Palestine, with the military, political and financial backing of non-Jewish
Europe and the United States. With myths and inflated ideas of unique virtue and brilliance, Israel
was established as a racist apartheid state. A new militant, ethnocentric Judaism converted Israel and its overseas backers into an ethno-ideological
international power with religious trappings, based on the myth of its 'exceptionalism'. To maintain this myth, the personal histories of all prominent 'Israel Firsters' were sanitized
and scrubbed of anti-social and destructive behavior.
All Jewish billionaires were to be portrayed as uniquely philanthropic, while the exploits of
Jewish billionaire swindlers (Bernie Madoff, Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky) were not to be mentioned
in polite company. The conquests of billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, rapist-procurer head of
the IMF Dominique Strauss-Kahn, Governor Elliot Spitzer, Congressman Anthony Weiner and other similar
perverts quietly slithered off the edge of the planet although all had once been hailed as examples
of 'ethnocentric genius'.
Major Jewish political donors to US-UK-French electoral parties were hailed while their work
on behalf of Israel was naturally assumed but not discussed. The dizzying shifts between open adulation
and selective whitewash served to reinforce the illusion of superiority. Anyone, Jew or Gentile,
bold enough to point out the obvious hypocrisy would be immediately censored as 'self-hating' (Jew)
or 'anti-Semite' (Gentile).
Return to the Beginning: Judeo-Centric Power
As mentioned above, Jews represent a substantial minority among the top multi-billionaires, but
they are still a minority. Below the top level of wealth are the single digit billionaires and triple
and double digit multi-millionaires; here the proportion of 'Jews' increases. These 'less-than-super-billionaires'
are among the most active and the biggest financial and political supporters of the ethno centric
ideology and tribal cohesion.
Los Angeles-based Israeli-American billionaire Haim Saban contributed tens of millions of dollars
to support of the Jewish state's occupation of Palestine and brutal colonial land grabbing 'settlers'.
His wealth is largely based on his 'genius' in pushing culturally vacuous Japanese cartoons (Mighty
Morphing Power Rangers) on the nation's children. He is the primary donor to the Democratic Party
pushing Israel's agenda – his number one priority as an American citizen.
The lesser 'foot soldiers' of the Zionist power structure are the millionaires and affluent professionals,
dentists, stockbrokers, lawyers, doctors and impresarios. The middle and lower levels of wealth and
power are a diverse group – mostly ethno-religious and secular, but very self-identified ethno-Jews.
A minority is totally secular or converted to non-Jewish religions (especially Buddhism, Christianity)
Despite the constant drumbeat of ethnocentric identity, an increasing number of young US 'Jews'
do not identify with Judaism or Israel. Their influence however is minimal.
The wealthy ethno-religious and secular ethnic Jews may or may not constitute a numerical majority
but they are the best organized, most political and most adamant in their claims to 'speak for and
represent the Jewish community' as a whole, especially during waves of (fake) 'anti-Semitism'!
The many former-Jews, anti-tribal Jews and 'non-Jewish' Jews are no match for the ethnocentric
political apparatus controlled by the chauvinists.
When the tribalists appropriate the glory of a secular non-Jewish Jewish scientist or major 'prize
winner' they claim his or her tribal affiliation in order to impress the 'goys' and to seduce younger
more skeptical Jews about the advantages of ethno-chauvinism.
All the high-tech computer and financial billionaires are just assumed by the tribalists to view
themselves as 'Jewish geniuses' even though they may have learned and borrowed ideas and knowledge
from their non-Jewish partners and mentors in Silicon Valley or Wall Street.
Upward mobility within academia, government and business circles is automatically assumed by
the tribalists to be a reward for superior merit – 'Jewish genius' – rather than nepotism or connections.
Tribal networks and 'understandings' play a powerful unspoken role in career success and immunity
from the consequences of failure, incompetence or dishonesty.
Multi-billionaires and multi-millionaires prospered because they entered establish lucrative
fields or made their career choices highly profitable.
Early on, many powerful Gentile bankers provided entry for talented Jews to succeed. This is
despite revisionist history bemoaning the exclusion of US Jews on Wall Street and their degrading
denial of membership in select WASP country clubs. These myths of brutal oppression on Wall Street
or Long Island yacht clubs have empowered generations of American Jews to assume the role of spokespersons
for the oppressed everywhere. The expression 'crying all the way to the bank' comes to mind.
By the last quarter of the 20th century and especially in the 21st century, deindustrialization
and the shift to financialization in the US economy increased the power and privilege of a disproportionate
number of multi-billionaire/millionaire Jews. This seismic shift has coincided with the pervasive
impoverishment of the marginalized working class in the former 'rust belt' and central parts of the
country and the incredible concentration of national wealth at the top 1%. This is a demographic
shift and ethno-class apartheid of huge, but unstudied, significance.
The most important political question is not how many Jews are super-wealthy but what proportion
of them are influential political donors and active in the Democratic or Republican Parties in order
to intervene on behalf of clan, tribe and motherland (Israel). Majorities among Jews are not crucial
– most are not politically active. What is decisive is the percentage of all the super-wealthy who
are politically active, organized and contribute substantially to influence and control the mass
media to promote their ethno-centric ideology and punish critics.
Conclusion
Overt and covert Jewish supremacists have embroidered a fake history and legacy of exceptional
intelligence ignoring the context of advanced non-Jewish science and cultures, which preceded and
later provided Jews with opportunities for education and wealth.
The danger inherent in all ethno-centric tribes is that they work to dominate majority populations
by creating systems of assigning superiority and inferiority. They then use these to justify growing
inequalities of wealth, education and political power!
Historically favored minorities tend to overreach and, like the eyeless Sampson, bring down the
Temple on everyone. Power corrupts and absolute ethno-chauvinist power corrupts absolutely. Intelligent
Jews of principle are abandoning
You could help yourself by learning the real history ..I suggest the foremost historian on
the subject Thomas Thompson and his ' History of Arabia'. Jerusalem was not founded by Jews,
i.e. adherents of the Jewish religion. It was founded between 3000 BCE and 2600 BCE by a West
Semitic people or possibly the Canaanites, the common ancestors of Palestinians, Lebanese,
many Syrians and Jordanians, and many Jews. But when it was founded Jews did not
exist.
Jerusalem was founded in honor of the ancient god Shalem. It does not mean City of
Peace but rather 'built-up place of Shalem." The "Jewish people" were not building Jerusalem
3000 years ago, i.e. 1000 BCE. First of all, it is not clear when exactly Judaism as a
religion centered on the worship of the one God took firm form. It appears to have been a
late development since no evidence of worship of anything but ordinary Canaanite deities has
been found in archeological sites through 1000 BCE. There was no invasion of geographical
Palestine from Egypt by former slaves in the 1200s BCE. The pyramids had been built much
earlier and had not used slave labor. The chronicle of the events of the reign of Ramses II
on the wall in Luxor does not know about any major slave revolts or flights by same into the
Sinai peninsula. Egyptian sources never heard of Moses or the 10 plagues & etc. Jews and
Judaism emerged from a certain social class of Canaanites over a period of centuries inside
Palestine. Jerusalem not only was not being built by the likely then non-existent "Jewish
people" in 1000 BCE, but Jerusalem probably was not even inhabited at that point in history.
Jerusalem appears to have been abandoned between 1000 BCE and 900 BCE, the traditional dates
for the united kingdom under David and Solomon. So Jerusalem was not 'the city of David,'
since there was no city when he is said to have lived. No sign of magnificent palaces or
great states has been found in the archeology of this period, and the Assyrian tablets, which
recorded even minor events throughout the Middle East, such as the actions of Arab queens,
don't know about any great kingdom of David and Solomon in geographical Palestine. Since
archeology does not show the existence of a Jewish kingdom or kingdoms in the so-called First
Temple Period, it is not clear when exactly the Jewish people would have ruled Jerusalem
except for the Hasmonean Kingdom. The Assyrians conquered Jerusalem in 722. The Babylonians
took it in 597 and ruled it until they were themselves conquered in 539 BCE by the
Achaemenids of ancient Iran, who ruled Jerusalem until Alexander the Great took the Levant in
the 330s BCE. Alexander's descendants, the Ptolemies ruled Jerusalem until 198 when
Alexander's other descendants, the Seleucids, took the city. With the Maccabean Revolt in 168
BCE, the Jewish Hasmonean kingdom did rule Jerusalem until 37 BCE, though Antigonus II
Mattathias, the last Hasmonean, only took over Jerusalem with the help of the Parthian
dynasty in 40 BCE. Herod ruled 37 BCE until the Romans conquered what they called Palestine
in 6 CE (CE= 'Common Era' or what Christians call AD). The Romans and then the Eastern Roman
Empire of Byzantium ruled Jerusalem from 6 CE until 614 CE when the Iranian Sasanian Empire
Conquered it, ruling until 629 CE when the Byzantines took it back.
A. The Muslims, who ruled it and built it over 1191 years.
B. The Egyptians, who ruled it as a vassal state for several hundred years in the second
millennium BCE.
C. The Italians, who ruled it about 444 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450
CE.
D. The Iranians, who ruled it for 205 years under the Achaemenids, for three years under the
Parthians (insofar as the last Hasmonean was actually their vassal), and for 15 years under
the Sasanids.
E. The Greeks, who ruled it for over 160 years if we count the Ptolemys and Seleucids as
Greek. If we count them as Egyptians and Syrians, that would increase the Egyptian claim and
introduce a Syrian one.
F. The successor states to the Byzantines, which could be either Greece or Turkey, who ruled
it 188 years, though if we consider the heir to be Greece and add in the time the Hellenistic
Greek dynasties ruled it, that would give Greece nearly 350 years as ruler of Jerusalem.
G. There is an Iraqi claim to Jerusalem based on the Assyrian and Babylonian conquests, as
well as perhaps the rule of the Ayyubids (Saladin's dynasty), who were Kurds from Iraq.
I understand what you are saying, Jilles, but let's be accurate, shall we?
The Jews have ZERO right to "return" to Palestine one cannot go back to a place one never
left in the first place.
The story that the Romans expelled the Jews from Palestine 2000 years ago is FALSE.
See Israeli historian Shlomo Sand( the invention of the Jewish people).
At any rate, even had the story been true – and it is NOT – the notion of
modern Jews laying claim to the land 2000 years later is truly bizarre.
In short, today's Palestinians and their ancestors have been living continuously between
the River and the Sea for about 9,000 years."
Exactly.
In the preface of his book "Ten myths about Israel", Israeli historian Ilan Pappe,
writes:
Were the Jews indeed the original inhabitants of Palestine who deserved to be
supported in every way possible in their "return" to their "homeland"? The myth insists
that the Jews who arrived in 1882 were the descendants of the Jews expelled by the Romans
around 70 CE. The counterargument questions this genealogical connection. Quite a hefty
scholarly effort has shown that the Jews of Roman Palestine remained on the land and were
first converted to Christianity and then to Islam. Who these Jews were is still an open
question -- maybe the Khazars who converted to Judaism in the ninth century; or maybe the
mixture of races across a millennium precludes any answer to such a question.
In a recent thought-provoking article
Gideon Levy, probably one of the last genuine Israeli voices for peace, claims that "It is
not Netanyahu who is responsible for Israeli 'racism, extreme nationalism, divisiveness,
incitement, hatred, anxiety and corruption.'" Behind Netanyahu, Levy says, there's a nation of
voters and other elected officials that aren't very different from their leader.
"Simply put, the people are the problem There are those who have hated Arabs long before
Netanyahu. There are those who despise blacks, detest foreigners, exploit the weak and look
down their noses at the whole world – and not because of Netanyahu. There are those who
believe they are the chosen people and therefore deserve everything."
Levy reaffirms the observation that I have been pushing for two decades. The problem with Israel is
not of a political
kind . The conflict with the Palestinians or the Arabs is not of a political nature as some
delusional characters within the Palestinian solidarity movement have been proclaiming for
years. Israel defines itself as the Jewish state. In order to grasp Israel, its politics, its
policies and the intrusive nature of its lobby, we must understand the nature of
Jewishness. We must learn to define the differences between Jews (the people), Judaism
(the religion) and Jewishness (the ideology). We have to understand how those terms are related
to each other and how they influence Israeli and Jewish politics globally.
Levy writes that "there are those who think that after the Holocaust, they are permitted to
do anything. There are those who believe that Israel is tops in the world in every field, that
international law doesn't apply to it, and that no one can tell it what to do. There are those
who think Israelis are victims – always victims, the only victims – and that the
whole world is against us. There are those who are convinced that Israel is allowed to do
anything, simply because it can."
In order to understand what Levy is referring to we must dig into the core of Jewish
identification and once and for all grasp the notion of Jewish choseness. Levy contends that
"racism and xenophobia are deeply entrenched here, far more deeply than any Netanyahu The
apartheid did not start with him and will not end with his departure; it probably won't even be
dented. One of the most racist nations in the world cannot complain about its prime minister's
racism." Netanyahu as such, is not the disease. He is a mere symptom.
ORDER IT NOW
The devastating news is that neither the Israeli 'Left' nor the Jewish so-called 'anti'
Zionist league are any less racist than their Zionist foes. The Israeli Left pushes for a 'two
state solution.' It crudely ignores the Palestinian cause i.e. the Right of Return. The Israeli
Left advocates segregation and ghettoization; not exactly the universal message of harmony one
would expect from 'leftists.' Disturbingly, the Diaspora Jewish 'anti' Zionist Left is even
more racially exclusive than the Israeli Right. As I have explored many times in the past,
Corbyn's 'favourite Jewish political group namely, Jewish Voice for Labour
(JVL) is a racially exclusive political cell. It wouldn't allow gentiles into its Jews-only
club. Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) is no better. It will happily take donations from Goyim but
will never allow those Goyim to become its board members.
Levy proclaims that "Netanyahu is the best thing to ever happen to Israeli politics –
you can dump everything on him." But in his most astute observation, which has been explored
before by Uri Avnery (may he rest in peace) and yours truly, Levy continues, "It would be great
if some local Nelson Mandela would arise, a brave leader with vision who would change the
country's basic values and lead a revolution. But no such person has been born here, and it's
doubtful he ever will be."
Levy points at the core of the Zionist failure. If early Zionism was a promise to civilise
the diaspora Jew by means of 'homecoming,' Israel happened to do the complete opposite. Not
much is left out of the Zionist promise to make the Jews 'people like all other people': as
Israel is about to perpetrate another colossal war crime in Gaza, we have to admit that we are
dealing with an institutionally racist and dangerous identity like no other.
Another good one Atzmon. I thinks it's hard for people to grasp outside of Israel the
connection you speak of between the religion, the people, and the ideology. Its underreported
for obvious reasons in the media, plus the control the Israel lobby and its donors the
Adelsons, Sabans, and Singers have in the US on what people hear about Israel and its
citizens. All you hear is it's a democracy among hostile states that hate it because of
freedom or democracy or whatever propaganda speak the mouth peace for Israel/Zionism media
uses. You never hear about Israel's and its citizens actions that cause it just the eternal
victim status they have been awarded.
Violent Islam is the Disease, Resistance Leaders are the Symptom
The author makes a good point. Netanyahu is not unique:
– Modi resists violent Islam in Kashmir.
– Jinping resists violent Islam in Xinjiang.
– Orban resists violent Islam in Hungary.
– Trump resists violent Islam in the U.S.
– Netanyhau resists violent Islam in Israel.
And, there are more cases not in the list above
Islam views all non-Muslims as infidels. Violent Islam wages Jihad until the infidels are
killed, converted, or willingly submit as Dhimmi slaves. Until Islam changes, Resistance
leaders will continue to protect their people. Perhaps the collapse of the Iranian government
and its funding of terrorism will open the door to that change.
______
Israel started as a far left venture where the people lived in true communist shared
estates know as Kibbutz. Seventy years of resisting violent Islam has changed the people into
a practical group that will do what is necessary to stay alive.
The upcoming election makes no difference in Israeli survival strategy. Netanyahu's only
serious competitor, Benny Gantz, openly states he will fight Iran's violent Islamic expansion
in Lebanon & Syria (Iranian Hezbollah) and in Gaza (Iranian Hamas).
First:
Yes, do let's differentiate between Jews, judaism and jewishness (lest anyone be accused of
criticizing "Jews the people," which is something only an anti-semite or a self-hating Jew
might do, isn't it?).
The Jews are the people, judaism is their deeply inculcated worldview and ethos, and
jewishness is their inherently logical behavior.
Or the Jews are the computer, judaism is its operating system and jewishness its
applications.
Or the Jews are the rice, while judaism and jewishness are the white on rice.
Second:
The zionism did NOT fail to deliver its promise to make the Jews "people like other people."
It is Atzmon who fails to understand that the Jews' definition of "people" ("nations") is
based on the very Jewish worldview of the model: irrationally hateful, brutal, greedy,
covetous, and ruthless "winners." I would say zionism succeeded remarkably well, but it had
eager students to start with.
Mr. Atzmon has painted himself in a corner on this otherwise tough editorial. But let's
give him some credit. Gilad's taken a hell of a lotta heat for his rough and penetrating
criticisms of the Zionist colony and its endless deceptions. And he (generally) pulls no
punches.
But when all is said and done, and all the hairs are split, and all the (overdue) debates
are finally finished (and we can somehow separate the 'racist' Jews from the good,
'humanitarian' Jews) we are nevertheless left with a core Jewish identity that puts God's
Chosen People forever and eternally above the rest of humanity. God says so!
Basically, the problem is that Jewishness and 'Jewish supremacism' are pretty much one and
the same.
@A123
"Israel started as a far left venture Seventy years of resisting violent Islam has changed
the people into a practical group that will do what is necessary to stay alive."
I wonder why the Palestinians employ violence ? Of course, the State of Israel was born out
of terrorism (King David hotel, multiple assassinations etc) & ethnic cleansing (ie Nakba
). And yes, the Palestinians were also violent.
As for Israel's "survival" -- that's been a none issue since the late 70's, at a minimum.
Israel with its 100's of nuclear weapons & it's US body guard has NO survival issues.
It's all the poor bastards around them who have survival problems : (Syria, Lebanon, Gaza,
Iran, Libya etc)
Typical brain dead Hasbara nonsense. Orban resists third world immigration, which I
support, the problem is about mass non white immigration not Islam. The ultimate problem is
the jew, it is they that push for mass immigration and miscegenation the most.
And the rest of this article just goes on and on about how evil , Israel, Israelis are ,
and as to how they are self-justified and unified in being so. And this is a Jew writing
this.
Wow. What is the world to do? Doesn't seem to be any other option or solution, except a
trip to Wannsee.
@A123
Dancing Isreaeli said to the cops:" We are not your problem . Arabs are "
This guy is shouting at China India Russia and at the God : Israel is not the problem Its
these Muslims.
Question is this : will these guys be allowed on the graves of the 911 victims strewn all
across the world- Germany Soviet Russia, Poland, American rust belt, WW1 and 2 British
cemeteries?
When did they say something that turned out to be true?
Having said that, the world would be a better place if they ended up destroying elite run
US UK . Yes they would cut the branch on which they are sitting . But they would jump the
ship just before taht happening
You know Albert Sasson whow as knighted , who married in Riothchilds family, whose grand
son / nephew or another Sasson – by name Amery gave us the Balfour in part . He was
thrown out of Iraq court for corruption He made it to Raj's India and planted the seed of
opium That soon ate up all the available fertile lands of north India . The opium made him
rich made India poor corrupted British Raj and led to Chinese deprivations rebellion and to
communism
@neutral
Regardless, Jews (definition as provided and all three facets) are the most coherent group
globally. They can muster the most coordination, the strongest drive, the detachment and
loyalty, add as needed,
Since everyone here on unz likes thinking in bursts, to the matter. That makes for
success. No reason to whine about for the loosing party, the WASP, traditional US elites. If
some other group has ambitions, it should acquire that type of quality identity.
Islam is a poor enemy, as Jews see them as target practice, so should other entities
maybe.
Western European descend Whites, and the ambition of enlightenment, (for one, all
individuals across ethnic and religious lines being equals), should stow their ambitions of
principle until they are in charge. That will require appropriating the same acerbic mindset
of the Jew, and not whine publicly about the teacher. White elites have sold out, they are
burdened by a commoner population that far exceeds any asset value. To disconnect their base,
also made them hostages of Jew elites.
From the point of view of the Euro-descend commoner, non-Jew, unpriviledged, as long as
they see themselves as genuine and belonging to the system, the US, and not the trash they
are treated as, as long as the non-Jewish middle classes continue their egocentric quest for
scraps, they deserve the Gaza they are converted into. No Jew should be blamed for pushing an
outsider into demise. The tactics are in the open for grabs, Whites (non-Latino, non-Jew)
have only themselves to blame for their demise.
Mitchell A. Orenstein
Authoritarian nationalists such as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán win support not only by attacking
immigrants, but also by delivering economic policies that benefit the poor and middle class. Western analysts and,
more important, Western leaders need to learn this lesson before it's too late.
On March 20, the European People's Party, the conservative bloc
in the European Parliament, will decide whether to expel Hungary's ruling party, Fidesz. The EPP has been slow to
censure Fidesz and Hungary's autocratic prime minister, Viktor Orbán, for its assault on democracy and rule of
law. Yet, Orbán's Western critics have been equally slow to understand the social and economic policies that
underpin his popularity.
Consider the
bold set of
family policies
that Orbán announced on February 10. So far, the verdict in the West on these policies, which
are aimed at addressing the country's low fertility rate and further reducing immigration, has been thunderously
negative and all but blind to their effectiveness in entrenching Orbán's support among Hungarian voters.
Western analysts fail to recognize that authoritarian
nationalists such as Orbán win support not only by attacking immigrants, but also by delivering economic policies
that benefit average people. Mainstream political parties in the West need to learn this economic lesson fast if
they want to compete against their own populist challengers.
Orbán is keen to connect his nationalist message to generous
and popular social policies, while encouraging Hungarian women and families to have more children. Hungary's
current fertility rate of
1.45 children per
female
is below replacement rate. And its population has been shrinking since 1989, mirroring declines in
other former communist countries that used to provide extensive social support to families.
The plan's centerpiece is a lifetime exemption from personal
income tax for women who bear and raise four or more children (Orbán and his wife have five). This and other
policies in the new package will have a real impact on all families in Hungary. Women under 40 who marry for the
first time and have worked for at least three years will be eligible for a $36,000 "childbearing" loan at a
discounted rate, which will be forgiven as they have children. Larger families can apply for an $9,000 government
grant toward the purchase of a seven-seat automobile. Grandparents taking care of children will be eligible for
leave from work and benefits. And the government will create 21,000 new subsidized childcare places.
Leading Western media, analysts, and politicians have been
almost universally critical of the plan, thereby falling right into Orbán's trap.
The Economist
, a
longtime advocate of the free-market economic policies that have impoverished many in Eastern Europe while
producing great wealth for a few and higher living standards for a middle-class
minority
,
predictably criticized
Orbán's plan for being too expensive. The new measures are "unlikely to give birth to a
baby boom" and could "swell an economy that is close to overheating, and inflate house prices."
Subscribe now
For a limited time only, get unlimited access to On Point, The Big Picture, and the PS Archive, plus
our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.
SUBSCRIBE
Journalist Adam Taylor echoed these sentiments in
The
Washington Post
,
arguing that
Orbán's policies will "barely move the needle on birthrate and may represent a poor return on
investment." We have heard this same Western critique for decades: helping people is too expensive and does not
work, paying for houses will only make them pricier, and it's better to rely on markets than on public policies.
But Orbán's critics ignore the examples of Poland and Russia,
which also have implemented natalist policies in recent years. Russia's fertility rate is up to 1.75 children per
female, from a low of 1.17 in 1999, partly owing to a
grant program
for new parents. Poland, too, has achieved higher birth rates since 2015 after introducing the
massive
Family 500+ initiative
, which enables parents to pay for school supplies, clothes, and vacations. Both schemes
were criticized as being too expensive, but Poland's public deficit has
fallen
, not risen. Rather,
these policies have stimulated economic growth while dramatically
reducing child poverty
and increasing
school enrollment.
Although free-market attacks on bold new social programs are no
surprise, some of the sharpest criticism of Orbán's policies has come from the left. Progressives strongly dislike
the fact that many of his proposals target women in a way that seems to advance a conservative, pro-family agenda.
To
The Guardian
's Afua Hirsch,
for example
, "the idea that assistance for those in poverty is conditional on obedient reproduction is verging
on the dystopian." Similarly, Princeton professor Kim Lane Scheppele, interviewed on
Public Radio
International
,
warned
that, "Women are going to bear the burden of Orbán's failed economic policies." And Swedish Social
Affairs Minister Annika Strandhäll
said
that, "This kind of policy will harm the autonomy for which women have struggled for decades."
These analysts are right that Orbán's policies are designed to
encourage women to marry, buy houses, bear more children, and stay in Hungary. But their criticism misses the mark
in important ways. Overall, these proposals are not coercive. Nor do they seek to keep women barefoot and
homebound. Instead, Orbán's plan is designed to help women manage their work-life balance. For that, it should be
celebrated, not excoriated.
Consider the lifetime income-tax exemption for women with four
or more children. The primary beneficiaries of this program will be women who work, because those with no income
will gain no advantage. In two-parent families where both partners have similar or equal earning potential, it may
make sense for the woman to work tax-free, or run the family business, while the man stays at home with the
children.
Likewise, giving grandparents childrearing benefits helps women
to enter the labor force. So does subsidized childcare. And although the new loan programs do encourage women to
have children, they also may enable them to buy a home. In short, these policies provide state support for women's
unpaid labor.
Like it or not, some of Europe's boldest new social-policy
initiatives are coming from its most illiberal governments. The negative reactions of mainstream opinion leaders
in the West show how unprepared they are to do battle with Orbán and others for voters' hearts and minds. The
populist right is pressing the rhetoric and policies of social democracy into the service of authoritarian
nationalism. If the West cannot see or understand the appeal of this, it will be unable to fight back.
Why would only blacks object to existence of these monuments? What about the purported
victors of that war? They could have objected but did not. The people attacking these
monuments are effectively declaring that they want a civil war, as I see it.
Icons of outstanding accomplishment seem nearly always to be about war.. and the political
figures that made the Oligarchs filthy rich prosecuting a war that killed millions. The more
dead, the bigger the statute.
Where are the monuments to Watson and Crick, Newton, the persons that discovered penicillin,
the engines that convert energy from one form to a more usable other form or statutes of the
persons that founded our great universities or the persons that discovered how to capture
electricity and make available in every household?
Few icons to those that have made the quality of our lives better are ever produced,
Why?
Probably because the war mongers would have none of that.. Oligarchs own 90% of the press,
the media, and
means of communicating their wars, no damn invention that makes life better for the
displicibles is going to get into the way of profit making wars that fund so much of Economic
Zionism.
Consider the recent invention at the U of Australia where hard work discovered 2,200
different places in the world, where a combination of sunlight and wind energy can produce
and store sufficient energy to supply 24/7 all the energy the entire world needs on the power
grid. Not a word of it in the media. Soon I expect to see a monument to the shock and awe
bastards?
This is from 2015. Not much changed... But relevant for Venezuela. So what will happen with Venesuellians if
the color revolution suceeed, is easy to predict using Ukrainian example
Notable quotes:
"... Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources, 19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look at the US-Ukraine Business Council. ..."
"... Meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West, Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire... ..."
"... This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian mongrels. ..."
"... Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them with their private foreign mercenary force. ..."
"... Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds, no doubt with promises of power sharing. ..."
"... She no doubt got her position not by intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor, Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. ..."
"... The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics. ..."
"... The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are in order for such dedication. The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved to the temptation to report news. Too bad. ..."
"... Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing. False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say. ..."
"... Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces. They favour ethnic cleansing. ..."
"... The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they succeeded ..."
"... The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian! ..."
"... this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi. ..."
"... the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony. ..."
"... Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc. Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative! ..."
"... The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will easily find it. The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from investigating Maiden shooters. ..."
"... have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia (next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language. She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe. ..."
"... This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina - the video is still on the BBC website. ..."
"... As predicted the real civil war in Ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and the ordinary Ukrainian was largely manufactured ..."
"... "When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?" ..."
"... in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution -- with regret and cynicism. ..."
"... Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by their own admission! These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy. Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law, Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards. ..."
The Georgian authorities have asked Interpol to put a Red notice on Mikheil Saakashvili as the
request to Ukraine to return him for trial in Georgia was refused.
ww3orbust PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 20:22
That does not detract from the fact that the Ukrainian cabinet has been chosen by the US state
department. Natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship
in order to maintain an iron grip on Ukraine, while accusing Putin of appointing majors or governors
- in his capacity as head of state?
ww3orbust 13 Jul 2015 20:16
Amazing, nothing at all mentioned by the BBC. It does not fit in to their narrative to see the
country descend into a new stage of anarchy, between the people who murdered police and protesters
on Maidan square, and the US state department installed cabinet. Presumably if Right Sector refuse
to disarm and continue torturing civilians and murdering police, the BBC will continue to ignore
it and focus instead on its Russo-phobic narrative, while accusing Russia of propaganda with the
self-righteous piety that only the BBC are capable of. Or god forbid, more stories about what
colour stool our future king has produced this week.
The thing is, Ukraine is unique in allowing their Nazi thugs to be armed and have some semi-official
status. Everywhere else (including Russia), governments are looking to constrain the activities
of Nazis and prosecute them where possible.
jgbg Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 18:26
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
Them and Svoboda. If it had just been Orange Revolution II, with a simple change of Jewish
oligarchs in charge, there might have been some complaints but little more. It is the Russian-hating
far right that has brought about the violence and everything that has happened since.
PrinceEdward GreatMountainEagle 13 Jul 2015 18:22
Last I heard, Ukraine owes China billions for undelivered Grain.
HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 18:11
But the Euro Maidan press is just an Ukrainian rag that invents stories to support its corrupt
government in Kiev.
jgbg PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 17:54
I forget the article, but in the comments I mentioned that multiple Georgians were being
appointed to high level positions by Kiev, and some Russophobe called me a liar.
Not a few days later, Shakashvilli was appointed governor of Odessa. An ex-president of another
country, as governor of a province in another one! Apparently, none of the millions upon millions
of Ukrainians were qualified for the job.
Sakashvilli's former Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia, Eka Zguladze, is First Deputy
Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Of course, the Georgian people removed these chumps from
power the first chance they got but the Ukrainian electorate haven't had any say in the appointments
of foreigners in their country.
Well ... when it comes to Ukraine, the need to stock up on popcorn. This bloody and unpredictable
plot is not even in the "Game of Thrones." And this is only the middle of the second season.
Today Speaker of the "RS" Andrew Sharaskin, said: Sports Complex in Mukachevo where the shooting
occurred, was used as the base of the separatists DNR.
- A place 1,000 kilometers from Donetsk! But it's a great excuse to murder the guard in the café
and wounded police officers.
I think tomorrow will say that there have seen Russian Army tanks and Putin - 100%
"Ukraine is part of Europe" - the slogans of the Maidan in action...
Pravyi Sektor were not wrong. However, you cannot have armed groups cleaning up corruption
outside the law...that only works in Gotham City.
Right Sector weren't trying to clean up corruption, they were simply trying to muscle in on
the cigarette smuggling business. If Right Sector cared about crime and public order, they wouldn't
be driving around, armed to the teeth, in vehicles stolen in the EU. (In the video linked in the
article, all of their vehicles have foreign number plates. At least one of those vehicles is on
the Czech police stolen vehicle database:
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pravy-sektor-mel-v-mukacevu-auta-s-ceskymi-spz-fqj-/zahranicni.aspx?c=A150713_102110_zahranicni_jj)
The EU and the US have stated on many occasions that there are "No Right Wing Nationalists" operating
in Ukraine and its simply propaganda by Putin.
So there shouldn't be anything to worry about should there ?
Stas Ustymenko hfakos 13 Jul 2015 15:15
Yes, yes. You seem to tolerate Medvedchuk and Baloga mafias way better, for years.
Transcarpathian Region is the most corrupt in all of Ukraine (which is quite a fit). What we see
here is a gang war in fatigues.
tanyushka Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 15:14
sorry i posted the same above... i was just to hasty.. sorry again...
in the main picture of the same article it's interesting to notice the age of most of the conscripted
soldiers... they are in their 30's, theirs 40's and even in their 50's... it's forced conscription,
they are not volunteers... while all the DPR & LPR soldiers are real volunteers...
an uncle, the father of a cousin, was conscripted in Kherson... my cousin had to run away to South
American to say with an aunt to avoid conscription... many men are doing it in Ukraine nowadays...
not because they are cowards but because they don't want to kill their brothers & sisters for
the benefit of the oligarchs and their NATO masters (and mistresses...)
did you know that all the conscripts have to pay for their own uniforms and other stuff, while
in the National Guard and the oligarchs batallions everything is top quality and for free... including
bulletproof vests and other implements courtesy of NATO
Demi Boone 13 Jul 2015 15:13
Well finally they reveal themselves. These Ukraine Nationalists are the people who instigated
the anarchy and shootings at Maidan and used it as an excuse to wrongfully drive out an elected
President and in the chaos that followed bring in a coup Government which represents only West-Ukraine
and suppress' East-Ukraine. You are looking at the face of the real Maidan and not the dream that
a lot of people have tried to paint it to be.
Stas Ustymenko MartinArvay 13 Jul 2015 15:11
Many Right Sector members are indeed patriots. But it looks like the organisation itself is,
sadly, much more useful for providing thugs for hire than "justice".
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:20
But seriously, the naval base is probably the reason, it is too important for some interests
to have a less-reliable (Ukrainian) in charge, this is a job only for the most trusted poodles.
If things had gone differently, the tie-eatimng chap would have been appointed Mayor of Sebastopol.
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:15
There appears to be a Quisling-shortage in Ukraine at present.
Stas Ustymenko obscurant 13 Jul 2015 13:32
More accurately, Kolomoyskiy is Ukrainian oligarch. Who happens to be ethnically, culturally
and, by all accounts, religiously, a Jew.
Stas Ustymenko Kaiama 13 Jul 2015 13:24
Ukrainian Volunteer Corps of the Right Sector fighting in Donbass is two battalions. How is
this a "key organization"? They are a well-known brand and fought bravely on some occasions, but
the wider org is way too eager to brandish arms outside of combat or training. They will be reigned
in, one way or another, and soon.
GameOverManGameOver Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 12:02
Shh shh shh. This news does not exist yet in the western media, therefore it's nothing but
Russian propaganda.
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 11:54
It gets worse - soldiers from the UA are now refusing to follow orders in protest against the
total anarchy sweeping the chain of command, and their lack of rest and equipment.
Tensions have been rising between the government and the Right Sector militia that has
helped it fight pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.
Finally, the Guardian decided to report the actual new after satisfying itself with ample discussion
of the quality of Russian cheeses. Right sector "helped" to fight "separatists"? Really? Does
Alec Luhn know that there are currently two (!) RS battalions at the front and 19 (!) inside Ukraine?
They are some warriors. Now they are occupying themselves fighting as criminals they are for the
control of contraband.
At the ATO zone, they help consists of plundering, murdering and raping the local population.
They enter a village, take everything of value from houses and then blow them up. They rape women
and girls as young as 10 years old. They've been doing this for more than a year, and we've been
telling you that for more than a year. But apparently in the fight against "pro-Russian separatists"
everything is good. These crimes are so widespread, even the Ukrainian "government" is worried
this will eventually becomes impossible to deny. Some battalions such as Shakhtersk and Aidar
have been officially accused of crimes and ompletely or partially reformed.
Examples: http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1413804655
Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources,
19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look
at the US-Ukraine Business Council. It bring NATO, Monsanto and the Heritage Foundation under
one roof:
You'd be surprised, but I like Bandera (controversial as he was) way more than I trust some
people who wrap themselves in his red-and-black Rebel banner. Yarosh included. Banderite rebellion
ended 60 years ago. Its major goal was establishing a "united, free Ukrainian state"; by contrast,
stated ultimate goals of the Right Sector are way murkier; I'm not sure even most of the movement's
members are clear on what these are.
With present actions, Right Sector has a huge image problem in the West. If it will come to all-out
conflict, no doubt the West will back Poroshenko government over a loose confederation of armed
dudes linked by the thin thread of 30ies ideology (suspect even then). And the West will be right.
Stas Ustymenko Nik2 13 Jul 2015 11:03
Methinks you're way overselling a thug turf war as "major political event. Truth is, the region
has been long in the hands of organized crime. The previous regime incorporated and controlled
almost all organized crime in the country, hence no visible conflict. Now, individual players
try to use temporary uncertainty to their advantage.
Right Sector claims they were trying to fight
the smuggling, but this doesn't sound plausible. The word is, what's behind the events is struggle
for control over lucrative smuggling between two individuals (who are both "businessmen" and "politicians",
members of Parliament). Both are old-school players, formerly affiliated with Yanukovitch party.
One just was savvy enough to buy himself some muscle under Right Sector banner. Right Sector will
either have to straighten out its fighters (which it may not be able to do) or disappear as a
political player. I fail to see how people see anything "neo-Nazi" in this gang shootout.
PaddyCannuck Cavirac 13 Jul 2015 10:21
Nobody here is an apologist for Stalin, who was a brutal and cruel despot, and the deportations
of the Crimean Tatars were quite indefensible. However, a few observations might lend some perspective.
1. Crimea has been invaded and settled by an almost endless succession of peoples over the
millennia. The Crimean Tatars (who are of Turkic origin) were by no means the first, nor indeed
the last, and cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as the indigenous people of Crimea.
2. The Crimean Tatars scarcely endeared themselves to the Russians, launching numerous raids,
devastating many towns, including the burning of Moscow in 1571, and sending hundreds of thousands,
if not millions of Russians into slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
3. The deportations took place in 1942 - 1943 against the backdrop of World War II, when a lot
of bad stuff happened, including -
4. The American (and also Canadian) citizens of Japanese ethnicity who had their property confiscated
and were likewise shipped off to camps. Their treatment, if anything, was worse.
Sevastopol, Pearl Harbor. What's the difference? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West,
Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden
by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't
explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it
was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire...
Nik2 6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:53
Not exactly. By now, BBC has made good coverage of these events in Ukrainian and Russian languages,
but not in English. It looks like BBC considers that Western public does not deserve the politically
sad truth about armed clashes between "champions of Maidan Revolution" and "new democratic authorities,
fighting corruption". Western public should not be in doubt about present-day "pro-European" Ukraine.
And "The Guardian" still has only one article on the issue that could be a turning point in Ukrainian
politics. This is propaganda, not informing about or analyzing really serious political events.
VictorWhisky 13 Jul 2015 09:51
This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters
in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian
and non-Ukrainian mongrels.
Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial
positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose
help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them
with their private foreign mercenary force.
Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department
bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds,
no doubt with promises of power sharing.
So madame Nuland was perfectly willing to get in bed
with the Ukrainian NAZI devils (her Jewish friend should be proud) and when the dirty deed was
done, she is now turning against Ukrainian nationalists in the attempt to have outside forces
in control of Ukraine. Madame Nuland is not as intelligent or capable as portrayed, because if
she was, she would have known Ukraine has a very delicate and very complicated political structure
and history with nearly half the country speaking Russian and more loyal to the Russians than
to the US.
An intelligent person familiar with Ukrainian history would know any attempt of placing
a US stooge in Kiev would certainly result in a civil war.
She no doubt got her position not by
intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and
children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor,
Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. That intelligent idiot's policies resulted in the
death of 3 million Vietnamese and 50,000 young Americans. Does madame Nuland intend to sacrifice
that many Ukrainians to prove her ultimate stupidity?
Jeremn Luminaire 13 Jul 2015 09:51
The conscripts didn't want to shoot their fellow Ukrainians. The nationalists don't believe
the people in the east are their fellow Ukrainians.
Because they were lovely guys, evidently, and their "popularity" has nothing to do with armed
thugs beating you up if you say anything against them (or the state prosecuting you for denying
or questioning their heroism).
Jeremn jezzam 13 Jul 2015 09:35
Ukrainian media, reporting Ukrainian government official:
12 police dead in two days, 180 wounded with gunshot wounds.
Still Kremlin lies?
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 09:30
Thank God Ukraine is finally free and democratic. The old autocratic regime actually had the
gall to make running street battles illegal - but those dark days are in the past. In the liberated
Ukraine you are free spend the dollar a day you get paid on a bullet proof vest so the rampant
Nazi street gangs don't kill you.
Jeremn SHappens 13 Jul 2015 09:26
You'd be surprised, there are Bandera-lovers in the UK too. There's a Bandera museum. And there
is this lot, teaching Christian values to children. And telling them that Bandera was a hero.
Future Right Sector supporters being crafted as we type.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:24
The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics. Luckily, the Russians have liberated Crimea so piracy on the high seas isn't an option for
the Ukrainians.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:18
Apparently, UAVs generously supplied to Ukrainians by the Canadian taxpayers are being put
to good use smuggling cigarettes into Slovakia.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:12
The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are
in order for such dedication.
The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved
to the temptation to report news. Too bad.
aucontraire2 13 Jul 2015 08:36
Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with
all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical
and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a
say.
SomersetApples 13 Jul 2015 08:25
The country is bankrupt; the Kiev putschists are selling off the country's assets to their
New York allies, the oligarchs and Nazis are at war against each other and the illegal putschist
government and now toilet mouth Nuland is back on the scene. Looks like a scene form Dante's Inferno.
todaywefight Polvilho 13 Jul 2015 07:54
Which Russian invasion will this be the of he approximately 987 mentioned by Poroshenko and
our man Yatz...or are you referring to the people of the AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA's (yes
that was what was called after the 1994 referendum) massive wishes to (like Donbass) go against
a government who illegally dismissed an elected president a wish that was reflected on a referendum
which was allowed by their constitution 18(7)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 13 Jul 2015 07:38
Yes. Most of the protesters are good people who just want a better deal in life.
monteverdi1610 13 Jul 2015 06:54
Remember all those CIF threads when those of us who pointed to the neo-Nazis in Ukraine were
immediately called ' Putinbots ' ?
PS/ Apologies would be the order of the day , perhaps ?
Sturney 13 Jul 2015 06:49
Apparently this conflict is over. Temporarily over. Anyway in ever-contracting economy, in
a Mariana trench between Russia and EU, in the most totalitarian country in history, such conflicts
will continue. Since Nuland tossed yeast in the outhouse nobody can stop fermentation of sh*t.
Help yourself with some beer and shrimps. I am looking forward when these masses splash out to
EU, preferably to Poland. Must be fun to watch. (Lipspalm)
Justin Obisesan 13 Jul 2015 06:33
In the run-up to the Euro 2012 football tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine, I
remember how the media in this country worked themselves into a frenzy harping on about the presence
of violent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. After the removal of Mr Yanukovych from office, the same
media organisations changed their tune by describing any talk of neo- Nazis in Ukraine as "Russian
propaganda". The Western media coverage of the Ukrainian crises has been so blatantly pro-Kiev
and anti-Donbass that their claims of impartiality and objectivity cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Jeremn jgbg 13 Jul 2015 06:16
It is fine when they are shooting at Donetsk, but not so good when they use the same tactics
in western Ukraine.
Azov are the same, violent neo-Nazi thugs given authority, and this article notes that PrivatBank
is the bank that services requests for donations to the Azov funds, using J P Morgan as intermidiary.
Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in
Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces.
They favour ethnic cleansing.
Jeremn William Fraser 13 Jul 2015 06:10
The people who support Bandera are in western Ukraine. They are the ones who say Stalin starved
the Ukrainian people.
Trouble is, in the 1930s, western Ukraine belonged to Poland.
It was the Russians, eastern Ukrainians and other Soviet people who starved, not the western
Ukrainians.
Kefirfan 13 Jul 2015 06:02
Good, good. Let the democracy flow through you...
Pwedropackman SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:53
It will be interesting to see which side the US and Canada will support. Probably Poroshenko
and the Oligarchs because the Right Sector is not so happy about the ongoing sales of Ukraine
infrastructure to US corporates.
SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:14
Harpers' babies are out manifesting, supporting the good guys:
"Supporters of Ukraine's Right Sector extremist group rallied in Ottawa Sunday amid the
radicals' ongoing standoff with police in western Ukraine."
The rally outside the Ukrainian embassy was organized by the Right Sector's representative
office in the Canadian capital, 112 Ukraine TV channel reported, citing the Facebook account of
the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.
careforukraine 13 Jul 2015 05:09
I wonder how long it will be before the us denounces nazi's in ukraine?
Kind of seems like we have seen this all before.
Almost like how ISIS were just freedom fighters that needed our support until ?.....
Well we all know what happened there.
Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 05:04
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 04:41
Yes, I agree, they do wreck the economy. That was my point. Russia want's strong economies
to do business with, not broken economies that only ask for financial aid.
Like I said, no evidence of Russian troops in Donbass and South Ossetia asked for the presence
of Russian troops to deter the Georgian government from trying another invasion.
And organisations like CIS are meant to expand economic ties. Just like the EU I suppose. They
function in pretty much the same way with everyone getting a chance to lead. So I don't know why
that should be a bad thing. Since the EU is not interested in admitting Russia why can't Russia
go to other organisations?
VladimirM Dmitriy Grebenyuk 13 Jul 2015 04:26
It's a poisonous sarcasm, I think. But I've heard that RS accuse the Ukrainian government of
being pro-Putin as the government accuse them of being Russian agents. Surreal a bit.
stewfen FOHP46 13 Jul 2015 04:24
The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington
wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they
succeeded
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 03:54
I'll admit that frozen conflicts could be useful to Russia. But only from a security point
of view. And why not, exactly? NATO is Russia's biggest threat, so it would make sense for the
government to want to avoid it expanding any further. I understand your misgivings since you're
speaking from the position that NATO should expand to deter Russi I mean 'Iran', but surely you
understand that Russia wanting to prevent that makes logical sense? Sure, it's at someone else's
expense but let's not pretend that big countries doing something at someone else's expense is
a new and revolutionary concept reserved only to Russia. And the Georgian conflict dates back
to the very early 90's.
From an economic point of view though, no sense at all. Frozen conflicts usually bring economic
barriers. Believe it or not Russia's priority isn't expansion, but the economy. And trade with
it's neighbours is an important element of the Russian economy. It's very hard to trade with areas
that are in the middle of a frozen conflict. So in that sense the last thing Russia would want
are profitable areas in a frozen conflict around it's borders hampering it's economic growth.
And none of this has anything to do with Marioupol.
Debreceni 13 Jul 2015 03:38
The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in
Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was
cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian!
Kaiama PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 02:50
We don't know if PS were also doing it as well or just poking their noses into someone else's
business. Who started it? I doubt the correct answer will ever be known. Two unsavoury groups
arguing about an illegal business. The problem is that the MP is an MP whereas PS is a national
organisation.
It's never the US....it's never the West.....
(you know, to balance things) : )
todaywefight 13 Jul 2015 01:53
If any one on the other side, the dark side, ever thought that these lot will hold hands with
any one, lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya, uou are either utterly naive or willfully ignorant.
Apparently, these lot have 23 battalions, armed to their teeth, the added bonus for the Privy
Sektor is that , due to expedience and cowardice , they have just made legal and incorporated
into the Ukrainian army, Kyiv is in a highway to nowhere.
Incidentally, unlike the maidan demonstrations which essentially were only in Kyiv there are
demonstrations in more than a dozen cities, and have established dozen of check points already
and Yarosh a member of the VT. have clearly instructed them to fight if necessary.
GameOverManGameOver Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 01:35
So? Yes there are nationalists in Russia, just like everywhere else. You get a gold star for
googling. Shall I get some articles with European and American nationalists to parade around to
make a vague point? If you want I can get you an article of Lithuanians dressed up as the Waffen
SS parading around Vilnius. That's Lithuania the EU and Nato member. Funny how EU principles disappear
when it's one of their own violating them.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. While all countries have their nationalists, those
nationalists are a very small minority, have no power, have no popular support, have no seats
in government, usually derided by the majority of the population and they certainly aren't armed
to the teeth roaming around the country killing, torturing and kidnapping people with the blessing
of their government
HollyOldDog Joe way 13 Jul 2015 00:09
The Right Sector were / are Ukrains Storm Troopers who have had more advanced training by the
Americans. If the Right Sector turn on the Kiev Government they will be difficult to defeat, and
who knows if the civilian population of Ukraine may join in the 'fun' by ousting the current unpopular
Ukrainian government.
sorrentina 12 Jul 2015 23:35
this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement
Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like
Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor
Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists
were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi.
annamarinja jgbg 12 Jul 2015 23:31
The threshold has been guessed impatiently by the US neocons (while the provocateur Higgins/
Bellingcat fed the gullible the fairy tales about Russian army in Ukraine). The US needs desperately
a real civil war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians be damned. Just look what the US-sponsored "democracy
on the march" has produced in the Middle East. Expect the same bloody results in eastern Europe.
annamarinja obscurant 12 Jul 2015 23:25
perhaps you do not realize that your insults are more appropriate towards the poor Ukrainians
that have been left destitute by the cooky-carrying foreigners and their puppets in Kiev. The
Ukrainian gold reserve has disappeared... meanwhile, the US Congress has shamed the US State Dept
for collaborating with Ukrainian neo-nazis. Stay tuned. But do not expect to hear real news from
your beloved Faux News.
annamarinja quorkquork 12 Jul 2015 23:14
the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's
cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial
lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony.
Bud Peart 12 Jul 2015 22:59
Well we always knew it would end this way. With a stalemate in the war with the East the Right
wing paramilitaries and private oligarch militias (whom the west funded and trained) have gone
completely feral and are now in fighting directly with whats left of the Ukrainian National Army.
This is pretty much the rode to another breakaway in Galacia which would effectively end the Ukraine
as a functional state.
The government should move as fast as possible to get a decent federal structure (copy switzerland)
in place before the whole of the West goes into revolt as well.
DelOrtoyVerga LostJohnny 12 Jul 2015 22:38
That is what you get when you put fascists in your government.
I rather reword it to
That is what you get when you enable and rely on thugish pseudo-fascist radical para-military
groups to impose order by force and violence against dissident segments of your own population
(which is armed to the teeth probably by Russia)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 22:37
What do you think it is?
There were several people identified directly or indirectly in this BBC story whose stories should
have been formally pursued by legal authorities in Kiev.
If you lived in the West you would understand that we call these references as possible 'leads'
- you follow these 'leads' and see where they take you. That is what Western police do.
The story says that Kiev didn't want to follow up any of these points. Why? What harm could this
do?
You state that you do not understand the point that this BBC journalist was making. But I have
in a fair way tried to to explain the point that the BBC was making.
This story caused quite a stir went it came out - and the BBC chose to stick with it and support
their British reporter. In an edited and shorter form the story is still on the BBC - the editing
is also acknowledged by the BBC.
Do you think the BBC should have blocked or not published this investigative piece?
If so - why?
And why hasn't Kiev followed up these issues?
Have I addressed your point yet?
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 21:34
I am just watching a program recorded earlier. Hiroshima: The Aftermath. I have got past the
part when the Japanese 'survivors' had to drink from the pools of Black Rain ( highly radioactive)
and watched the part when American Army Tourists visited the city to take a few photos ( no medical
help though) while gawking at the gooks. In fact the Japanese civilians recieved no medical assistance
at all from the Americans. The commentator just said that they were just there to study the effects
of nuclear radiation on a civilian population. These nuclear bombs were just dropped on Japan
to save One Day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.
The next documtary I will watch another day is the sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF using
Tallboy bombs. At least this had a useful pupose in helping to stop the destruction of the North
Atlantic convoys, sending aid to Russia. That aid along with the rebuilding of the Soviet Armies
helped the Soviet Union to destroy the invading Nazi forces and provided a Second Front to the
Western Allies to invade Normandy. A lot of good can be achieved when the East and West work together
- maybe avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming but the Americans only seem to want to spend
Trillions $ building more powerful nuclear weapons. Is this all that America has now, an Arms
Industry - I can see it now, cooling the planet with a Nuclear Winter.
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 20:33
The USA caused the chaos in Ukraine so they must pay the billions of $ to fix it then leave
Ukraine alone.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:29
One of the amusing features of the Soviet media was the long silences it maintained on possibly
embarrassing breaking news until it became clear what the Party Line was.
Eventually, a memo would go out from Mikhail Suslov's office to various media outlets and the
silence would be broken.
At least everyone knew exactly how that system worked. What is happening with the British media
is much more murky.
The beeb/graun seem to be the Pravda/Izvestia, whilst the torygraph is a sort of Trybuna Ludu
- ie real news very occasionally appears in it.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:08
So, after a mere 24 hours the Graun ran a story on Mukachevo. The Torygraph actually had the
nerve to run the AFP wire report more or less straight away.
The BBC are still keeping shtum.
The Beeb/Graun complex have well and truly had the frighteners put on them.
PrinceEdward Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 20:07
There's no doubt. I agree that the MP was probably running cigarettes, but also Right Sektor
was going to muscle in.
If you asked somebody 3 years ago if Ukraine would be rocked by armed bands with RPGs and Light
Machine Guns fighting in towns, they would have thought you were crazy.
This isn't Russia, this is the Ultranats/Neo-Nazis.
PrinceEdward obscurant 12 Jul 2015 20:05
Right, it's the people in Donbass who bury 14th SS Division veterans with full honors, push
for full pensions to surviving Hiwi and SS Collaborators... not those in Lvov. Uh huh.
BMWAlbert 12 Jul 2015 20:04
11 months of investigations by the newKiev regime, attempting to implicate the the prior one
for the murder of about 100 people in Kiev early last year was unsuccessful. There may be better
candidates here.
fragglerokk ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 19:55
It always amazes me that the far right never learn from history. The politicians and oligarchs
always use them as muscle to ensure coup success then murder/assasinate the leaders to make sure
they dont get any ideas about power themselves. Surprised its taken so long in ukraine but then
the govt is barely hanging onto power and the IMF loans have turned to a trickle so trouble will
always be brewing, perhaps theyve left it too long this time. Nobody will be shedding any tears
for the Nazis and Banderistas.
Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created
Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed
a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started
a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc.
Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative!
Kaiama gimmeshoes 12 Jul 2015 19:53
If you think Pryvi Sektor want to "clean up" then yes, but not in the way you imagine - they
just want the business for themselves.
Geordiemartin 12 Jul 2015 19:51
I am reminded of AJP Taylor premise that Eastern Europe has historically had either German
domination or Russian protection.
The way that the Ukrainian government had treated their own Eastern compatriots leaves little
reason to believe they would be welcome back into the fold and gives people of Donbass no reason
to want to rejoin the rest of the country.
If government is making an effort to reign in the likes of Right sector it is a move in the
right direction but much much more will be needed to establish any trust.
Some Guy yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:45
just because they are nazis doesnt mean they are happy about doing any of this... now. look
at greece and the debacle that has unfolded over the past week has been . the west ukraine wanted
to be part of the euro zone and wanted some of that ecb bail out money. now they are not even
sure if they could skip out on the bill and know they are fighting for nothing . russia gave them
14 bil dollars . the west after the coup only gave the 1 bil
Andor2001 Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 19:44
According to the eyewitnesses the RS shot a guard when he refused to summon the commanding
officer. It was the beginning of the fight.
Andor2001 yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:41
Remember Shakespeare "Othello"? Moor has done his job, Moor has to go..
The neo-Nazis have outlived their usefulness.
Bosula caaps02 12 Jul 2015 19:39
The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately
started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will
easily find it.
The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from
investigating Maiden shooters.
Maybe the BBC is telling us a lie? The BBC investigation is worth a read - then you can make up
your own mind.
Bosula William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 19:29
Kazakhstan had the highest percentage of deaths from Stalin's policies in this period when
he prevented the nomad herders moving from the mountains to the planes to take advantage of the
benefits of seasons and weather.
Stalin forced the nomads to stay in one area and they perished in the cold of the mountains or
the heat of the summer plains (whichever zone they were forced to stay in).
Some of my family is Ukrainian and some recognise that Stalin's policies weren't specifically
aimed at Ukrainians - the people of Kazakhstan suffered the most (as a percentage of population).
Either way, there is no genetic difference between Slavs or Russian or Ukrainian origin in Ukraine
or Russia - they are all genetically the same people.
This information should be better taught in Ukraine.
The problem is that it would undermine the holy grail story of right wing nationalism in Ukraine.
It's been one of the biggest mistakes ( although Ukraine's military started in a desperately
poor condition ) , to allow militia groups to get so powerful. Right sector should not have arms
and guns... The national Ukraine military should, If members of Right sector want to fight , they
should leave Right sector and join the army.
This was and will happen if they don't disband such armed groups.
annamarinja silvaback 12 Jul 2015 18:18
have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia
(next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard
about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the
civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you
may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language.
She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his
name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs
to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing
that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe.
Bev Linington JJRichardson 12 Jul 2015 18:10
Ukrainians shot down the plane. East, West does not matter as they were all Ukrainians before
the government overthrow. Leaders of the new government could not look past some Ukrainian citizens
ethnicity, instead of standing together united, they decided to oppress which lead to the referendum
in Crimea and the rise of separatists in the East.
jgbg Chirographer 12 Jul 2015 17:53
And for the Pro-Russian posters the newsflash is that could also describe the situation
inside the Donbass.
It certainly describes the situation in Donbass where Right Sector or the volunteer battalions
are in charge. In Dnepropetrovsk, Right Sector would simply turn up at some factory or other business
and order the owner to sign document transferring the enterprise to them. In other cases, they
have kidnapped businessmen for ransom. Some people have simply disappeared under such circumstances.
The Ukrainian National Guard simply break into homes left empty by people fleeing the war and
steal the contents. Such was the scale of looting, the Ukrainian postal service have now refused
to ship electrical goods out of the ATO area unless the senders have the original boxes and receipts.
jgbg AlfredHerring 12 Jul 2015 17:45
Maybe Kiev just needs to bomb them some more.
Putin promised to protect the Russian speaking people in Ukraine - but he hasn't really done
that. His government has indicated that they would not allow Kiev to simply overrun or obliterate
the people of Donbass. Quite where their threshold of actual intervention lies is anyone's guess.
The "pro-Russian" government that you refer to was only elected because it promised to sign
the EU trade agreement. It then reneged on that promise...
Yanukovych's government was elected the previous one was useless and corrupt.
Yanukovych wanted to postpone the decision to sign for six months, while he attempted to extract
more from both the EU and Russia. Under Poroshenko, the implementation of the EU Association Agreement
has been delayed for 15 months, as the governments of Ukraine, the EU and Russia all recognised
that Russian trade (with the favourable terms which Ukraine enjoys) are vitail to Ukraine's economic
recovery. Expect that postponement to be extended.
.... severely and brutally curtailing freedom of speech and concentrating all power in the
hands of Yanukovich's little clan...
As opposed to sending the military to shell the crap out of those who objected to an elected
government being removed by a few thousand nationalists in Kiev.
There was no "coup".
An agreement had been signed at the end of February 2014, which would see elections in September
2014. The far right immediately moved to remove the government (as Right Sector had promised on
camera in December 2013). None of the few mechanisms for replacing the president listed in the
Ukrainian constitution have been followed - that makes it a coup.
The Maidan protesters were not armed
This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on
Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina
- the video is still on the BBC website.
....the interim government that was put in place by the parliament in late February and
the government that was elected in May and Oct. of 2014 were and are not fascist.
The interim government included several ministers from Svoboda, formerly the Socialist Nationalist
Party of Ukraine. These were the first Nazi ministers in a European government since Franco's
Spanish government that ended in the 1970's. In a 2013 resolution, the EU parliament had indicated
that no Ukrainian government should include members of Svoboda or other far right parties.
pushkinsideburn vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 16:45
There has been a marked change in rhetoric over the last few weeks. Even CiF on Ukraine articles
seems to attract less trolls (with a few notable exceptions on this article - though they feel
more like squad trolls than the first team). Hopefully a sign of deescalation or perhaps just
a temporary lull before the MH17 anniversary this week?
pushkinsideburn calum1 12 Jul 2015 16:38
His other comments should have been the clue that arithmetic, like independent critical thinking,
is beyond him.
normankirk 12 Jul 2015 16:19
Right sector were the first to declare they wouldn't abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement.Nevertheless,
Dmitry Yarosh, their leader is adviser to Ukraine's Chief of staff. Given that he only received
about 130,000 votes in the last election, he has a disproportionate amount of power.
As predicted the real civil war in Ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and
the ordinary Ukrainian was largely manufactured . In the long term no body would be able to live
with the right sector or more precisely the right sector cant share a bed with anyone else.
sashasmirnoff RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 15:44
"When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as
it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules
all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at
that time?"
This may be why:
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - former CIA Director William
Colby
Alexander_the_Great 12 Jul 2015 15:43
This was so, so predictable. The Right Sector were the main violent group during the coup in
2014 - in fact they were the ones to bring the first guns to the square following their storming
of a military warehouse in west Ukraine a few days before the coup. It was this factor that forced
the Police to arm themselves in preparation.
Being the vanguard of the illegal coup, they then provided a useful tool of manipulation for
the illegal Kiev government to oppress any opposition, intimidate journalists who spoke the truth
and lead the war against the legally-elected ELECTED governments of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Having failed in the war against the east, western leaders have signalled the right sector
has now outlived its usefulness and has become an embarrassment to Kiev and their western backers.
The Right Sector meanwhile, feel betrayed by the establishment in Kiev. They have 19 battalions
of fighters and they wont go away thats for sure. I think one can expect this getting more violent
in the coming months.
SHappens jezzam 12 Jul 2015 15:40
Putin is a Fascist dictator.
Putin is not a dictator. He is a statist, authoritarian-inclined hybrid regime ruler that possesses
some democratic elements and space for opposition groups.
He has moderate nationalist tendencies in foreign affairs; his goal is a secure a strong Russia.
He is a patriot and has a charismatic authority. Russians stay behind him.
ploughmanlunch samuel glover 12 Jul 2015 15:31
'this notion that absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up
in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome'
Agreed.
As is everything is Russia's fault.
ConradLodziak 12 Jul 2015 15:26
This is just the latest in a string of conflicts involving the right sector, as reported by
RT, Russian media and until recently many Ukrainian outlets. The problem, of course, is that Porostinko
has given 'official' status to the right sector. Blow back time for him.
CIAbot007 William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:06
Yes, Russia (USSR) from the USSR foundation had been forcing people of the then territory of
Ukraine to identify themselves as Ukrainians under the process of rootisation - Ukrainization,
then gave to Ukraine Donbass and left side Dniepr and Odessa, Herson and Nikolaev, and then decided
to ethnically cleane them.. It doesn't make sense, does it? Oh, wait, sense is not your domain.
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:05
let me help you with arithmetics: 72 years ago Europe was inflamed with the WWII.
There was a considerable number of Ukrainians that collaborated with Hitler' nazis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
In short, your government finds it is OK to glorify the perpetrators of genocide in Europe during
the WWII.
Nik2 12 Jul 2015 15:04
These tragic events, when YESTERDAY, on Saturday afternoon, several civilians were unintentionally
wounded in gun battles in previously peaceful town near the Hungary and Slovakia borders, vividly
exposes Western propaganda. Though mass media in Ukraine and Russia are full of reports about
this from the start, The Guardian managed to give first information exactly 1 day later, and BBC
was still keeping silence a few minutes ago. Since both sides are allies of the West (the Right
Sector fighters were the core of the Maidan protesters at the later stages, and Poroshenko regime
is presumably "democratic"), the Western media preferred to ignore the events that are so politically
uncomfortable. Who are "good guys" to be praised? In fact, this may be the start of nationalists'
revolt against Ukrainian authorities, and politically it is very important moment that can fundamentally
change Ukrainian politics. But the West decides to be silent ...
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 14:59
Do your history book tell you that the Holodomor was a multiethnic endeavor? That the Ukrainians
were among the victims and perpetrators and that the whole huge country had suffered the insanely
cruel policies of multiethnic bolsheviks? The Holodomor was almost a century ago, whereas the
Odessa massacre and the bombardments of civilian population in east Ukraine by the neo-nazi thugs
(sent by Kiev), has been going during last year and half. Perhaps you have followed Mr. Brennan
and Mrs. Nuland-Kagan too obediently.
foolisholdman zonzonel 12 Jul 2015 14:58
zonzonel
Oops, the presumably fascist govt. is fighting a fascist group.
What is a poor troll to do these days??
Antiukrainian copywriting just got more difficult, perhaps a raise is needed? Just sayin.
What's your problem? Never heard of Fascist groups fighting each other? Never heard of the
"Night of the Long Knives"? Fascists have no principles to unite them. They believe in Uebermenschen
and of course they all think that either they themselves or their leader is The Ueberuebermensch.
Anyone who disagrees is an enemy no matter how Fascist he may be.
samuel glover ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 14:55
Y'know, I'm no fan of the Russophobic hysteria that dominates English-language media. I've
been to Ukraine several times over the last 15 years or so, and I'm sorry to say that I think
that in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution
-- with regret and cynicism.
That said, this notion that everything, absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master
script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome. Most post-revolution regimes purge
one end or the other of the current ideological wings. Kiev has already tangled with the oligarch
and militia patron Igor Kolomoisky. So perhaps this is another predictable factional struggle.
Or maybe, as another comment speculates, this is a feud over cigarette tax revenue.
In any case, Ukraine is a complex place going through an **extremely** complex time. it's too
soon to tell what the Lviv skirmish means, and **far** too soon to lay it all on nefarious puppetmasters.
TheTruthAnytime ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 14:49
The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country,...
Is the CIA their country? So far they've only seemed to serve the interests of American businesspeople,
not Ukrainian interests. Also, murdering eastern Ukrainians cannot really be considered such a
great service to Ukraine, can it?
annamarinja ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:44
Maidan was indeed a popular apprising, but it was utilized by the US strategists for their
geopolitical games. The Ukrainians are going to learn hard way that the US have never had any
interest in well-being of the "locals" and that the ongoing civil war was designed in order to
create a festering wound on a border with the Russia. The Iraqization of Ukraine was envisioned
by the neocons as a tool to break both Russia and Ukraine. The sooner Ukrainians come to a peaceful
solution uniting the whole Ukraine (for example, to federalization), the better for the general
population (but not for the thieving oligarchs).
vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 14:38
"Couple of hundred Right Sector supporters demonstrated in Kiev?" Come on! Over the last week,
there have been enough of videos of thousands of people in fatigues trying to block access to
government buildings and shouting rather aggressive demands. The entire battalions of "National
Guard." This is much bigger than just 100 people on a peaceful rally. Ukraine might be heading
towards Maidan 3.0.
ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:26
The situation in Ukraine has been unravelling for months and this news broke on Friday evening.
The Minsk II cease fire has not been honoured by Poroshenko, who has not managed to effect
any of the pledges he signed up to. The right sector who rejected the cease-fire from the start
are now refusing the rule of their post coup president in Kiev.
Time for Victoria Nuland to break out the cookies? Or maybe it's too late for that now. The
country formerly know as Ukraine is turning out to be another outstanding success of American
post -imperial foreign policy.
Meanwhile in UFA the BRIC's economic forum is drawing to a close, with representatives from
the developing world and no reporting of the aspirations being discussed there of over 60% of
the world's population. It's been a major success, but if you want to learn about it, you will
have to turn to other media sources - those usually reported as Russian propaganda channels or
Putin's apologists.
The same people who have been reporting on the deteriorating situation in Kiev since the February
coup. Or as Washington likes to call it a popular up rising.
'The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country'
Don't get me wrong. I detest the fascist militias and their evil deeds.
However, despite their callousness, brutality and stupidity, they have been the most effective
fighting force for Kiev ( more sensible Ukrainians have been rather more reluctant to kill their
fellow countrymen ).
Deluded ? Yes. Cowardly ? No.
Even more reprehensible, in my opinion are the calculating and unprincipled Kiev Government
that have attempted to bully a region of the Ukraine that had expressed legitimate reservations,
using those far right battalions, but accepting no responsibility for the carnage that they carried
out.
mario n 12 Jul 2015 12:52
I think it's time Europe spoke up about dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. 72 years ago Ukrainian
fascists committed one of the most hideous and brutal acts of genocide in the human history. Details
are so horrifying it is beyond imagination. Sadly not many people remembers that, because it is
not politically correct to say bad things about Ukraine. Today mass murderers are hailed as national
heroes and private battalions and ultranationalist groups armed to the teeth terrorise not only
Donbas but now different parts of the country like Zakarpattia where there is strong Hungarian,
Russian and Romanian minority.
How many massacres and acts of genocide Europe needs before it learns to act firmly?
SHappens 12 Jul 2015 12:49
Kiev has allowed nationalist groups including Right Sector to operate despite allegations
by groups like Amnesty International, that Right Sector has tortured civilian prisoners.
You know what, you dont play with fire or you will get burnt. It was written on the wall that
these Bandera apologists would eventually turn to the hand that fed them. I wonder how Kiev will
manage to blame the russians now.
RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 12:33
Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by
their own admission! These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government
of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly
cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy. Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law,
Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards.
The US neocons are losing interest in their attempted land grab of Ukraine - and the EU cretins
who backed the coup, thinking it would be a nice juicy further territorial acquisition for the
EU, are desperately looking the other way, now that both the US and EU realize that Ukraine is
a financial black hole.
When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is,
in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western
mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?
jgbg 12 Jul 2015 12:15
The move came after a gunfight broke out on Saturday, when about 20 Right Sector gunmen
arrived at a sports complex controlled by MP Mikhail Lano. They had been trying to stop the
traffic of cigarettes and other contraband, a spokesman for the group said.
Put another way, one group of gangsters tried to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling operation
of another group of gangsters. Smuggling cigarettes into nearby EU countries is extremely lucrative. Here's some video of some of the events:
Note the registration plates driven by both Right Sector and the other gangsters i.e. not Ukrainian.
In all likelihood, these cars are all stolen. Right Sector and fighters from "volunteer battalions" have become accustomed to muscling in
on other people's activities (legal or not) in Donbass. This sort of thuggery is routine when
these folk come to town. It is only when since they have continued such activities on their home
turf in west and central Ukraine that the authorities have taken any notice.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made a formal electoral pact for the upcoming
April election with the Otzma Yehudit (literally, "Jewish Power") party which has as its policy
the expulsion of all non-Jews from Israel, and whose leaders have said that "Christians are
'blood sucking vampires' who should be expelled from Israel."
News of the alliance was carried in the media aimed directly at Jews, such as the
Times of Israel , but has been completely suppressed in the Jewish lobby controlled media
in Europe and America -- because there, the Jewish lobby always pushes "non-racialism" as its
official policy for non-Jews.
According to the
Times of Israel
, Netanyahu has reached a deal with the Jewish Home Party to grant that "national-religious
party" a pair of ministerial posts after April's elections in exchange for it merging with the
Otzma Yehudit party, whose name in Hebrew literally translates as "Jewish Power."
The Times of Israel reported that the Jewish Home party earlier agreed to run in the
April elections jointly with the "National Union," party, which "has come under increasing
pressure from Netanyahu to make an alliance with Otzma Yehudit and Eli Yishai's Yachad, arguing
that a failure on those smaller parties' part to clear the electoral threshold could deprive
his Likud of enough potential partners to form a ruling coalition."
"... Is this political nationalism a viable way of resisting neoliberalism today? Can it gainsay the primacy of economic rationality and the culture of narcissist consumerism, and restore meaning to the political question concerning the common good? Or has nationalism irreversibly become an ethnic, separatist project? It is not easy to say. So far, we have witnessed one kind of response to the social insecurities generated by the global spread of neoliberalism. This is a return to ethnicity and religion as havens of safety and security. ..."
Nationalism was an emancipatory political project during the anti-colonial struggles of the
second half of the 20th century. It was not tribalist or communalist.
According to Eric Hobsbawm in Nations and Nationalism since 1780, its aim was to extend the
size of the social, cultural and political group. It was not to restrict it or to separate it
from others. Nationalism was a political programme divorced from ethnicity.
Is this political nationalism a viable way of resisting neoliberalism today? Can it gainsay
the primacy of economic rationality and the culture of narcissist consumerism, and restore
meaning to the political question concerning the common good? Or has nationalism irreversibly become an ethnic, separatist project? It is not easy to say. So far, we have witnessed one kind of response to the social
insecurities generated by the global spread of neoliberalism. This is a return to ethnicity and
religion as havens of safety and security.
When society fails us owing to job insecurity, and, concomitantly, with regard to housing
and healthcare, one tends to fall back on one's ethnicity or religious identity as an ultimate
guarantee.
Moreover, nationalism as a political programme depends on the idea of the state. It holds
that a group defined as a "nation" has the right to form a territorial state and exercise
sovereign power over it. But given the decline of the state, there are reasons to think that
political nationalism has withdrawn as a real possibility.
By the "decline of the state" I do not mean that it no longer exists. The state has never
been more present in the private life of individuals. It regulates the relations between men
and women. It regulates their birth and death, the rearing of children, the health of
individuals and so forth. The state is, today, ubiquitous.
What some people mean by the "decline of the state" is that, with the existence of
transnational corporations, it is no longer the most important site of the reproduction of
capital. The state has become managerial. Its function is to manage obstacles to liberalisation
and free trade.
Perhaps that is one of the challenges of the 21st century. How is a "nation" possible, a
"national community" that is not defined by ethnicity, on the one hand, and, on the other, that
forsakes the desire to exercise sovereign power in general and, in particular, over a
territorial state?
The university is perhaps the place where such a community can begin to be thought.
Rafael Winkler is an associate professor in the philosophy department at the University
of Johannesburg
Interestingly, the BAK Shalom group, which you called far-left, is one of the most
fanatical pro-Israel lobby groups in Germany. In my opinion, being a supporter of Israel
automatically means being far-right.
"... Trumpism's Contradictions and American Jews, and Islamophobia ..."
"... "I do not stop repeating it to French Jews. Not only is the National Front not your enemy, but it is without a doubt the best shield to protect you. It stands at your side for the defense of our freedoms of thought and of religion against the only real enemy, Islamist fundamentalism." ..."
"... Is Antisemitism on the rise? ..."
"... Anti-Semitism among Liberals and Conservatives ..."
"... Evangelical Christians: Friends of Israel, Enemies of secular American-Jews? ..."
"... What would happen to Jews in America and the relationship with Israel if they lost support from evangelical Christians? ..."
As it becomes increasingly apparent that the populist billionaire business "Messiah" behind
the mask of the "Trumpism" cult is merely in power to "Make America Great Again" by
transferring even more wealth from the lower and middle classes to the top 1% of wealthiest
Americans, the politics of rightwing extremism will intensify and even greater sociopolitical
division is inevitable. Billionaires and millionaires behind rightwing populism represent a
desperate effort to save the privileges that capitalists enjoy by driving a segment of society
ideologically and politically to the extreme right even if this entails embracing even more
austere police state methods, especially surveillance, than currently exist.
The Justice Department under Trump introduced harsher measures for petty crimes, loosening
any safety net protections of minorities from police abuse, while easing up on regulations
affecting white collar crime. Along with racism, xenophobia, homophobia, and misogyny,
anti-Semitism is in the broader mix that characterizes a segment of Trump supporters that the
Republican Party mobilizes. For the Republican Party to continue catering to the establishment
while claiming to be anti-establishment, populism is a useful vehicle as it breaks the
solidarity of the working class by advancing the policies of social discrimination.
The neoliberal establishment would have achieved the same goals of capital concentration
with a Democrat president in power. This was the case under both Bill Clinton and Barak Obama
catering to a different popular base distinguished by traditional Democrat identity politics
– feminists, gay rights, and greater integration of minorities into the capitalist
mainstream. While Republican rhetoric and policies project false hope to rightwing elements
from Reagan Democrats, Evangelicals to neo-Nazis that the social contract will be anti-elite
and focused on the white majority feeling threatened by identity politics, Democrats remain
focused on reviving the old Cold War with Russia and catering to Wall Street, while promoting
cultural and lifestyle issues with a greater commitment to balance the welfare state with
corporate welfare. Ironically, Democrat identity politics is actually just as divisive because
it refuses to address issues along structural lines, thus leaving many among the masses to be
duped by the promises of populist rhetoric.
Trumpism's Contradictions and American Jews, and Islamophobia
Although anti-Semitism has a long and ugly history, no minority group in US history has
suffered greater discrimination and institutionalized racism than African-Americans. The white
Anglo-Saxon majority has historically categorized ethnic immigrants in a hierarchy based on
skin color, ethnic origin, and religion. American Jews were not exempt from ethnocentrism,
remaining a favorite target of the KKK among other rightwing groups. Because class in some
cases transcends ethnicity, race and religion, Jews that became capitalists or moved into
middle class professions benefited from assimilation into the institutional mainstream much
more than those of the same faith in the lower middle class and working class.
By the early 21 st century, American Jews were well integrated into the
mainstream, reflecting society's diversity ideologically, politically, and socioeconomically.
From 2000 until 2016, Jewish voting patterns indicate that between two-thirds and three-fourths
supported the Democrat presidential candidates. Although these percentages are very similar to
Hispanic Catholic voting trends, stereotypes deeply ingrained in society remain just below the
thin façade of political correctness where saying the right thing in public is the only
thing that matters. Many within the rightwing populist movement accept the stereotypes that
Jews are in control of everything from Wall Street to the media, the political arena, higher
education, and the entertainment industry.
Interestingly, it never even occurs to anti-Semites to ask why so many of the elites are
Anglo-Saxon Protestant. This is indicative that American racists believe it is natural to be
Anglo-Saxon protestant and be among the elites because national identity rests with this
category of people since the republic was founded. While it is true that Jews are in every
sector of society, just as are Christians, a larger percentage of Jews is integrated into the
capitalist class in comparison to other minorities especially blacks and Hispanics. However, it
is blatantly false that Jews control the entire institutional structure and use it to advance
some amorphous "Jewish agenda", as neo-Nazi and other conspiracy theorists propagate. On the
contrary, throughout European and US history Jews have proved more loyal and more conformist to
the institutional structure than any other minority.
Conspiracy theories about Jewish control of the institutional structure are the basis of
anti-Semitism that has declined since the interwar era as much in the US as in Western Europe,
though the same does not hold true for Eastern Europe. With the rise of populism in American
politics during the presidential campaign of 2016, anti-Semitism assumed the spotlight once
again, despite the fact that Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner is Jewish with business and
personal connections to Israel. Moreover, top administration officials in control of financial,
economic and trade policy are also Jewish linked to Wall Street and specifically the
multinational financial syndicate Goldman Sachs.
While it is true that all US presidents cater to Wall Street, and all presidents since
Ronald Reagan have relied on former Goldman Sachs executives who have been invariably Jewish to
conduct fiscal, economic, trade and foreign policy, it is especially noteworthy that Trump has
long-standing links to Jewish billionaires. This in itself would not be unusual except that his
has been using populist anti-big business, anti-elite rhetoric to appeal to populist elements
among them neo-Nazis, KKK, and other varieties of racists and anti-Semites. The glaring
contradiction that cannot be reconciled is that Trumpism symbolizes and emboldens ethnocentrism
while the administration includes millionaire and billionaire American Jews who are in the
awkward position of accepting rightwing populism so that they can advance neoliberal
policies.
It is hardly surprising that some emboldened Trump supporters have engaged in anti-Semitic
activities, assuming that their leader really represents the extremist white Christian masses
rather than the multi-ethnic, including Jewish, capitalist elites. In March 2017, prominent
Jewish-American groups demanded that Trump denounce anti-Semitism in light of a rise in
documented incidents in different parts of the country. The corporate media exposed this issue,
but like Jewish organization the media did not frame it in its larger context of rightwing
populism where anti-Semitism is but one of many aspects of racism. Trump's refusal to accept
responsibility for his brand of populism giving rise to anti-Semitism was revealing and
somewhat shocking to all people embracing pluralism but especially to Jews who assumed he would
be friendlier because his daughter is married to Kushner.
Trump had no choice but to reject the suggestion that Trumpism entails anti-Semitism.
Admitting that Trumpism leads to anti-Semitism would have forced the president to accept that
his ideological/political movement is politically and culturally racist at its core and that
his administration is driven by the politics of exclusion rather than integration in a
pluralistic society. Even more alarming, the entire Republican establishment with few
exceptions refused to denounce the racist core of Trumpism, thus demonstrating that the party
clings to the rightwing populist base even when some within that base are neo-Nazis.
Contrary to how the media and many analysts who focused on the cult of personality see
Trumpism, this phenomenon did not fall to earth from space. It has deep roots in both parties,
but especially in the Republican Party going as far back as the 1920s. Despite "Trumpism" as an
integral part of the Republican Party and American society, anti-Semitism has actually remained
relatively low in comparison with Western Europe and especially Eastern Europe where it is only
exceeded by Islamic countries. Of course, opinion polls and hate crime reports cannot possibly
measure with any degree of accuracy the level of anti-Semitism across society. People conceal
their attitudes toward Jews as they do toward Muslims and blacks because in a pluralistic
society where political correctness takes precedence overt racism is unacceptable –
politically incorrect and bad for business given that the American consumer base is
multi-ethnic.
Some analysts were encouraged that anti-Semitism has been on the decline in the last two
decades because of the rise of Islamophobia, a form of religious discrimination that spiked
after the Iranian Revolution and assumed astronomical proportions after 9/11. However, the rise
of rightwing populism, which includes Christians driven by prejudice against other faiths, has
emboldened anti-Semitism as much in the US and across Europe in the past two decades when the
neoliberal elites celebrated the triumph of globalization. Neoliberalism is the catalyst in the
rise of globalization, the rise of rightwing populism and the rise of Islamophobia in the last
two decades.
Combined with a persistently anti-Islam bias in the media that has been reinforcing
Islamophobia and the rise of rightwing populism aimed at Islam in general and Muslim immigrants
specifically, the war on terror has been a catalytic factor in the change of mass attitudes
from anti-Semitism to Islamophobia. The fact that Israel has been pursuing apartheid policies
toward Palestinians and pursuing a militarist approach to foreign policy has worked in its
favor when it comes to attracting mainstream conservative and Cold War liberal elements across
the US and Western Europe, thus transferring the historic focus of prejudice from Jews to
Muslims.
France's National Front under Marine Le Pen is a good example of a political party that has
been focusing more on the Muslim enemy where all bourgeois political parties also focused
rather than clinging to anti-Semitism that carries a political and social stigma. In an
interview in June 2014, she stated: "I do not stop repeating it to French Jews. Not only is
the National Front not your enemy, but it is without a doubt the best shield to protect you. It
stands at your side for the defense of our freedoms of thought and of religion against the only
real enemy, Islamist fundamentalism."
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/marine-le-pen-national-front-jews-muslims/523302/
Ironically, the rising tide of populism across Western and Eastern Europe as well as Trump's
America has reinvigorated racists of all sorts, despite the official policies of governments to
support Israeli apartheid policies and militarism while keeping Islamophobia in the forefront
of the political dialogue. The fact that the US claims to support the war on terror while
remaining a major arms supplier to countries like Saudi Arabia where most jihadists have
originated and where the regime has been supplying jihadist rebels with weapons in both Syria
and Yemen does not seem to register any more with liberals than with conservatives. While the
US and EU arms manufacturers make billions in profits selling weapons to countries with a
history of supporting jihadists, the Western media and governments continue to promote the myth
about strengthening national security against Islamic terrorism, thus promoting Islamophobia
and xenophobia.
Although anti-Semitism has deep roots throughout the Western World as does Islamophobia,
many Christians learned anti-Semitism from their families while they learned about Islamophobia
from mainstream media and politicians since the Iranian Revolution. Overt or subtle hiding
behind political correctness, religious prejudice is convenient for opportunistic bourgeois
politicians, for the media and pundits when there are serious structural problems in the
economy as in 2008 great recession. Racists default the rise in unemployment, stagnant wages,
and political polarization following 2008 to Jewish elites and immigrant workers rather than
the political economy predicated on socioeconomic inequality and political marginalization.
The neoliberal system that creates greater socioeconomic inequality thrives on racism,
anti-Semitism and Islamophobia because it distracts focus from the root causes of structural
problems in society. Rightwing populism in the US and Europe finds a popular response from
angry middle class and working class that are unable to discern the structural inequality that
the political economy creates. Blaming Jews, Arabs, Hispanics, Blacks, and other minorities
because the system does not integrate the "native majority" into the upward trajectory of the
mainstream is simple and convenient because it also fulfills an emotional need to vent. Adolph
Hitler's belief that people need someone to hate rather than abstract systems and institutions
beyond their comprehension works just as well today as it did in the turbulent 1930s.
Is Antisemitism on the rise?
In January 2017 there were 40 to 68 bomb threats (depending on the source) against Jewish
community centers in 27 states, with Jewish cemeteries the most well publicized targets. When
we consider that the number of anti-Semitic incidents on college campuses in 2015 were twice as
many as in 2014, it appears that anti-Semitism had been rising under the Obama administration
pursuing neoliberal policies. Statistics from public opinion polls indicate that anti-Semitic
incidents rose immediately after Trump won the presidency, something that hardly surprised many
critics who had been warning that such is the price of appealing to extreme rightwing elements
for political support.
FBI statistics on hate crimes indicate that there have not been significant changes since
the presidential election of 2012, but threats against Jewish centers and Jewish journalists
did experience a spike in threats once Trump won the election. It is noteworthy that the
reporting of anti-Semitic incidents is more accurate and prevalent than the reporting of
racial, ethnic, or religious prejudice of other groups that the media routinely overlooks both
at the local but especially the national level. Hate crimes motivated by religion have targeted
Jews and Muslims since Trump's election, although Islamophobia spiked sharply since 9/11 and it
is under-reported in comparison with anti-Semitic incidents. While institutional anti-Semitism
is very low partly because of the cordial US-Israeli ties but also because Jews are more
thoroughly integrated in society, the same is not the case for institutional racism aimed at
Muslims and blacks.
Because Trump won with a populist appeal, it was inevitable that xenophobia aimed at Muslims
and Latin Americans as main targets, racism, sexism, homophobia, and chauvinism as main
cultural traits would become even more acceptable driven by the politics of division. In very
subtle ways, rightwing news organizations that have been supporting Trump have been promoting
social discrimination; some daring to cross the line to attack Jews backing liberal causes and
the Democrat Party. Although anti-Semitism finds no expression in public policy as does
Islamophobia, America's ideological orientation has become so rightwing than the Democrats find
it necessary to attack the Republican president by reviving Cold War anti-Russia propaganda.
Instead of remaining focused on specific allegations of corruption, collusion, money
laundering, and above all Republican policies that worsen inequality and weaken the middle
class and workers, Democrats committed to neoliberal policies are just as guilty as Republicans
for avoiding the key issue of social justice.
Anti-Semitism among Liberals and Conservatives
Anti-Semitism is subtle even among those liberal elements that cling to political
correctness often used to conceal real intentions. Leftist critics of Israel are driven by the
apartheid conditions and Israel's militarist approach to foreign policy and by the neoliberal
orientation of the entire Western World that the Israeli business and political elites support.
Critics are concerned that the Israeli government, not people, has come a very long way in
emulating the Third Reich's racism when it comes to treatment of Palestinians. This does not
mean that all leftists are free of anti-Semitism and they are not using Israel's horrific
policies to justify racism. Because it is true that anti-Zionism can lead to legitimizing
anti-Semitism, it is essential to denounce any form of discrimination and differentiate between
government policy and ethnic or religious prejudice. Labeling any critic of Israeli anti-Semite
merely for supporting peace in the Middle East is propaganda and a sign of using the pretext of
anti-Semitism to suppress dissent.
Rightwing elements are more comfortable in anti-Semitism because it is an integral part of
their ideological orientation. Besides the KKK, neo-Nazi groups and some new elements that
emerged with the explosion of rightwing media, anti-Semitism as an integral part of the
ideological rightwing has historical roots among Christian business and political elites that
looked the other way during the 1930s when the Third Reich was systematically persecuting Jews.
Anti-Semitism from the right has found expression from a number of social media outlets where
the white nationalist ALT-RIGHT among others has increased their anti-Semitic attacks with hate
speech. The anti-Defamation League reported 2.6 million tweets aimed at Jewish journalists in
12 months, summer 2015 to summer 2016. Although Trump does not use anti-Semitic rhetoric and he
has long-standing ties to Jewish millionaires and billionaires, many of his working class
Christian supporters assume he is talking about Jews in the liberal "fake" media when he speaks
of 'enemies of the people'.
https://www.adl.org/news/press-releases/adl-task-force-issues-report-detailing-widespread-anti-semitic-harassment-of
As the latest layer building on existing ones of American rightwing populism, Trumpism is
indicative of an ideological, political and cultural orientation, but also a reflection of
one's values as well as aspirations and illusions about what a populist regime led by a Messiah
businessman can deliver to its middle and working class base. Deeply imbedded in Trumpism is
anti-Semitism from the extreme right that has gained legitimacy because Trump is president, no
matter his ties to Jewish business elites. While the liberal left as represented by Senator
Bernie Sanders, the son of Jewish immigrants, has also criticized the financial and media
elites that include Jews, there is hardly a comparison between the Sanders movement to pursue
social justice for all people and the politics of hate and division that Trump and his
Republican propagandists promoted.
Evangelical Christians: Friends of Israel, Enemies of secular American-Jews?
Ever since the preeminence of neoconservatives in the Reagan decade of the eighties, there
has been a strange alliance between American Jews and Evangelicals. Besides their common
distaste for Muslims, their common Cold War militarist foreign policy and their common
conservative social values that brought these two groups closer together they seem like natural
allies, using religious dogmatism to justify imperialist foreign policies and social
inequality. Evangelicals have consistently remained in a military-solution mode when it came to
foreign policy hotspots and viewed Israel as defender of the Christian West against the Muslims
becoming radicalized after the Iranian Revolution of 1979.
The alliance between American Jews and Evangelicals began showing cracks in the presidential
elections of 2008 and 2012, but especially in 2016 when many Jews backed Hillary Clinton while
Evangelicals sided with Trump who promised them Reagan-style social and judicial conservatism,
along with jobs and economic nationalism intended to "make American great again", partly
implying the integration of white Christians into the mainstream from which they had been
excluded under the neoliberal regime of Bill Clinton and Obama. Besides the Evangelicals vote
for Trump and the American secular Jews largely backing Clinton in 2016, the rift between
Evangelicals and Jews was evident in the "liberal" vs. the populist rightwing media wars over
the Trump administration's policies and personalities such as Steve Bannon, former Goldman
Sachs banker and Breitbart news executive and no stranger to racism, white nationalism, and
anti-Semitism.
Israeli neoliberal and militarist elites continue to hope that they can have Evangelicals
supporting Israel, just as they supported Trump win the election. The Israeli-Evangelical
alliance appears on firm ground, but it is becoming increasingly problematic because Trumpism
not only entails xenophobia, ethnocentrism and nationalism, but anti-Semitism among many of its
voters, even some younger Evangelicals. The Republicans and the rightwing media have tried to
identify liberal Jews as the enemy, but such rhetoric only reinforces anti-Semitism.
Evangelicals and rightwing media have hammered at the close identification of the Democrats
with Jewish billionaires like George Soros famous for his support of liberal causes. This
association has reinforced anti-Semitism among the rightwing populists, largely because the
rightwing media and politicians keep at it.
Ironically, the same criticism of Jewish billionaires and their liberal causes is also made
across much of Europe, especially in Eastern Europe where the commitment to diversity and
pluralism is a pale imitation of what exists in Scandinavian countries. The same criticism is
never leveled against liberal Anglo-Saxon billionaires like Warren Buffet or others, projecting
the impression that Jewish money somehow corrupts the political process more than Protestant
money. The obvious hypocrisy on the part of right wingers including Evangelicals regarding
Jewish money vs. Protestant money influencing the political arena extends to Israel treated as
a friendly militarist state while Muslim militarist states are deserving of condemnation.
What would happen to Jews in America and the relationship with Israel if they lost
support from evangelical Christians?
Neoliberals from the Clinton and neoconservative leftovers from the Reagan decade have
cultivated close ties between American Evangelicals and Israel but the relationship is showing
signs of deterioration largely because the younger Evangelicals question the wisdom of
one-sided US foreign policy. Although public opinion polls indicate that American Jews largely
mistrust Evangelicals, Evangelical organizations remain committed to support of Israel as a
frontline state against the Arabs and radical Islam. This ideological commitment is largely
based on money pouring into Evangelical churches and their affiliate NGOs that are tools of
recruitment and indoctrination. The highly organized Evangelical groups using the media,
educational centers and Christian media remain a political force that helped to elect Trump
while keeping the populist wing of the Republican Party strong.
The irony of Evangelical support for Israel is that some of its members are anti-Semitic.
Ever since the Reagan administration, rightwing Christian fundamentalist elements, which
American Jews and the Israeli lobby have been trying to mobilize, are not just anti-Muslim but
some are anti-Semitic as well. While the war on terror shifted the focus of American
Evangelicals to the imminent Muslim threat as they understand it, this does not mean that
anti-Semitism disappeared. On the contrary, as socioeconomic conditions deteriorate, and as a
segment of the population perceives that Jewish elites from Wall Street to media and Hollywood
are to partly blame for the elusive American Dream not trickling down to the masses,
anti-Semitism will rise and support for Israel will diminish. Trump's 'America First' economic
nationalism and slashing foreign aid as part of neo-isolationism will eventually impact Israel,
especially as the administration will drive budgetary deficits and the public debt to record
levels because of corporate tax cuts and more corporate welfare at the expense of health and
social programs.
Regardless of who is in the White House, the US will always support Israel diplomatically
because both political parties have done so since 1948 and they will continue to do so for many
reasons. This is not only because of the very powerful Israeli lobby, but also the fact that
Israel serves the convenient role of perpetuating destabilization in the Middle East that helps
the defense industry of the US. Despite the apartheid conditions toward the Palestinians,
Israel will remain a key US ally even if younger Evangelicals question US support and even if a
segment of the rightwing Republican popular base becomes more anti-Semitic.
Conclusion
The political correctness rhetoric of liberals and conservatives alike notwithstanding, the
socioeconomic effects of neoliberal policies on society gives rise to ultra-rightwing
ideological and political movements. Through the media, the political and socioeconomic elites
help to indoctrinate and mobilize the masses into the rightwing camp using it as the popular
base of the Republican Party that caters to Wall Street, as much as the Democrats use identity
politics to mobilize their popular base while also catering to Wall Street. Given that the
two-party system represents the interests of the same elites despite ideological and political
affiliations among the elites, the masses merely follow instead of breaking away to create a
class-based grassroots movement that would bring social justice through systemic change.
Rightwing populism becomes the grassroots movement and its followers are convinced that it is
the vehicle to the fulfillment of the social contract; an illusion that conservative
politicians, media and pundits constantly reinforce.
Mobilizing the remnants of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, Trumpism gained
momentum because neoliberal policies exacerbated socioeconomic polarization under Obama.
Although Trumpism will fade away along with Trump at some point, its imprint on society will
remain as did that of Reaganism that helped to bring a segment of the population father to the
rightwing ideological domain where discrimination assumes an unspoken legitimacy just below the
surface of political correctness. The rightwing orientation of society as an integral part of
deradicalization of the masses is essential to maintaining the political economy of inequality,
although it comes at the cost of the absence of social justice and social discrimination.
The bourgeois value system is based on individualism, but bourgeois institutions and
policies have historically promoted discrimination on the basis of group identity disregarding
the merits of the individual. Like all forms of prejudice rooted in ignorance, fear and social
conditioning, anti-Semitism is no different. It is futile to assume that anti-Semitism can be
mitigated in isolation of all other forms of prejudice separate from the larger issue of a
socially just society. All social, economic and political indicators point not to greater
social discrimination and prejudice in a society where the mass concentration of wealth at the
expense of the middle and working classes has resulted in the search for enemies to blame,
whether Muslims, Jews, Mexicans, etc.
As the US slowly creeps down the road of more authoritarianism and a surveillance state,
becoming less tolerant of differences and diversity amid its inevitable decline as the world's
preeminent economic power, it will have a much weaker middle class and a working class with
lower living standards. A segment of the population whose identity rests with the flag and the
cross will become more open to the idea of a police militarized state that enforces conformity
through constant surveillance and stricter laws that punish petty criminals while allowing the
legalized corporate thieves to enjoy a privileged status in society.
In the absence of embracing human rights and social justice there cannot possibly be an end
to anti-Semitism any more than any other form of prejudice. If the political economy feed a
culture of prejudice because it has an interest in maintaining the institutional structure,
then it is hardly surprising that prejudice would be widespread. Under neoliberalism thriving
under Trumpist populism, various forms of prejudice will manifest themselves once the promise
of "Make America Great Again" never filters down to the masses.
Jon V. Kofas , Ph.D. – Retired university professor of history – author of ten
academic books and two dozens scholarly articles. Specializing in International Political
economy, Kofas has taught courses and written on US diplomatic history, and the roles of the
World Bank and IMF in the world.
In these times, the real political debate is centered around the issues of migration and
national identity. It's what Brexit was all about. It's the reason the one thing all Trump
supporters really want him to do, is to build the wall. It would be an international symbol
of our longing for and right to nationhood a billion dollar monument to nationalism and a
trigger for nationalist revival.
This is why the forces of globalism will throw everything at stopping it's construction.
If Trump leaves office and that wall is not built, his presidency will have been for
naught.
"... now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods: tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping). ..."
"... Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not working. ..."
"... Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich who own the military industrial complex. ..."
"... my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking for empires. ..."
"... War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin addiction in the US. ..."
"... Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S. European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating. ..."
"... This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when the lunatics take over the asylum. ..."
"... Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting back with horrible consequences for world peace. ..."
"... Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further: ..."
Most recently, a dissident economist and failed California politician named Peter Navarro has parlayed his hostility toward China
into the role of key architect of Donald Trump's "trade war" against Beijing. Like his Russian counterpart Alexander Dugin, Navarro
is another in a long line of intellectuals whose embrace of geopolitics changed the trajectory of his career.
Raised by a single mom who worked secretarial jobs to rent one-bedroomapartments where he slept on the couch, Navarro went to
college at Tufts on a scholarship and earned a doctorate in economics from Harvard. Despite that Ivy League degree, he remained an
angry outsider, denouncing the special interests "stealing America"
in his first book and later, as a business professor at the University of California-Irvine, branding San Diego developers "punks
in pinstripes." A passionate environmentalist, in 1992 Navarro plunged into politics as a Democratic candidate for the mayor of San
Diego, denouncing his opponent's husband as a convicted drug-money launderer and losing when he smirked as she wept during their
televised debate.
For the next 10 years, Navarro fought losing campaigns for everything from city council to Congress. He detailed his crushing
defeat for a seat in the House of Representatives in a tell-all
book , San Diego Confidential,
that dished out disdain for that duplicitous "sell out" Bill Clinton, dumb "blue-collar detritus" voters, and just about everybody
else as well.
Following his last losing campaign for city council, Navarro spent a decade churning out books attacking a new enemy: China. His
first "shock and awe" jeremiad
in 2006 told horror stories about that country's foreign trade; five years later, Death By China was filled with
torrid tales of "bone-crushing, cancer-causing, flammable, poisonous, and otherwise lethal products" from that land. In 2015,
a third book turned to geopolitics, complete with carefully drawn maps and respectful references to Captain Mahan, to offer an
analysis of how China's
military was pursuing a relentless strategy of "anti-access, area denial" to challenge the U.S. Navy's control over the Western Pacific.
To check China, the Pentagon then had two competing strategies -- "Air-Sea Battle," in which China's satellites were to be blinded,
knocking out its missiles, and "Offshore Control," in which China's entire coastline was to be blockaded by mining six maritime choke
points from Japan to Singapore. Both, Navarro claimed, were fatally flawed. Given that, Navarro's third book and a companion
film (
endorsed by one Donald Trump) asked: What should the United
States do to check Beijing's aggression and its rise as a global power? Since all U.S. imports from China, Navarro suggested, were
"helping to finance a Chinese military buildup," the only realistic solution was "the imposition of countervailing tariffs to offset
China's unfair trade practices."
Just a year after reaching that controversial conclusion, Navarro joined the Trump election campaign as a policy adviser and then,
after the November victory, became a junior member of the White House economic team. As a protectionist in an administration initially
dominated by globalists, he would be excluded from high-level meetings and,
according toTime Magazine , "required to copy chief
economic adviser Gary Cohn on all his emails." By February 2018, however, Cohn was on his way out and Navarro had become assistant
to the president, with his new trade office now the co-equal of the National Economic Council.
As the chief defender of Trump's
belief that "trade wars
are good and easy to win," Navarro has finally realized his own geopolitical dream of attempting to check China with tariffs. In
March, the president slapped
heavy ones on Chinese steel imports and, just a few weeks later,
promised to impose more of them on $50 billion of imports. When those started in July, China's leaders
retaliated against what
they called "typical trade bullying," imposing similar duties on American goods. Despite a
warning from the Federal
Reserve chairman that "trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global economy," with Navarro at his elbow,
Trump escalated in September,
adding tariffs on an additional $200 billion in Chinese goods and threatening another $267 billion worth if China dared retaliate.
Nonetheless, Beijing hit
back, this time on just $60 billion in goods since 95% of all U.S. imports had already been covered.
Then something truly surprising happened. In September, the U.S. trade deficit with
China
ballooned to $305 billion for the year, driven by an 8% surge in Chinese imports -- a clear sign that Navarro's bold geopolitical
vision of beating Beijing into submission with tariffs had collided big time with the complexities of world trade. Whether this tariff
dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking havoc on global supply chains and the
world economy, none of us can yet know, particularly that would-be geopolitical grandmaster Peter Navarro.
The Desire to be Grandmaster of the Universe
Though such experts usually dazzle the public and the powerful alike with erudition and boldness of vision, their geopolitical
moves often have troubling long-term consequences. Mahan's plans for Pacific dominion through offshore bases created a strategic
conundrum that plagued American defense policy for a half-century. Brzezinski's geopolitical lunge at the Soviet Union's soft Central
Asian underbelly helped unleash radical Islam. Today, Alexander Dugin's use of geopolitics to revive Russia's dominion over Eurasia
has placed Moscow on a volatile collision course with Europe and the United States. Simultaneously, Peter Navarro's bold gambit to
contain China's military and economic push into the Pacific with a trade war could, if it persists, produce untold complications
for our globalized economy.
No matter how deeply flawed such geopolitical visions may ultimately prove to be, their brief moments as official policy have
regularly shaped the destiny of nations and of empires in unpredictable, unplanned, and often dangerous ways. And no matter how this
current round of geopolitical gambits plays out, we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be
grandmaster will embrace this seductive concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
Alfred W. McCoy, a
TomDispatch
regular , is the Harrington professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He is the author of The Politics of
Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade , the now-classic book which probed the conjuncture of illicit narcotics and covert
operations over 50 years, and the recently published
In the Shadows of the American Century:
The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power ( Dispatch Books).
Dugin, regardless of what minor success he had ten years ago, is not influential in the Kremlin. He did not orchestrate Russia's
absorption of Crimea. Simple strategic needs demanded that Crimea be absorbed, and a flawless Russian execution of an ambitious
plan won the day.
Peter Navarro is correct w/r/t China. Our trading relationship with China has been a disaster for our economy (to which I mean
our ability to have an economy absent financial shenanigans) and USG has effectively funded China's rise. There is no strategic
benefit to offshoring productive capacity. I don't really care if Navarro has failed at other tasks in his life. He is correct
on this one.
we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive
concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
Damn! Sounds just like me. Anyway, the US has made a lot of mistakes. It transferred much of its manufacturing base to China
and much of its technology. The Chinese see a chance to break away from the US economically and in technology.
The US invested in China's future. China invested in its future. Which is why China has a future.
Seeing geography as a decisive factor in the course of human history can be construed as a bleak view of the world, which
is why it is disliked in some intellectual circles. It suggests that nature is more powerful than man, and that we can only
go so far in determining our own fate.
Splitting the globe into ten distinct regions, former Sky News Diplomatic Editor Tim Marshall redresses our techno-centric
view of the world and suggests that our key political driver continues to be our physical geography. Beginning with Russia
(and its bewildering eleven time-zones), we are treated to an illuminating, border-by-border disassembly of what makes the
world what it is; why, for instance, China and India will never fall into conflict (the Himalayas), or why the Ukraine is such
a tactical jewel in the crown. With its panoptic view over our circumstance, Prisoners of Geography makes a compelling case
around how the physical framework of the world itself has defined our history. It's one of those books that prompts real reflection
and one that on publication absolutely grasped the imagination of our customers, ensuring it as a guaranteed entrant to our
2016 Paperbacks of the Year.
'One of the best books about geopolitics you could imagine: reading it is like having a light shone on your understanding.'
– Nicholas Lezard,
"There is no strategic benefit to offshoring productive capacity. "
Quite right. However – that horse has long bolted. And now, playing catch-up, the US is employing the crudest of methods:
tariffs & military bullying (& God help us all, kidnapping).
Unfortunately, circumstances demand a radical & imaginative response & even harder, a realisation that the horse has
bolted.
Now that you're here, you should read the Saker more. I'll pose this question though, If Russia and China are hell bent on
imperial expansion, why don't they show any interest in Mongolia? Fertile land, rich mineral resources, a tiny population incapable
of resistance it would be a no brainier. The reason they don't is because they are not imperial powers. Also, is empire a good
thing? In every historical example it has followed the same pattern and failed. Civilisations however endure through the ages.
" Vladimir Putin seeks to shatter the Western alliance with cyberwar " was where I noted this essayist is a fool and stopped
reading. Russians! Russians! Russians everywhere!
But since then has gone on to muse how it might be extended. My argument is that the Empire does not serve the American people
and is leading to the destruction of the republic and the American people. The sooner it ends the better, and if Trump can speed
up its demise, then he is our guy.
A very interesting article, for me, but, I suppose, for quite other reasons than most here expect. The essence of interest
is in the last two paragraphs.
In the first of these two those men are mentioned who by geopolitical ideas caused world wide disasters. If they did, I do not
know. The question 'did Napoleon make history or did history make Napoleon' still is a difficult one among historians, and will
remain difficult, is my idea. The man not mentioned in this paragraph is Hitler.
Then we get the ominous last paragraph, someone grabbing world wide power for geopolitical reasons, a great menace.
The essence of good propaganda is not telling lies, but telling just half truths. Not mentioned is that the area that now is
Germany for maybe hundreds of years could not feed the population, had to import food. In order to be able to import one must
export, a country with not enough agricultural production naturally must export industrial products, to fabricate these one needs
raw materials.
Not for nothing both WWI and WWII had geopolitical causes, German economic expansion to the SW and E, economic expansion that
threatened, in the British view, the autarcic British empire.
The implication of the last paragraph for me is clear, beware of the next Hitler. If the author has someone in mind who will
unleash the last world war is not clear to me.
Copley implies that cohesive societies that seek victory over all other societies can't have it, because a cohesive society
must have enemies, invented or carefully preserved if necessary. Perhaps that's what the Russia affair is about. If so, its not
working.
It's like the Federal German republic trying 90 year old people who were drafted as teenagers to be concentration camp guards
in late WW II, when the Reich was scraping through the bottom of the manpower barrel, or like the British digging up Cromwell's
bones (see Wikipedia, "Oliver Cromwell", section: "Death and posthumous execution"). Not convincing.
Alfred McCoy isn't the exact polar opposite of Bill Kristol who is wrong about everything , but McCoy does have a pretty
good track record of being mostly correct about the issues he covers, nevertheless, he still reads like an opinion column. He
also seems bonded by how he sees the American empire being some sort of force of benevolence when it acts and reacts in the same
manner as any other empire that's come and gone – and of course he loathes the idea of the next empire simply by default(they'll
brag about freedom too Alfred). And of course, in the realm of geopolitics, he never really mentions the bastard child; which
leaves a gaping hole in his analysis.
My guess is McCoy's basically on the right track. Not exactly, but he'll get you out of the woods.
For the past decade, he has been a forceful advocate for Russian expansionism
It gets a bit boring reading about how aggressive Putin is and how he wants to reconquer all the territories that were voluntarily
given up by his predecessors. How exactly would Russia benefit by reaquiring the Baltic States or Poland? These countries are
on life-support. Poland get $20bn annually in direct and indirect subsidies from the EU. As for Ukraine, what possible benefit
to Russia would it be to have an extra 35 million people who are broke. Ukrainians today spend half their income on food and that
other half on heat – and that in a country with a very cold winter.
Let's not forget that there would not have been a "Berlin Crisis" if Stalin had not given parts of Berlin to the USA, the UK
and France. Can you imagine the USA doing something similar? This whole article is a real let down. I am disappointed. I guess
every barrel has to have a rotten apple or two.
I would add that in my life, Henry Kissinger was the other supreme geopolitical theorist who attempted to establish a multipolar
geopolitics over a bipolar one. Keep in mind that it was he who essentially argued that China must be recognized in order to blunt
the USSR. Nixon thus became the one who opened China to the US, so that in theory the world was to be divided into the Russia
pole; the China pole; the American/NATO pole, and the "Third World" pole. With a dash of Mahan added to the mix, all would be
balanced and stable, or so Kissinger argued. Hmmmm, maybe not!
Are you for real? Have you looked at where these two respective areas are geographically? Hell, their borders aren't even adjacent.
As for China's interest in Tibet: what was once's part of the Empire will always be part of the Empire. Tibets been part of
the empire twice now, first under Genghis' Yuan Dynasty and again during under the Qing. That simple fact means from now until
the sun goes supernova, for China to be considered unified, Tibet must be a part of it. No ifs or buts.
That's not to mention the strategic considerations of occupying the high ground vis a vis the sub-continentals as well as the
area being the source of several great rivers. You'd have to be a madman to give that kind of advantage up.
@Anon Ghandi was of the opinion that the people of India, forgot the number, 100 million or more ?, served 400.000 rich Britons.
The Roman empire, I'd say 1% rich, 99% poor.
The tsarist empire, not much better.
The German empire again the exception, nowhere else at the end of the 19th century were common people in comparable living conditions.
The EU empire, EP members tax free incomes of some € 200.000 a year, plus an extravagant pension system.
Verhofstadt, additional income, not tax free, of at least € 450.000 a year.
Declarations, Schulz has been accused of spending € 700.000 in a year, among other things he liked a glass of wine.
When it suits their purpose, writers on economics–I won't call them Economists–praise the tiger-like speed and agility with
which Capitalism responds to the vagaries of pressures and demands that arise in world markets. But when they're engaging in public
relations we get this:
"Despite a warning from the Federal Reserve chairman that " trade tensions could pose serious risks to the U.S. and global
economy ," .. Whether this tariff dispute will fizzle out inconsequentially or escalate into a full-blown trade war, wreaking
havoc on global supply chains and the world economy
which throw a protective cloak over a poor, picked-upon capitalism which is, apparently, incapable of getting out of its own
way.
Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin. No, there is no Russian cyberwar.
Putin's aims are Russia's recovery from the disasters of communism (a road to a blind alley as he has called it) and defending
Russia against NATO's expansion, colour revolutions and numerous false accusations.
Beijing is the place to look today for big strategic thinking.
@Puzzled reasons would be the last. Because the Europeans would find of other sources and shut out Russia as being an unreliable
business partner. Moreover, Russia is now the largest exporter of wheat and is developing export levels of production in soybeans
and pork. You can't sell to countries that you have wrecked militarily.
It's the U.S., not Russia that is playing the 800 pound Global Cop Gorilla with its war-mongering, economic warfare and global
subversion.
Like Puzzled, when I read that stupid, irrational line by Alfred McCoy, I simply stopped reading. Because nobody that dense
about obvious geo-political reality deserves to be read.
Disappointing read. No, there is nothing to suggest that Dugin has any influence on Putin.
No kidding. This is what happens when you get your Russian news from the Times and the Beeb. I mean, if Dugin were such a Kremlin
favorite, how could he have lost his job at Moscow State University? You'd think he could just pick up the phone, call 'Uncle
Vova', and get his job back!
Of course Putin is a Eurasianist, but that's not because Dugin told him to be one. It's because every Russian ruler has been
a Eurasianist for centuries now. Why? Just look at a map: Russia is located in Eurasia. Would we therefore expect the Russians
to be Pan-Africanists or something else? Naturally they're going to be Eurasianists. They learned long ago that if they don't
dominate Eurasia, somebody else will -- and that will cause security problems for Russia. I can't say I hold that against them.
It's not as though the US would take kindly to some foreign empire coming on over to the Western Hemisphere and setting up shop,
say, in Latin America. In fact, just consider how Washington reacted when the Soviets concluded an alliance with Cuba. There was
no talk about the 'sovereignty of small nations' coming from the wallscreen then!
What financial shenanigans? And how has the US effectively funded China's rise? And how do tariffs destroy China ? (tariffs
are like shooting yourself in the foot)
The cause for poverty is located at the Pentagon because they own the national debt! When if ever will the Joint Chiefs be
put on trial for these treasonous Wars and lost trillions?
December 24, 2013 The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases
The US Military has bases in 63 countries. Adding to the bases inside U.S. territory, the total land area occupied by US military
bases domestically within the US and internationally is of the order of 2,202,735 hectares, which makes the *Pentagon* one of
the *largest* landowners worldwide.
Dec 21, 2013 Black Budget: US govt clueless about missing Pentagon $trillions
The Pentagon has secured a 630 billion dollar budget for next year, even though it's failed to even account for the money it's
received since 1996. A whopping 8.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer cash have gone to defence programmes – none of which has been
audited.
@Ilyana_Rozumova between other countries and with its own colonies. As the Dutch comparative advantage was frozen out, their
military aggression declined with it. America sitting on its hands while China becomes a giant Hong Kong and countries all over
Eurasia fall under its sway would by likely to lead to a very nasty war that America would loose and loose badly. It is better
to try now to stop China growing that big and dangerous by declining to trade with them under conditions that will inevitably
make them grow too large to fight. Will trade barriers to China work well enough? Probably not because they are past the lift
off stage now (Carter did too good a job), but it is worth a try.
There is opportunity for an American renaissance and really the only practical solution for its people – that is to swiftly
and decidedly push its pathetic government aside – and begin rapidly re-educating, re-training, re-tooling, and re-building a
next-generation manufacturing base.
Everything about this CIA agent's history lesson sounds fake. The blood sucking military runs the White House. ISIS or ISIL
or whatever the CIA calls itself today poses no threat. Poor General Kelly, one of the generals who let 911 happen, is probably
going to be promoted to Bechtel. I say poor because he's only worth about $5 Million, which is a low figure for the super rich
who own the military industrial complex.
@Sean ised an efficient military staff, efficient in planning. The Prussian army was the first to make extensive use of railways,
first time after the French 1870 attack. Very capable people, Germans. Red Army use of railways even in 1941 was a mess.
The GB preparations for the occupation of neutral Norway in April 1940, also a mess.
Pity quoted book is in German and with gothic letters, Ludendorff shows with extensive map material how the Germans in WWI fought
a two front, sometimes even three front war. Just possible through detailed transport planning.
Erich Ludendorff, 'Meine Kriegserinnerungen 1914 = 1918′, Berlin, 1918
As I said before, rhetorics such as 'USG has effectively funded China's rise' are just over-exaggeration if not BS. Facts:
–Foreign investments only constitute a small % of Chinese domestic investment,
–The majority of foreign Investment in china are NOT from US.
–Total investment in China in recent years amount to $trillions per year
If one cares to examine the major industrial sectors in China , like hi-speed rail, steel, photovoltaic panels, electricity,
energy,.. automobiles Only in the auto sector the americans have a sizable role because the yanks want market access.
we can be reasonably certain that, in the not-too-distant future, another would-be grandmaster will embrace this seductive
concept to guide his bold bid for global power.
my take is that we are in the end game of imperialism. the western empire is in terminal decline and there will be more
empires. from the evidence Russia and China, having learned the lessons of a few thousand years of experience are not seeking
for empires.
empires, traditional ones, are now altogether too costly, especially approaching their end. the world wont tolerate that anymore.
the credit empire is working so far but the people have cottoned on to that. to end global banking power simply take over the
banks, and recuse all debt for they were fraudulently accrued.
all banking will then by need be worker co-ops able to deal with all the financial services required by society..no conglomerates
required
the capitalists will probably try a desperate military gambit to try maintain their empire but that wont work. they are already
outgunned unless they decide to take the world down with them.
but I don't think we will have to worry about such trade 'grandmasters' farting around with the world for too much longer.
the end of imperialism will make such work redundant
and if the democracy does not replace capitalism and the elite wins, it's a Brave New World we looking at. Brilliant geneticist
bent on engineering humans. brilliant mind controllers, psychiatrists and such would be useful job qualifications to have, not
trade specialist.
Brave New World also makes the trade 'genius' redundant
December 31, 2018 War is Good for Business and Organized Crime. Afghanistan's Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin
Addiction in the US Afghanistan's opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of heroin
addiction in the US.
It's always fun to read articles and history. This article was fun and perhaps thought provoking. But at least some parts of
it make no sense to me.
Take for example the "heartland" theory. Yes it probably made sense over a century ago when strategist -always looking in the
rear view mirror- judged the situation based on the Roman empire or Napoleons conquest. And their thoughts grounded in traditional
territorial wars.
Today with nuclear weapons, fast long range missiles and in very different economic reality, I don't think the "Heartland"
is the key to control the world, Eurasia, Europe or indeed anything else than possibly the "Heartland" it self. Control from the
Heartland over nuclear France or the U.K?
Annexing small part of land on your own borders whose inhabitants overwhelmingly welcome you with open arms, like Russians
did in Crimea, is totally different from conquering unwilling, hostile neighbors. The latter is extremely costly and difficult
exercise with just about zero upside but gaping black hole on the downside. Remember Afghanistan or Iraq or Vietnam? So the former
isn't indication of the latter!
I dont't see anything that supports the theory the Russians are playing by the book of the Heartland theory. In current political
situation it's outlandish idea. Perhaps the idea is to paint Russia's leaders as lunatics?
Yes the Russians are probably engaged in cyber-war. They seem to have the Russian troll farm in St. Petersburg – as reported
by European media it's amateur operation costing perhaps few million dollars per year with 80 people from the unemployment list's
hammering on laptops working shifts creating and nurturing social media accounts. No experts in politics or advanced computing
in sight, no supercomputers, artificial intelligence. Like I said, amateur operation hardly indicating state-sponsored efforts.
Place this against the U.S. – NSA – on record for what seems to be global surveillance having tapped the phones of U.S.
European allies heads of states like Angela Merkel -among other things- with it's budget of $80 billion per year. Similar amount
to the total Russian defense budget. Then there is the CIA and other "three letter organizations" in the U.S. and similar operations
in the U.K. I think this is David against Goliath struggle and the latter is doing most of the beating.
The press? R.T and few other outlets versus the western MSM who has in recent years acted like a pack of rabid dogs against
Russia. Investigative journalism into international affairs is replaced by publishing official statements and "analysis" from
"experts". This is war propaganda – nothing less. And the Russians are playing desperate defense most days.
This madness is driving Russia into coalition with China and creating all sorts of totally unnecessary tensions. Forcing
them to avoid the US dollar and so forth. How any of this supports western interests, or the interests of U.S. or U.K. citizens
is a great misery. One thing is certain – this is self-destruction policy for the U.S. in the long run. This is what happens when
the lunatics take over the asylum.
Thankfully Vladimir Putin seems to be extremely capable and stable person – not likely to fall into temptation of hitting
back with horrible consequences for world peace.
It was a nice history essay, but there isn't much of a logical relationship between Mahan, Haushofer, et al. and the present
trade confrontation.
Navarro appears to have the full support of Silicon Valley, Boeing and our other high tech exporters. On the other side
is Wall Street and possibly British interests. For all of the hullabaloo about Trump violating the law against private citizens
conducting foreign diplomacy when he was President-elect, the Wall Street crowd appears to have transgressed much further:
It seems the New York banks would gladly trade the SV engineering jobs for a bigger share of the China banking business,
a la the Cleveland and Detroit auto industry jobs of the past.
A possible break with Britain is something even bigger to watch, as their involvement in China is even more finance-related.
@Anon ng, which far exceeded direct investments into China by any other country.
If we take a look at the Santander report on Hong Kong FDI, most of it seems to come from the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman
Islands (both offshore banking locations, with the funds coming from who knows where) and the UK.
"... Israel fears Iran, is my idea. Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli Jews do not see how there ever can be peace with the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'. Not all Jews are idiots. Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a Zionist reached Palestine, and saw that this was not the 'land without people for people without land'. He stated 'this is a crime'. ..."
Israel fears Iran, is my idea. Norman Finkelstein once stated that Israeli Jews do not see
how there ever can be peace with the Palestinians 'after all we did to them'. Not all Jews
are idiots. Forgot in which book I read that in the thirties a Zionist reached Palestine, and
saw that this was not the 'land without people for people without land'. He stated 'this is a
crime'.
The destruction and destabilization of the ME, an Israeli plan, as far as I know.
In 1921 and later years there was the enormous population exchange, without any financial
compensation, between Turkey and Greece. To this day tensions exist between the two
countries.
Iran is one of the oldest civilizations. Twice, one might say even three time, the west
overthrew Iranian democracy. Iran knows of course quite well that the VS brought Saddam to
power so that he could subjugate Iran, that had rid itself of the USA puppet shah. Iran also
of course knows quite well Jewish power in the USA, Bush' s promise to AIPAC to destroy Iraq.
Will those leading Iran now ever trust the USA or Israel ?
So that Netanyahu and USA Jewry now are in complete panic, who had expected it to be
otherwise ? Uri Avnery wrote 'the only language zionists understand is power. Is there a
problem, use power, if it does not help, use more power, if that also fails, use even more
power'.
There has never been any serious negotiation between Israel and its neighbors, or with the
Palestinians. About the Oslo negotiations a book appeared in Israel with the title 'How we
fooled the Palestinians'? Sharon answered any Arab League peace proposal with force, Jenin,
one of them, if my recollection is correct. There always was the idea of overwhelming more
military power, and of USA support.
Kissinger saved Israel in the 1973 Yom Kippur war by flying over hundreds of the newest
USA anti tank weapons, wire guided, TOW. What will the USA do in case Israel is attacked ? Is
Netanyahu crazy enough to provoke an attack ?
This morning I woke up to two news reports in my mailbox that indicated two things to
me:
Bigotry against Jews can no more nor less be distinguished from bigotry against any other
group of people or religion. Sectarianism by any other name is sectarianism.
The insistence on making bigotry against Jews (in its sense of sectarianism) a separate
or unique class of discrimination or hatred altogether, one that is given a special term and
that involves controversial and
false definitions, is designed to play into the hands of Zionists and neo-Nazis.
Zionist desperation to criminalize anti-Zionist criticism of Israel by legalizing false
definitions of anti-Semitism is a measure of how far the term "anti-Semitism" has traveled as a
misnomer.
The conflation of anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism is a bit of rhetorical sleight-of-hand
that depends on treating Israel as the embodiment of the Jewish people everywhere. Certainly,
some criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic, but it's entirely possible to oppose Jewish
ethno-nationalism without being a bigot. Indeed, it's increasingly absurd to treat the Israeli
state as a stand-in for Jews writ large, given the way the current Israeli government has
aligned itself with far-right European movements that have anti-Semitic roots.
The second news item comes from the Lobby Watch of the Electronic Intifada,
in which Asa Winstanley, an investigative reporter,
writes :
A new European Union declaration could make it harder to criticize Israel as a racist state
without being dubbed an anti-Semite.
The declaration asks all EU
governments to "endorse the non-legally binding working definition of anti-Semitism employed by
the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance."
The move, passed by EU member states' home affairs ministers, has already been condemned by
a number of Israeli
and French academics .
The term "anti-Semitism" to refer to animus against all Jews is a misnomer. By all accounts,
it was coined or
popularized by Friedrich Wilhelm Adolph Marr in 1879, a radical writer and politician,
described in the title of his first biography
as "The Patriarch of Anti-Semitism" and founder of the first "Anti-Semitic League", which he
formed in order to agitate against Jewish emancipation in Germany. "Anti-Semitism", as Marr
coined it, referred specifically to the anti-Jewish campaigns in central Europe at that time,
and not to bigotry or hatred against all Jews, as the term today connotes.
As is well known by now, the building of Palestine in the form of Israel did, in fact,
depend, and continues to depend in large part, on the good will of the Jews "outside," many as
Norman H. Finkelstein writes in American Jewish History, deriving renewed pride in their
religion and their connections to Israel with each Israeli military victory.
The irony/tragedy is that Israeli governments throughout history, including now with the
Trump
/Bannon merger, work with anti-Semites to promote Jewish immigration to Israel. Zionist
collaboration with Nazis is also
documented. Nevertheless, anti-Semitism should not be taking center stage either in arguments
against Palestinians or in pro-Palestine arguments.
Israel is using a misnomer (the term "anti-Semitism" as animus against all Jews) in order to
further its cause among Jews worldwide and among Western governments guilty of past bigotry
against Jews in their midst.
Does animus toward Jews because they are Jews exist? Yes. Is this animus special or unique
in what FiratHacıahmetoğlu
calls "the darker side of western modernity (colonisation, domination, poverty, misery,
inequities, injustices, commodification, and dispensability of human life)" or in Western Dark
Ages?
Of course, not.
Zionism is a political movement, not "a belief", as expressed in the following
definition :
Zionism is the belief that the Jewish nation, the exiles of the Kingdom of Judea that was
conquered by Rome in the year 70 CE, have a right to reclaim their homeland.
Jewish suffering, like the suffering of those subjected to bigotry anywhere, is the result
of conditions of society and ought to be addressed by fixing society through an increase in
political power for disenfranchised groups of people, wherever bigotry exists, thus aiding all
the oppressed -- as, in fact, many Jews in the U.S. have done.
In the early days of Zionism, the Jews who believed that Jewish suffering in Europe is
impossible to remedy within their societies (through socialism, for example) because of their
lack of political rights and the economic structure imposed on Jews at the time and those who
opted for a struggle to separate as a tribe through the acquisition of territory, any
territory, outside their countries, represent what Zionism really is as a political movement,
which is now oppressing a fourth generation of indigenous Palestinians in their own
homeland.
The way I see it, it is time to recognize "anti-Semitism" as the misnomer it is, in order
for us to be able to envision Palestinian emancipation and, indeed, all human emancipation, as
universal and just.
Note: The above content was first published (7 Dec 2018) as my
answer on Quora to the question "Is anti-Semitism a special kind of bigotry? What is the
history of the term?".
Rima Najjar is a former professor (now retired) at Al-Quds University,
Palestine
An interesting distinction: "nationalism is patriotism in its irritated state, or that nationalism recruits the patriotic
sentiment to accomplish something in a fit of anger." But he might be mixing nationalism, far right nationalism, and
fascism. It is fascism that emerges out of feeling of nation/country being humiliated, oppressed, fall into economic
despair... It tries to mobilize nation on changing the situation as a united whole -- in this sense fascism
rejects individualism and "human rights".
BTW there were quite numerous far right movements in the USA history.
The current emergence of nationalist movements is a reaction on the crisis of neoliberalism as an ideology (since 2008). So nationalism
might be a defense reaction of societies when the dominant ideology (in our case neoliberalism) collapses. It is a temporary and defensive
reaction. As the author notes: "Foreign aggression and the onset of war will reliably generate nationalist moods and responses. "
The key question here is when a nation "deserves" a sovereign state, and when it would be better off by being a part of a larger
("imperial state" if we understand empire as conglomerate of multiple nations). As it involved economics, some choices can be bad,
even devastating for people's wellbeing.
Notable quotes:
"... Macron is not the first to try to make a hard, fast, and rhetorically pungent distinction between nationalism and patriotism. Orwell attempted to do the same in a famous essay . He wrote that patriotism is "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally." ..."
"... In the end, Orwell gives a rather unsatisfying account in which all the mental and moral vices of self-interest and self-regard are transmuted and supercharged by their absorption into a nationalistic "we." Nationalists in his account hold their nations supreme, thereby encouraging themselves to traduce any other people or nation. For Orwell, the patriot prefers this to that . The nationalist privileges us over them . For us, everything, to others nothing. ..."
"... In his recent book, The Virtue of Nationalism , Yoram Hazony makes a different contrast. His work is not primarily concerned with the moral status or self-deception of individuals, but with the organization of geopolitics. For him the contrast is between nationalism and imperialism. ..."
"... Orwell is tempted to believe the nationalist thinks his nation is best in all things, but much of nationalist rhetoric throughout Europe is a rhetoric of envy or arousal. Nationalists sometimes boast about their nations, but in many circumstances they express despair about their countries; they want to excite their people to achieve more, to take themselves as seriously as some rival national actor takes itself. ..."
"... Instead, nationalism is an eruptive feature of politics. It grows out of the normal sentiments of national loyalty, like a pustule or a fever. It could even be said that nationalism is patriotism in its irritated state, or that nationalism recruits the patriotic sentiment to accomplish something in a fit of anger. ..."
"... National loyalty attaches us to a place, and to the people who share in its life. Destroying national loyalty would almost certainly bring about the return of loyalties based on creed and blood. ..."
"... One of the outstanding features of nationalist political movements, the thing that almost always strikes observers about them, is their irritated or aroused character. And it is precisely this that strikes non-nationalists as signaling danger. ..."
"... nationalist movements are teeming with powerful emotions: betrayal, anger, aggression. ..."
"... Nationalist politics tends to be opportunist; it takes other political ideas, philosophies, and forms of mobilization in hand and discards them. Nationalists throughout the 20th century adopted Communism or capitalism to acquire the patronage or weapons to throw off imperial rule, or stick it to a neighbor, for example. ..."
"... The reemergence of nationalist politics in America and abroad requires us to ask those simple questions. What is bothering them? Do they have a point? What do they want to do about it? Would it be just? In broad strokes I intend to take those questions up. ..."
"... What the vast majority of people apparently fail to realize is that the United states is an empire which by definition is a group of states or countries containing diverse ethnic and cultural identities. ..."
"... The break-up of the Soviet Union can be blamed in part for failing to establish a strong national identity ..."
"... Greenfeld describes it as "civic nationalism" to differentiate it from the ethnic, anti-liberal "nationalism" later adopted by Russia and Germany. ..."
"... Identifying "the people" as a linguistic-cultural entity with or without borders set the stage for the bloody conflicts that were fought over borders for these groups, and the discrimination and ethnic cleansing for those who didn't belong to the dominant linguistic-cultural group, to say nothing of what needed to be done about members of the dominant group who lived outside its borders. ..."
"... Also, in the late 16th century during what is now called the Wars of Religions (but which they called Civil Wars) in continental Europe, people moved from Monarchists to Republicans and back, depending of whether they were Catholics or Protestants, but mostly depending of the position of strength in which they were at the time... ..."
"... "Modern Conservatives" have a vested interest in muddying the debate, so that it does not become clear that "conservatism" is not linked to specific political or economical models, and more importantly it is not true that the Founding Fathers were all absolutist libertarian free traders... ;-) ..."
"... What, exactly, are our children inheriting? Press 2 for Spanish. ..."
"... And let us not forget neocons. ..."
"... You should be out there carving an empire for yourself, showing your supremacy and spreading the seeds of your "culture" over uncharted territories and untamed tribes... ;-) ..."
"... I think the obvious irritant lending support to Nationalist sentiments is the non benign aspects of Globalism. ..."
What is nationalism? The word is suddenly and surprisingly important when talking about the times we live in. But we seem to be
working without a shared definition.
"You know what I am? I'm a nationalist," Donald Trump said in an October rally in Houston.
French president Emmanuel Macron slapped back at a commemoration ceremony for World War I in France. "Nationalism is a betrayal
of patriotism," he said. "By saying 'our interests first, who cares about the others,' we erase what a nation holds dearest, what
gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral values."
Macron is not the first to try to make a hard, fast, and rhetorically pungent distinction between nationalism and patriotism.
Orwell attempted to do the same in a
famous essay . He wrote that patriotism is "devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to
be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally."
On the other hand, "The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the
nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality."
In the end, Orwell gives a rather unsatisfying account in which all the mental and moral vices of self-interest and self-regard
are transmuted and supercharged by their absorption into a nationalistic "we." Nationalists in his account hold their nations supreme,
thereby encouraging themselves to traduce any other people or nation. For Orwell, the patriot prefers this to that . The nationalist
privileges us over them . For us, everything, to others nothing.
In his recent book, The Virtue of Nationalism , Yoram Hazony makes a different contrast. His work is not primarily concerned with
the moral status or self-deception of individuals, but with the organization of geopolitics. For him the contrast is between nationalism
and imperialism. For Hazony, it is the nationalist who respects spontaneous order and pluralism. Imperialists run roughshod over
these, trampling local life for the benefit of the imperial center.
A border will rein in the ambition of the nationalist, whereas the imperial character rebels against limits. A century ago, in
what he called the days of "clashing and crashing Empires," the Irish nationalist Eoin MacNeil felt similarly. For him, the development
of a nation -- any nation -- had in it "the actuality or the potentiality of some great gift to the common good of mankind."
It's difficult to find a consistent definition of nationalism from its critics, meanwhile. Sometimes nationalism is dismissed
as the love of dirt, or mysticism about language. Other times it's the love of DNA.
In the critics' defense, though, the way nationalism has expressed itself in different nations and different times can be maddeningly
diverse. Orwell is tempted to believe the nationalist thinks his nation is best in all things, but much of nationalist rhetoric throughout
Europe is a rhetoric of envy or arousal. Nationalists sometimes boast about their nations, but in many circumstances they express
despair about their countries; they want to excite their people to achieve more, to take themselves as seriously as some rival national
actor takes itself.
I'd like to propose a different way of thinking about the question. When we use the vocabulary of political philosophies, we recognize
that we are talking about things that differ along more than one axis. Take Communism, liberalism, and conservatism: The first is
a theory of history and power. The second is a political framework built upon rights. The final disclaims the word "ideology" and
has been traditionally defined as a set of dispositions toward a political and civilizational inheritance.
I would like to sidestep Hazony's championing of nationalism as a system for organizing political order globally, a theory that
my colleague Jonah Goldberg is tempted to call "nationism."
My proposal is that nationalism as a political phenomenon is not a philosophy or science, though it may take either of those in
hand. It isn't an account of history. Instead, nationalism is an eruptive feature of politics. It grows out of the normal sentiments
of national loyalty, like a pustule or a fever. It could even be said that nationalism is patriotism in its irritated state, or that
nationalism recruits the patriotic sentiment to accomplish something in a fit of anger.
In normal or propitious circumstances, national loyalty is the peaceful form of life that exists among people who share a defined
territory and endeavor to live under the laws of that territory together. National loyalty attaches us to a place, and to the people
who share in its life. Destroying national loyalty would almost certainly bring about the return of loyalties based on creed and
blood.
One of the outstanding features of nationalist political movements, the thing that almost always strikes observers about them,
is their irritated or aroused character. And it is precisely this that strikes non-nationalists as signaling danger. Republican democracies
should be characterized by deliberation. Conservatives distrust swells of passion. Liberals want an order of voluntary rights. But
nationalist movements are teeming with powerful emotions: betrayal, anger, aggression.
Therefore, I contend, like a fever, nationalism can be curative or fatal. And, like fevers, it can come and go depending on the
nation's internal health or the external circumstances a nation finds itself in. Foreign aggression and the onset of war will reliably
generate nationalist moods and responses. But cultural change can do it too. Maybe a national language falls into sharp and sudden
decline under pressure from a more powerful lingua franca. Even something as simple or common as rapid urbanization can be felt to
agitate upon a people's loyalties, and may generate a cultural response for preserving certain rural traditions and folkways. And
of course, sometimes nationalism is excited by the possibility of some new possession coming into view, the opportunity to recover
or acquire territory or humiliate a historic rival. The variety of irritants explains the variety of nationalisms.
You tend to find a lot of nationalism where there are persistent or large irritants to the normally peaceful sense of national
loyalty. Think of western Ukraine, where the local language and political prerogatives have endured the powerful irritant of Moscow's
power and influence in its region, and even in its territory. You find a great deal of nationalism in Northern Ireland, where a lineage
of religious differences signals dueling loyalties to the United Kingdom and to Ireland.
Until recently you didn't find a lot of political nationalism in the United States, because it is a prosperous nation with unparalleled
independence of action. But we are familiar with bursts of nationalism nonetheless -- for example, at times when European powers
threatened the U.S. in the early days of the Republic, during the Civil War and its aftermath, and especially during World War I,
which coincided with the tail end of a great wave of migration into the country.
If nationalist political movements are national loyalties in this aroused state, then we must judge them on a case-by-case basis.
When non-nationalists notice the irritated and irritable character of nationalism, often the very next thing they say is, "Well,
they have a point." You would judge a nationalist movement the way you would judge any man or group of men in an agitated state.
Do you have a right to be angry about this matter? What do you intend to do about it? How do you intend to do it?
We all do this almost instinctively. We understand that there are massive differences among nationalist projects. In order to
assert his young nation's place on the world stage, John Quincy Adams sought to found a national university. We may judge that one
way, whereas we judge Andrew Jackson's Indian-removal policy very differently. In Europe, we might cheer on the ambition of the Irish
Parliamentary party to establish a home-rule parliament in Dublin. That was a nationalist project, but so was the German policy of
seeking lebensraum through the racial annihilation of the Jews and the enslavement of Poland, which we judge as perhaps the most
wicked cause in human history. We might cheer the reestablishment of a Polish nation after World War I, but deplore some of the expansionist
wars it immediately embarked upon.
Nationalist politics tends to be opportunist; it takes other political ideas, philosophies, and forms of mobilization in hand
and discards them. Nationalists throughout the 20th century adopted Communism or capitalism to acquire the patronage or weapons to
throw off imperial rule, or stick it to a neighbor, for example.
The reemergence of nationalist politics in America and abroad requires us to ask those simple questions. What is bothering them?
Do they have a point? What do they want to do about it? Would it be just? In broad strokes I intend to take those questions up.
Kontraindicated 2 days ago
There is much discussion below as to the meaning of the term "nationalism" below. In the minds of many, it seems to be a relatively
benign term.
However, even recently we have seen extremely violent episodes break out that appear to be associated with some sort of flavour
of "nationalism", however it's defined.
In the former Yugoslavia, Tito tried to create a new "nation" that would have a common identity by breaking up the "nations"
that had previously existed on the same territory. This involved the forced relocation of various groups of Serbs and Croats (and,
to a lesser extent, Bosnians) who would now all live together in peace and harmony. However, when the political structures fell,
the people fell back into their old groups and immediately began fighting each other. The end result was an incredibly bloody
and vicious civil war and the ultimate re-establishment of Nations/Countries that mapped more closely to the ethnic/cultural/race
divisions that the people involved in the conflict were concerned with. Ultimately, they (as individuals) decided which team they
wanted to belong to and, as long as the "nation" agreed, they became part of that "nation".
Similar scenarios have played out across Africa and the Middle East (which was artificially set up for a century's worth of
conflict by Europeans in 1919).
All of which is mildly interesting, but it's not really related to the reason that this topic is coming up in NRO. The reason
that we are discussing this is that Macron spent a considerable amount of time during the Armistice Ceremony decrying "Nationalism"
(which, if we treat the term in the Yugoslavian context, likely did play a significant role in two World Wars) and Fox and Friends
were then able to teach Donald Trump a new word - after which he declared himself a "Nationalist".
So rather than beating ourselves up over semantics, would it not be better instead to debate two questions?:
Does "Nationalism" represent a growing force within enough countries that it represents a significant threat to the current
world order?
Does whatever Donald Trump thinks "Nationalism" means pose a threat to America's current place in the world and is it driving
the US away from its leadership role? (will "America First" lead to "America Isolated and Alone?")
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago
Dear Kontraindicated,
First, your last question is already answered, in the WTO, the EU, China, Canada, Mexico have raised a complaint against the
falsified use of "national security" by Trump to justify tariffs. If the USA decided then to leave the WTO, because Trump's personal
honor would be stained, (without forgetting that the US Congress should have already protested that these tariffs were illegal
in the first place) this will be another occasion to show that it is indeed "America Isolated and Alone"... Trump could have allied
himself with the EU, Canada, etc. against some of the unfair practices of China, instead he got two of the biggest trading block
in the world (including its two territorial neighbors) to ally themselves against the USA.
What a way of winning Donnie! ;-)
Then, let's go back to the question of the meaning of Nationalism.
There are two aspects:
What is the real meaning of nationalism compared to patriotism, when we remove all the fake ideological recent additions
to these terms? (and I have answered at length on this in my other comments) And this meaning is not necessarily nefarious. It
becomes a problem when one claims that each Nation must have one "sovereign" State (in the sense of country), and there should
be only one such Nation per country.
What is the meaning which is actually meant by Trump? And it is clear that he means it the way that it was whispered to
him, which is "One Nation, One and only One State; One State, One and only One Nation"...
It is no longer "e pluribus unum", but "e uno unum" (one from one), which is slightly less ambitious and certainly less of
a reason to get up in the morning and do something productive (but then there is a lot of opportunity for "Executive Time" and
playing golf)... ;-)
Leroy 2 days ago
"Out of many, one." ONE. Get it through your head. ONE. If you are MANY, you ARE Yugoslavia. And that doesn't end well.
TitoPerdue 2 days ago
I try to imagine my parents being informed that they must now accustom themselves to white people being turned into a minority.
Would have been stunned, my folks, who first arrived in 1771.
My folks: "But what did we do wrong!"
Me: "You've been too successful and must now be punished."
My folks: "What's wrong with being successful!"
Me: "It's racist. Ask Jonah Goldberg. You know how much the Jews despise ethnocentrism."
Gaurus 3 days ago
This is a useful take on the subject. There is a big Tower of Babel problem with this word as it seems to mean different things
to different people, and different nations also define it differently.
This language barrier is why Macron's criticism of the President should be taken with a grain of salt. The left's myopic/robotic
attempts to unilaterally define this word on their terms is reprehensible, just like so many of their other attempts at PC authoritarianism
aka thought control which is pushed by the national media.
What the vast majority of people apparently fail to realize is that the United states is an empire which by definition
is a group of states or countries containing diverse ethnic and cultural identities.
You must at some point come to ask yourself, "what keeps these diverse groups contained in the U.S. from fracturing, dividing,
and falling apart?" The answer is nationalism/national identity. It is the keystone or glue that binds these diverse ethnic and
cultural groups together. Anyone or anything that tugs or tears at nationalism therefore is altogether a bad thing for the country
and will sow division and strife that was not previously there. Ultimately civil war could result if those seeking to divide the
country for political gain go too far and the left ignorantly seems all-in on doing this.
Applying recent trends in politics using this as a backdrop, one can see how pro-globalists wouldn't care to attack nationalism
as they are by definition against the very concept of a nation-state and want top bring back good old feudalism, but this time
on a global scale. For comparison Russia is another example of an empire that is aware It needs to fuel nationalist sentiment
to hold itself together. The EU is an emerging empire that is conflicted with what this means. The break-up of the Soviet Union
can be blamed in part for failing to establish a strong national identity.
Plymouth mtng, PA 3 days ago
Well said! This truth is exemplified by the evidentiary and documented history that the Founding Fathers and Jackson, Lincoln,
and Grant and the whole of 19th century America used the language of Liberty and Patriot to define the American Republic.
Leroy 3 days ago
I just learned something new. I thought that ethnicity was the same as race. It isn't. Ethnicity: "the fact or state
of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." By that definition, we're all in an ethnic
group, and we can belong to smaller ethnic groups as well.
If Americans don't become nationalists, understand that we share common interests and goals, it won't matter how much we love
our country, because it will be unrecognizable.
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Dear Leroy,
I happen to think that "race" does not exist, but we know that in the USA when people say "ethnic" they mean "race"... ;-)
I remember 30 years ago, at the hairdresser in London, picking up a copy of the tabloid "The Sun", and reading a sentence where
"ethnic" was used to mean "foreigner with a darker complexion"... (something like "the three men were ethnic") ;-)
Once more "ethnic" means "national", nothing more nothing less: "ethnos" is the Greek translation of "natio". These are words
which have been used for a few thousand years, and we have to understand what they really meant and what they really mean now,
and to remove from them the "ideological" additions.
The definition which you give shows such ideological addition, by adding "cultural" and "tradition". By definition a "nation",
as the same traditions and therefore the same "culture": they are just redundant in this definition.
An ethnic group is a nation. So yes, you are in an ethnic group, and you can "define" smaller and smaller ethnic groups within
the bigger one (the "tribes"). So in Gaul, there were many different "nations", who were Gauls, but had a great diversity between
them (just read a few pages of Cćsar).
But at some point when there are many ethnic groups within you country (and this is how a country like France was made by the
addition of regions with varying ethnic backgrounds and the migration/invasion of many other ethnic groups), at some point the
only unity is in the country, the "patria", this is there that you find the common interests and goals.
So you see in France the difference going from Nation to the Country, because in the early middle ages the king was called
"King of the French" Rex Francorum, (there were many other nations recognized on the French territory) and in the later part of
the Middle Ages, he was called "King of France", Rex Franciae.
But because the word "nation" is important, and people would not let it go, there has been a tendency to use it to mean "country",
as when we speak of the National Anthem, but this is by a shifting of its original sense.
When we want to oppose nationalism and patriotism, we need to go back to the original technical meaning, not invent a new one.
PS: the reason why "ethnic" and "race" are not the same thing, and we saw it with "Pocahontas" controversy (I mentioned it
then), it is because a nation can "adopt" somebody who was not genetically related to them. They shall still be fully part of
the nation... but their genetic material shall be different.
Leroy 3 days ago
I know you enjoy history, but the meaning of words can shift. I'll go with the meaning of the word Nation that the founders
meant when they founded this nation. Nations are sovereign, make laws and control territory. A group of people, who share a culture,
but who do not control territory is not a nation.
Hub312 3 days ago ( Edited )
Whoever wants a clear-headed understanding of nationalism, I suggest you read the world's foremost scholar on nationalism,
Liah Greenfeld's "Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity" and Pierre Manent's concise but rich "Democracy Without Nations?".
Nationalism is really just another word for modernity and democracy. . It arose in England at the end of the 17th and the 18th
centuries as the liberal answer to the question: if the people are sovereign, who are "the people" that we are now calling the
nation? Answer: those who live within the borders controlled by the sovereign. The nation state is our home and our protection
and we're all in it together regardless of language, culture, etc. This was the essentially liberal idea that was adopted and
adapted by the French. This was the form adopted by Americans too. Greenfeld describes it as "civic nationalism" to differentiate
it from the ethnic, anti-liberal "nationalism" later adopted by Russia and Germany.
It is the Russians, followed by the Germans and other central Europeans who followed their lead that gave nationalism a bad
name. Identifying "the people" as a linguistic-cultural entity with or without borders set the stage for the bloody conflicts
that were fought over borders for these groups, and the discrimination and ethnic cleansing for those who didn't belong to the
dominant linguistic-cultural group, to say nothing of what needed to be done about members of the dominant group who lived outside
its borders.
Empires and nations based on racial and ethnic identity have bloody borders, since it is impossible to draw any border anywhere
in the world that includes all members of the dominant group and excludes or oppresses all members of other groups.
Are they both called nationalisms? Yes. But they couldn't be farther apart.
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Dear Hub312,
the word that is missing in your comment is "country". "if the people are sovereign, who are "the people" that we are
now calling the nation?... etc."
I am interested to see in which English author of the end of the 17th century you find the expression of "sovereign people"
or the "people are sovereign". Do you have some primary sources? I do not find it in Locke, but perhaps I am looking in the wrong
place.
And in the UK, in the 18th and 19th century, and still now, it is clear that English, Welsh, Irish and Scots are different
nations in the same "country"... Today, in Rugby the 6 nations championship takes place actually between four countries.
In the Middle Ages it is clear that the "supreme power" "summa potestas" comes God, and after this it is a question of open
debate whether it is invested directly in the King, or through the people who then may elect a king, or decide on a Republic.
And I find in the Renaissance of the 16th and early 17th century, many proponents of a summa potestas that belongs to the people,
which gives incidentally rise to the possibility of removing from power bad kings, but they happen to be Spanish and Catholics:
Francisco Suarez, Juan de Mariana and Roberto Bellarmino... worse, they are all Jesuits... ;-), and they claim that the supreme
power comes from the consent of the governed, and they were all dead by 1630... So that's it when it comes to the notion of people's
sovereignty "arising" in England in the late 17th century... It was up and awake already.
I cannot find "souveraineté" as a word (which is different from having a "sovereign"), before Jean Bodin (16th century) (but
you perhaps have better sources than mine), then I can direct you to many discussions about the nature and origin of "souveraineté"
in French in the 16th and 17th century.
Rousseau (mid-18th century) is famous for ascribing sovereignty to the people, but he was not English (although he was Protestant),
nor French, but he is also the inspiration for the "dictatorship of the people", and the Terror.
Rousseau is part of the Social Contract school, to which is usually adjoined his predecessors Hobbes and Locke, but there is
no doubt that Hobbes is a partisan of absolute monarchy, and again I fail to see in Locke a direct notion of people's sovereignty:
when he speaks of civil sovereigns he speaks of the "magistrates" who rule. But I am certain that you shall direct me to the proper
place in Locke, which currently escapes me.
The thing is that the "consent of the people" or even the "sovereignty of the people", or the "social contract" does not mean
that they are individually free afterwards... they may actually live under an absolute monarchy and still have "consented" to
it, or under a dictatorship of the people (socialist), or a national dictatorship, or a mixture of both... ;-)
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Of course, as I read again what I wrote, I made the most silly of blunders: Bellarmino was Italian, not Spanish... this invalidates
all that I have ever written.. ;-)
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Also, in the late 16th century during what is now called the Wars of Religions (but which they called Civil Wars) in
continental Europe, people moved from Monarchists to Republicans and back, depending of whether they were Catholics or
Protestants, but mostly depending of the position of strength in which they were at the time... There is a very interesting literature regarding the nature
and origin of the supreme power, and whether the people must have absolute obedience to the the sovereign civil power (whatever
shape it has). Of course none of this has to do with 17th century England, except that the same questions where asked and answered
their own way in the English Civil War (which was a religious war), when the Round-Heads decided to chop that of their King, whose
shape they did not like. ;-)
Bellarmino wrote against James I when he tried to sustain is absolute divine right to rule.
All of this to say that these questions were raised long before the Glorious Revolution. ;-)
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago
Dear Hub312,
well, why would I read a secondary source book, if it does not know the primary sources which I know?
If this book describes nothing more than what you described (i.e. England, end of the 17th century, etc.), which is refuted
by the sources that I know, why would I waste time reading it? it could not edify me, if it does not add to what I know.
Hub312 4 hours ago ( Edited )
...and you would love the Manent book, written from a very European liberal perspective, which is brief and very concise.
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Dear Michael Brendan Dougherty,
I have a revolutionary proposal: instead of investing words with supposed meanings in order to be able to say that we approve
of them or not (which in English is called begging the question), why don't we simply use the etymological meaning of the word?
;-)
It's easy, "national" means precisely the same thing as "ethnic": one is Latin, the other is Greek. You know what ethnicity
is a euphemism for in the US: "race". A "nation" does not need to have borders to be a nation, the "barbarian nations" of late
Antiquity early Middle Ages were roving nations. This is why also initially German nationalism i the 19th and early 20th century
was expansive: it meant to "unify" the German nation in one country. This is why Irish, Scottish or Welsh nationalism is divisive
and restrictive, it is meant to separate the English (seen as invaders) from the local version of a Celtic nation.
The "Patria" is the Land of the fathers: this is the "country", the "land".
The one is "Blood", the other is "Soil", you see that each can be assigned bad meaning or good meaning, if one wants to.
Behind this you have the age old conflicts between Cain and Abel, between the roving pastor, and the settled farmer.
Both Nation and Patria can be a limit within which to stay, or a limit to expand: so one can be an "imperialist" or not, whether
one is a patriot or a nationalist. Because even a patriot, may require more land, to ensure the safety of the one that he has,
his own version of "lebensraum".
These two notions are also linked to the "jus sanguinis" (right of blood) and the "jus soli" (right of soil/land) question
regarding citizenship.
In countries which have official separate notions of citizenship and nationality (in the former USSR for instance), citizenship
is clearly ascribed to the country, and nationality is clearly ascribed to ethnicity: so one can be a Russian national, citizen
of Kazakhstan.
It is the notion of the Nation-State (which is comparatively recent), which tends to make believe that for each identifiable
"Nation" there must be one identifiable "Country" (a sovereign state). It is the geographical difficulty if not impossibility
of this which lead to the political upheavals in the 19th and 20th centuries. It was trying to merge Nationalism and Patriotism
that created the problems.
In some cases when supposed "nations" wanted to be unified within one country, there was the notion of "Pan-somethingism",
Pan-Germanism, Pan-Slavism, etc., and/or Nations wanted to become independent: so you had the fights for the unification of Italy,
Germany, the independence of Poland, Greece, etc., within the 19th century. And then there were all these places were the population
was too mixed to make any such separation easy: the Balkans, the remnants of the Turkish Empire (a perfect example together with
the Persian Empire (for those who read Xenophon), why "Imperialism" does not mean "centralization"), remnants of "German" populations
in "Slavic" countries, etc. You know what followed.
So both nationalism and patriotism can have a good or a bad meaning, depending of how one intends to use them.
For instance the notion of a "Europe of Nations" is what helped secure the Good Friday Agreement, because another way of saying
it is a "Europe of Regions", where Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Basques, Bretons (of little Brittany), etc., have a possibility of
recognition, without necessarily breaking up "countries".
So you are right there is much more than one axis of meaning, and it is important that one opposes the right terms, and this
is the responsibility of what used to be called the "publicists", those who speak of the Res Publica, what we now call "pundits":
but in the USA none are more adept at using the wrong formulations than the "modern conservative" pundits. Why? well, "modern
conservative" says it all... because you are partly right conservatism is about "a set of dispositions toward a political and
civilizational inheritance", and "modern conservatism" is therefore an oxymoron. ;-)
And this is why "Modern Conservatism" became such an easy prey for the Alt-Right Anarchists: because they are not grounded
in an actual "tradition", but like all the "progressives" (which they are), they have to reinvent for themselves a new beginning...
in the 1950s, they said, now that there is National Review, we shall become "real" conservatives, "modern conservatives", before
us, they were not really conservatives... ;-)
But you cannot be a real conservative if you have to identify a date for the birth of your movement.
"Modern Conservatives" have a vested interest in muddying the debate, so that it does not become clear that "conservatism"
is not linked to specific political or economical models, and more importantly it is not true that the Founding Fathers were all
absolutist libertarian free traders... ;-)
So Conservatism is not the opposite of Liberalism, it is the opposite of Progressivism. Imperialism is indeed about expansion
of power, but it is not necessarily about "centralization", as many empires not only have left the "local life" untouched, but
this "local life" disappeared when a supposedly more "liberal" power took over...
Therefore I do beg American publicists, especially those of the conservative variety writing in NRO, stop begging the question
when you falsely "define" terms, so that they align with what you deem to be good or bad; be instead a real conservative, go back
to the etymology and the actual meaning of the words, see how they were used initially, not only in the last 50 or even 100 years...
because then you are using "progressive" definitions, and you keep repeating that "progressives" always change the meaning of
the words to suit their purpose... You are right on that one. ;-)
Leroy 3 days ago
Conservatism "has been traditionally defined as a set of dispositions toward a political and civilizational inheritance"?
That can't be true. We all know that conservatism now means free trade, where American workers are replaced by Chinese slave
labor. We know that conservatism means an insatiable desire for foreign migrants, adding millions of campesino's to our economy
every year. Most of all, we know that conservatism stands for foreign imperialist wars and globalist profits.
What, exactly, are our children inheriting? Press 2 for Spanish.
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 3 days ago
Dear Leroy,
I agree with you that US Conservatives are Progressives by another name. see my main comment here. ;-)
TitoPerdue 2 days ago
Indeed. And let us not forget neocons.
Jean_Christophe_Jouffrey 2 days ago
Dear TitoPerdue,
given that the Founding Fathers were already progressives, who for you committed the original sin of believing that "all men
are created equal", why do you still live in that den of iniquity that is the USA?
You should be out there carving an empire for yourself, showing your supremacy and spreading the seeds of your "culture" over
uncharted territories and untamed tribes... ;-)
I hear that there are still some fairly inaccessible places in Papua-New-Guinea... ;-)
Perfect place to show your supremacy, or end up in the cooking pot. For once your philosophy of life would become true: eat
or be eaten! ;-)
hawkesappraisal 3 days ago
I agree. "Nationalism" is a charged but nebulous word, but it describes something that is clearly important in spite of the
obscurity of its meaning. So the struggle to come up with coherent definitions is worthwhile. The current Nationalism is probably
best defined by, Progressives saying "America sucks!" and the Right responding, "No it doesn't! America is Awesome!"
freedom1 3 days ago ( Edited )
Thoughtful piece. I think the obvious irritant lending support to Nationalist sentiments is the non benign aspects of Globalism.
Marxism is a brilliant sui generis philosophy of history. The attending political
position was a heartfelt reaction to the immiseration of the working classes of Europe.
There were many similar ideologies to Marxism in political viewpoint, but Marxism is
outstandingly intellectually interesting.
Marx is not differentiated from other (Gentile) socialists by his politics but by his
genius. I doubt his part Jewishness had much to do with that.
Jews have made up a huge proportion of decent economists from all economic
perspectives.
Meanwhile, Ayn Rand was an highly eccentric writer of romantic fiction that lucidly
captured the snivelling, resentment fueled scumbags who make up the denizens of the
swamp.
Pychoanalysis – (((Freud)
Freud's psychoanalysis might be flawed but his work constitutes a truly great body of
literature and the invention of a new and important subject. He is one of the greatest
thinkers of all time.
USSR – (((Lenin))), (((Trotsky)
Lenin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was. Lenin was in charge, while Trotsky ended up murdered
while in ignominious exile.
SJW/open society/antifa movements – (((Soros))) and other forture 400
(((billionaires)))
I'm not sure how you think antifa and billionaires are best buddies but Jews are obviously
a minority among billionaires.
Soros is deranged. There are plenty of bad people in every group. There are more maniac
progressive types among Jews. The explanations are mundane.
Big tech censorship – (((ADL))), (((SPLC))), (((Zuckerberg))), (((Brin)))
Again, Jews are a small minority of those enacting big tech censorship. Indeed, America
remains one of human history's least censored societies. That doesn't make it good but you
need get some perspective before you go all crazy.
Hollywood and other pop culture entertainment – easily all senior positions at the
very least 50% jewish
Nonsense. And a lot of that stuff is pretty good.
The jew really is to blame, which is also why they are so hell bent on censoring and
jailing people for stating these blatant truths.
Lenin wasn't Jewish. Trotsky was. Lenin was in charge, while Trotsky ended up murdered
while in ignominious exile.
apparently Lenin was part jewish and had disdain for white people, ethnic Russians
Trotsky was the racist he accused others of being – he wanted to fill Russia with
what he called "white n1ggers" presumably to ruled by jews like himself – what right a
5% has to rule the rest of the country? It would be like Chinese ruling the U.S.
Again, Jews are a small minority of those enacting big tech censorship.
really? (((Facebook))), (((Google))), and (((SPLC))) and (((ADL))) are the so called
"safety advisors" so no leftist or jew should ever have to stumble upon the truth on those
sites
also, why do you thnk BitChute lost access to PayPal and Stripe? why do think Paul Nehlen
suddenly had trouble with his upstream suppliers for the business he manages? its because
jews behind the scenes collude against and punish any competitiors or anyone speaking out
about jews – this is what they do
Indeed, America remains one of human history's least censored societies.
no thanks to the jews, who have pulled this "hate speech" crap already in Canada, UK,
Australia, and Europe. They are the reason those countries don't have Free Speech and they're
coming for Free Speech here in the U.S. too – because (((their))) feelings are more
important than your rights
The overwhelming majority of Jews are not Semites (peoples from the Middle East). Most Jews'
points of origin are in Europe.
My family (mother's side) German Jews – not a Semite in the bunch. Mostly blond
haired & blue eyes.
There is real resistance to those, who attempt to clarify this vital point. Ron Unz, this
is your website, and these are some of your topics. Why fear to tread? Why fear the truth?
You've come so far. Come all the way into the light.
Most Jews come from – – – Read Arthur Koestler's "The Thirteenth
Tribe" as a start for your education and a cure for your being brainwashed.
Have received some threatening emails, and despite all the political views this Anarchist
has, the threats have ALL been in response to my analysis of just who are, and are not
Semites. Unz, and Commentators, I need no help here. I fear not, and cannot live forever.
Orwell's 1984 , explains in detail the use of false language and false History as
the KEY tools in repressing Humanity, and Humanity's Liberty.
The misidentification of just who Semites are is a powerful weapon in the hands of the
Zionist Land Thieves and their American, British, & French puppets. The Jewish claim
to Semitism goes in tandem with their insistence on their right to exterminate
Palestinians and occupy their land, and later, the Zionist Oligarchs will continue to
occupy all the Middle East "eretz Israel," and concurrently, they will occupy and control
(with the weapons of financial/banking and physical terror), the peoples of this planet.
It is no wonder Gilad Atzmon has it all wrong. Look for no help here.
Jews have not been the only recipients of the Brutality that humans often inflict on one
another. And Jews have not been specially singled out, over Serbians, Russians, Chinese,
Armenians, Native Americans, Iraqis, Syrians, Vietnamese, Indonesians (1965), Yemenis,
Libyans, Afghanis, Africans (slavery and neo colonizing of their nations), and dozens
more.
Jews belong (yes, they, with all the rest of Earth's people, belong). Jews belong in
America, and Europe, where they may reside in happiness and freedom with all the other
peoples, and, if they wish, they may visit their newly Freed and Happy Palestinian friends,
(and host them in their European and American homes) – as well.
We American Patriots , we will host all, in our Restored American Republic.
And America's finest statesman, Dr. Ron Paul , will become our First Constitutional
President – since John F. Kennedy.
The Living Dream, and do not Fear.
Durruti for the Anarchist Collective
West Bank Settler and American Patriot, by Gilad
Atzmon - The Unz Review
@wayfarer
The USA is full of Jewish billionaires. Why on earth does Israel need any blood money from
the hard-pressed taxpayers when they could supply their home away from home with all the
extra money it needs, if indeed it needs any at all? If you are wondering about one of the
main causes of US anti-Semitism, look no further than the billions our AIPAC-controlled
traitorous Congress gives to that apartheid state every year.
West Bank Settler and American Patriot, by Gilad Atzmon - The Unz Review
What a pleasure to find Gilad Atzmon here at UNZ. And as usual, Mr. Atzmon delivers fresh
insights and bold perspectives.
I am grateful that Gilad is examining as well as talking to hyper-Zionists living in
Pennsylvania. This is revealing. I appreciate Yonatan Stern's willingness to address Atzmon's
questions.
I was similarly impressed–unexpectedly so–when I met the late Rabbi Meir
Kahane, who I briefly interviewed for a televised TV debate I produced ('Why Terrorism?') in
1986. Former US Congressman, Pete McCloskey (R-CA), took the opposing side in this exchange
concerning the future of Palestine/Israel as well as US policies there. In my opinion, Kahane
won the debate (though not on its merits).
Rabbi Kahane was an unabashed separatist (like most devout Jews) and he famously declared
(somewhat prematurely) that Israel's native gentiles ('Palestinians') had no future in a
Jewish State.
Kahane believed that all these resentful, recalcitrant Arabs should be kicked out of
Israel. He was unabashedly pro-separation. From a Zionist point of view, Kahane offered a
violent though practical long-term solution. Multiculturalism is inherently problematic and
destabilizing. It is also incompatible with Jewish nationalism. But Kahane made Jewish
liberals blush. As a result, he was declared a 'racist' by establishment Jews; even though
Judaism is, at its core, race-driven.
Please keep in mind that during this era (Carter through Clinton) the endless Mideast
'peace process' was still underway with all the hype, fanfare, and false hopes.
The 'peace process' ended up being a road to nowhere–full of highfalutin awards,
accords, meetings, 'confidence-building measures' and an endless array of Jewish advisors,
pro-Israel committees, donors and 'experts'. Kahane knew that it was doomed from the
start.
Nevertheless, Jews from nearly every 'mainstream' political faction world-wide derided
Kahane's straightforward and 'racist' solutions, even though his prophetic advice now mirrors
today's Israeli policies. Meir Kahane was simply ahead of his time. He was also far too
candid for his liberal cousins to own up to.
A few years after Kahane's televised debate with McCloskey, he was assassinated in
NYC.
In any event, it is undeniable that blood/ancestry is at the heart of Judaism. The Law of
Return tells us so. Religiosity on the other hand has become somewhat incidental to
Jewishness. A committed, ethnic Jew (but an atheistic one) such as Allen Dershowitz, for
instance, is as 'Jewish' as any orthodox rabbi. Identity and ancestry is what matters.
Thus I appreciate Stern's criticism of his Jewish cousins who have saddled America with
top-down 'liberalism', a movement that's functioned as a court-ordered Trojan Horse inside
America.
Like his Jewish cousins however, Stern's still a bit of a fraud–since he relies on
double-standards, special privileges, and ancestral grievances to justify his unique
collection of rights as a land-grabbing Zionist.
Stern hypocritically derides non-violent whites in Charlottesville who want the same
rights for themselves in America as Jews get in Israel: to preserve their culture,
traditions, racial lineage, and majority status. These are core Zionist values. But Stern
would deny them to any and all American whites.
Stern is also disinclined to express any gratitude to his duplicitous, liberal cousins for
their decades-long, pro-Jewish activism. Yet Stern is beneficiary of their subterfuge. Jewish
activism helps explain why Jews have risen in America while others–such as the white,
working-class men in Charlottesville–have fallen.
US Liberalism (with plenty of help from Zionist Jews) coercively integrated America
racially (but not in Israel), opened our borders to all (but not in Israel) and erected a
towering wall between 'church and state' (but not in Israel).
These tricks have been good for the Jews, which includes Stern. He can now wear his
yarmulke proudly and not get laughed at–or punched (since its a 'hate crime'
today).
Liberal and 'secular' Jews also helped orchestrate Washington's de facto marriage to the
State of Israel. This has also empowered Stern. And to the delight of most Jews (both left
and right) the US has been largely de-Christianized over the past sixty years. This is more
smart work by Jewish jurists, lawyers, and academics–many with close ties to the
'liberal' ACLU.
As a beneficiary of all this, Stern should thank his liberal cousins for this political
black magic. Yet he pretends to object.
Stern is at least correct when he acknowledges that 'progressive' Jews have damaged the
West and that they are still doing so.
How long jews can maintain their political power, not just in the USA, but in the whole
west, I have no idea, there is not much that points to an important change soon.
This, of course, is the $64,000 question. Rather than us Dumb Goyim speculating
about it, why not listen to what a political insider had to say about this issue back in
2001?
His name is Dr. Stephen Steinlight. And although Ron Unz has characterized him as "some
totally obscure Zionist activist" he was was for more than five years Director of National
Affairs (domestic policy) at the American Zionist Committee. If that doesn't qualify him
as an "insider," I don't know what does.
Excerpts from The Zionist Stake in America's Changing Demography: Reconsidering a
Misguided Immigration Policy :
Facing Up to the Gradual Demise of Zionist Political Power
Not that it is the case that our disproportionate political power (pound for pound the
greatest of any ethnic/cultural group in America) will erode all at once, or even quickly.
We will be able to hang on to it for perhaps a decade or two longer. Unless and until
the triumph of campaign finance reform is complete , an extremely unlikely scenario,
the great material wealth of the Zionist community will continue to give it significant
advantages. We will continue to court and be courted by key figures in Congress. That power
is exerted within the political system from the local to national levels through soft
money, and especially the provision of out-of-state funds to candidates sympathetic to
Israel , a high wall of church/state separation, and social liberalism combined with
selective conservatism on criminal justice and welfare issues.
Zionist voter participation also remains legendary; it is among the highest in the
nation. Incredible as it sounds, in the recent presidential election more Jews voted in Los
Angeles than Latinos. But should the naturalization of resident aliens begin to move more
quickly in the next few years, a virtual certainty -- and it should -- then it is only a
matter of time before the electoral power of Latinos, as well as that of others, overwhelms
us.
All of this notwithstanding, in the short term, a number of factors will continue to
play into our hands, even amid the unprecedented wave of continuous immigration. The very
scale of the current immigration and its great diversity paradoxically constitutes at least
a temporary political asset. While we remain comparatively coherent as a voting bloc, the
new mostly non-European immigrants are fractured into a great many distinct, often
competing groups, many with no love for each other. This is also true of the many new
immigrants from rival sides in the ongoing Balkan wars, as it is for the growing south
Asian population from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. They have miles and miles to go
before they overcome historical hatreds, put aside current enmities and forgive recent
enormities, especially Pakistani brutality in the nascent Bangladesh. Queens is no
melting pot!
For perhaps another generation, an optimistic forecast, the Zionist community is thus in
a position where it will be able to divide and conquer and enter into selective coalitions
that support our agendas. But the day will surely come when an effective Asian-American
alliance will actually bring Chinese Americans, Japanese Americans, Koreans, Vietnamese,
and the rest closer together. And the enormously complex and as yet significantly divided
Latinos will also eventually achieve a more effective political federation. The fact is
that the term "Asian American" has only recently come into common parlance among younger
Asians (it is still rejected by older folks), while "Latinos" or "Hispanics" often do not
think of themselves as part of a multinational ethnic bloc but primarily as Mexicans,
Cubans, or Puerto Ricans.
Even with these caveats, an era of astoundingly disproportionate Zionist legislative
representation may already have peaked. It is unlikely we will ever see many more U.S.
Senates with 10 Zionist members. And although had Al Gore been allowed by the Supreme Court
to assume office, a Jew would have been one heartbeat away from the presidency, it may be
we'll never get that close again. With the changes in view, how long do we actually
believe that nearly 80 percent of the entire foreign aid budget of the United States will
go to Israel?
If Steinlight was obscure or not, I do not know.
What struck me in one of his articles is how he sees the holocaust story as essential to Zionist power in the USA.
Also in that article he wondered if at some point in time Jews might be driven out of the
USA, 'but, there is always the life boat Israel'.
That Israel will collapse the minute Zionist power in the USA [eventually] ends, he seems unable to see
this.
About your quote, it seems to have been written before it became clear to the world that
western power is diminishing.
So even if Zionist power over the West remains, Zionist power in the world is diminishing
too.
NATO, EU, Pentagon, neocons, whatever, may still want war with Russia, my idea is that on the other
hand that more and more people see this intention, and are absolutely against.
While western influence is receding, Assad still is there, Russia has bases in Syria, Erdogan, on what side is he ?; and so on and so forth.
The battle cry 'no more war for Israel' exists for a long time in the USA. And I interpret discussions on
this side of the Atlantic about increasing anti-Semitism as the acknowledgement of the fact that more and more people
on this side begin to criticize Zionists, especially with regard to Palestinians.
"... Last month, an unsealed FBI indictment of four American white supremacists from the Rise Above Movement (RAM) declared that the defendants had trained with Ukraine's Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia officially incorporated into the country's national guard. The training took place after the white supremacist gang participated in violent riots in Huntington Beach and Berkeley, California and Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017. ..."
"... Let's not forget that the illegal coup in Ukraine and ensuing civil war was pushed by Obama/Hillary. It was HRC who promoted Dick Cheney's chief foreign adviser, Victoria Nuland, to Secretary of European Affairs, and it was Nuland who was caught on tape discussing how to "midwife this thing" in Ukraine. ..."
US-Funded Neo-Nazis in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists November 17, 2018 •
43 Comments
Short-sighted U.S. foreign policy that backs jihadists in the Middle East and neo-Nazis in
Ukraine is once again blowing back on the United States, as Max Blumenthal explains.
FBI: Azov Battalion Trained Rise Above Movement
Last month, an unsealed
FBI indictment of four American white supremacists from the Rise Above Movement (RAM)
declared that the defendants had trained with Ukraine's Azov Battalion, a neo-Nazi militia
officially incorporated into the country's national guard. The training took place after the
white supremacist gang participated in violent riots in Huntington Beach and Berkeley,
California and Charlottesville, Virginia in 2017.
The indictment stated that the Azov Battalion "is believed to have participated in training
and radicalizing United States-based white supremacy organizations."
After a wave of racist violence across America that culminated in the massacre of twelve
Jewish worshippers at a Pittsburgh synagogue, the revelation that violent white supremacists
have been traveling abroad for training and ideological indoctrination with a well-armed
neo-Nazi militia should cause extreme alarm.
Not only are white supremacists from across the West flocking to Ukraine to learn from the
combat experience of their fascist brothers-in-arms, they are doing so openly -- chronicling
their experiences on social media before they bring their lessons back home. But U.S. law
enforcement has done nothing so far to restrict the flow of right-wing American extremists to
Azov's bases.
There is one likely explanation for the U.S. government's hands-off approach to Azov
recruitment: the extremist militia is fighting pro-Russian separatists as a front-line proxy of
Washington. In fact, the United States has directly armed the Azov Battalion, forking over
anti-tank rocket launchers and even sending a team of Army officers to meet in the field with
Azov commanders in 2017.
Though Congress
passed legislation this year forbidding military aid to Azov on the grounds of its white
supremacist ideology, the Trump administration's authorization of $200 million in offensive
weaponry and aid to the Ukrainian military makes it likely new stores of weapons will wind up
the extremist regiment's hands. When queried by
reporters about evidence of American military training of Azov personnel, multiple U.S. army
spokespersons admitted there was no mechanism in place to prevent that from
happening.
... ... ...
Hide Behind , November 18, 2018 at 6:55 pm
Strange people that live in US, those that live under belife of free speech and
expression, and yet there are literally thousands of examples where those of opposing view
points that try and present them in public are met with disruptive behaviors, banning from
presentations of opposing ideology from speaking at Colleges and University campus, and
removal and witholding of tenure to those who question edicts of correct speech and lets
admit it anything that questions support of Israel the State.
And condoling of violent behavior by groups in US , crosses religious, political Partys,
Anarchist, and now a liber storm trooper style ANTIFA that is beginning to better equip
themselve tha. just pipes, knives, and clubs into having numbers armed with the Leftist hate
most guns.
We have ultra right Trump supportive Militia that actively said they would revolt if Trump
was defeated and now if he is impeached.
The largest and most virulent part of the southern state militia are of Christian Zionist,
and some militias signature patches have Star of David upon them and the cross
You think that the October massacre marks a culmination? That is naive: it is undoubtedly
not an end point and part of a crescendo building for decades. Meanwhile, the professional
Right keeps denouncing the Democrats for anti-Semitism, which is frequently simply criticism
of Israel and has nothing whatever to do with attacks on persons or property. Your article
reminds us that these psychopathic attacks are coming from a particular branch of the "White
Right" which has been talking upon Satanic Judaism and killing Jews–and targeting
synagogues–for quite a while.
Zenobia van Dongen , November 18, 2018 at 5:21 pm
Fascinating article by Max Blumenthal.
Max Blumenthal rightly denounces Italy's fascist Casa Pound party but fails to report that
Casa Pound is on excellent terms with Hezbollah, as reported by the Italian daily Repubblica
in 2015.
According to Repubblica, the European Parliament declared Hezbollah a terrorist group on 10
March 2005.
On 26 September 2015 a convention called "Mediterranean Solidarity", "the first international
convention of solidarity [among] identities" was held in Rome attended by Rima Fakhri, member
of Hezbollah's politburo and Sayyed Ammar Al Moussaw, responsible for Hezbollah's
international relations, as well as by top Casa Pound leaders like Alberto Palladino, who was
seen in the Donbass during fighting between Russia and the Ukraine, Franco Nerozzi, who was
convicted of international terrorism in Verona after taking part in a failed coup detat on
the Comoros islands, Casa Pound leader Giovanni Feola, and Luca Bertoni, representing the
Lombardy-Russia Association, who always accompanies Matteo Salvini, leader of the far-right
Lega, on his trips to Moscow.
"Italian right-wingers have consolidated relations with the most fundamentalist and militant
Islamic groups. In 2013 the City of Rome refused permission to the Syrian Uodai Soso Ramadan,
also invited to the congress, to hold a pro-Assad demonstration. At the time he was staying
at CasaPound."
The article on the neo-Nazi presence in Ukraine is very interesting. I am a white
working-class white separatist with some longtime following. Even though this article had
both lies, truths and maybes. It was well done. However, when it says there is no other side
in the US with another view, you are wrong. I have experienced the attempted and sometimes
successful penetration of the right wing by CIA types for many years and gotten rid of 2
serious penetrations in years past.
I have warned those that listen not to involve themselves
in the Ukraine situation. In fact, don't travel to other countries. Where you do not really
know the score and may be fighting on the wrong side anyway.
I am aware that anything the
State Department involves itself in is totally suspect and probably criminal. Even if you
don't acknowledge it there are other factions that are pretty much out of the right wing, but
are still very strongly White separatists . In fact, my politics have moved to the left on
several important issues. It would appear to me that the powers that be are attempting to
design a right wing alleged neo-Nazi movement somewhat patterned some what after ISIS.It is
obvious Blumenthal's article has a lot of truth in it, but his mindset tends to get in the
way . When he uses the old dog whistles like Trump when labeling people. Tom Metzger
Geo , November 18, 2018 at 6:36 pm
Curious why you are a White Separatist? Is there any logical reason because the best I can
gather from the many separatist commenters that have littered threads like these over the
years is that they're too fragile to get by in an ethically equal society. It seems that
they're greatest problem is that others have rights now so it's harder for these White
Separatists to succeed seeing as how they must do so on merit instead of birthright.
Be curious to find out if there is any justification for ethnic separatism other than
petty whining because of some mythical birthright you feel you're being denied?
rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 1:56 pm
Notice that they admit the connection goes back at least to 2014. We never hear much about
the overthrow of the new pro-Russian government in Ukraine after the Russians had worked for
four years with the pro-Western lot. Only when Nuland/Yats and co interfered did the new
"government" with its Nazi links become powerful with the help of the EU and of course USA.
The whole continuing insistence on Russia being an enemy has no basis in reason or sense. To
support Ukraine now just because it is fanatically against Russia after decades of
cooperation in the USSR is not justified by any possible link with "national security of the
USA" or of Europe.
See this video of Obama's ambassador to Ukraine Pyatt going to visit training base in
western Ukraine where Nazis brought into the then newly formed National Guard are still being
trained by US Army Special Forces from Fort Carson, Colorado . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxeZFS9hTUg
Patrick Lucius , November 18, 2018 at 12:01 pm
Let's not forget that the illegal coup in Ukraine and ensuing civil war was pushed by
Obama/Hillary. It was HRC who promoted Dick Cheney's chief foreign adviser, Victoria Nuland,
to Secretary of European Affairs, and it was Nuland who was caught on tape discussing how to
"midwife this thing" in Ukraine.
Nuland is wife of chief neocon Richard Kagan, founder of
PNAC. This essentially restarted the cold war between Russia and America. Obama tarnished his
presidency primarily by working with Clinton, including the destruction of Libya. Where were
the Democrats to object to such shenanigans? I don't know where they were, but I do know
where they are now–charging Trump with colluding with the Russians. I thought it was
fascinating that Trump, when he secured the Republican nomination, insisted that the
Republicans remove from their platform the promise of military aid to Western Ukraine, to
fight the pro-Russian eastern Ukrainians. Where were the Democrats to applaud this anti-war
mongering? I know where I, as a Democrat was–I was leaving the party and becoming a
Trump supporter.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 18, 2018 at 2:30 pm
Thanks, these are important points, is about the neocons.
On our smaller Swedish scale ,
I was similarly disgusted with the support by the once much more ethical Social Democratic
Party for the US- and EU-supported coup in Kiev.
lucius , November 18, 2018 at 7:58 pm
Lots of room for disgust In America, the traditional Democrats and Republicans both are
backing the neocons' stance with just about no questioning or examination. It seems to be a
tribal thing, or some sort of group response, like geese in flight, or buffalo running off a
cliff
Thank you for providing a platform for Max Blumenthal's reporting.
Wayne Mclaughlin , November 18, 2018 at 10:35 am
Very good article except for the line " .. Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the
failure of the EU and NATO to prevent it ." I always take issue with that representation
because it implies an aggressive and forceful action by Russia when in fact Crimea seceded
from Ukraine after the western backed and illegal coup of the democratically elected
government.
Skip Scott , November 18, 2018 at 2:11 pm
One of the definitions of annexation is "the adding of new territory". I believe this is
the way the word is being used in this article. It has come to mean "forceful acquisition" to
many folks, and this leads to confusion. To those of us who know a little history, maybe a
better word would have "rejoining", since Crimea was part of Russia until the early 1950's.
When Khrushchev gave it to Ukraine it was still part of the USSR, so it was really no more
than a gesture. The Russian naval base in Sevastopol has been there since the 1700's.
Martin - Swedish citizen , November 18, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Very good point!
Wording is important, and accepting the word annexation without clarification may be a step
towards buying the lie.
It must be a terrible feeling to know you can't compete with people that you believe are
inferior. Nice to have some fellow losers to commiserate with, I suppose.
Is there anything you won't do in your rabid efforts to dominate the planet?
Of course, when you think about it, these Ukrainian thugs are no worse than other outfits
America heavily supports, from the mercenaries of Syria and the government of Saudi Arabia to
the King of Bahrain and the government of Israel.
A couple of these last – Israel, Saudi Arabia – kill more innocent civilians
than any terrorist organization could dream of doing.
And no one says a thing.
mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:27 am
Max Blumenthal does a valuable service shining a light into the dark places of Nazi
Fascism in the US. Anyone who thinks these groups are too small to be important, should
recall how small the movement that gave us Hitler was in it's beginnings.
mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:16 am
Pro Nazi sentiment has never died in the US Oligarchy. The CIA is essentially a fascist
organization pretending to be protectors of democracy. Worship of violence and
authoritarianism is endemic to the American Spirit. All the better for being the world's
greatest bully, pretending to be the guardians of the highest values. Those in high places
here are the evil scum of the universe.
(Thanks for the new font! So much better.)
John A , November 18, 2018 at 7:57 am
The US is now funding a schism in the Orthodox church between Ukraine and Russia. The evil
of the US knows no bounds.
rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 2:01 pm
Of course, "good ole Americans" like Mike Pence claim to be Christians, and many other US
Christians blame the Russian Orthodox church for not being as modern as they are and ready to
accept LGBTQ..
Realist , November 18, 2018 at 4:14 am
Not surprising that some Americans think that racial bigotry is okie dokie when both
political parties in Washington, especially the one that bases its platform on membership in
certain favored identity groups, practice it routinely against anyone or anything Russian or
Iranian. They have a few other fall guys as well, but those are the two blamed for everything
these days.
No question but that Ukraine is one of the most ethnically prejudiced and fascist regimes
on the planet, though that doesn't seem to bother Washington, as long as they are
frenetically Russophobic. Neither does Israel's rampant anti-Arab, anti-Persian and
anti-Muslim Zionism bother the bigots in DC in the slightest.
Yet they get into a lather when the small nations of Eastern Europe, especially those in
the Visegrad countries (plus Austria, Slovenia and Croatia) constituting most of the
Intermarium that the author alluded to, which happen to have both small populations and low
birthrates, reasonably fear that their native populations will be swamped out within a couple
of generations if they are forced by the EU to take in significant numbers of Islamic
migrants from the lands thrown into turmoil by the U.S.-instigated wars throughout the Middle
East and North Africa. Hungary's Viktor Orban is vilified in the West as some sort of new
Hitler (must be Putin's twin brother) for implementing on a much smaller scale what Donald
Trump is trying to institutionalise in the enormously larger United States.
Rather than force all these sociological "side effects" to its catastrophic wars on its
putative "allies," perhaps Washington should finally see the light and do the right thing by
winding down the carnage and aiding the resettlement and rebuilding of the war-torn countries
by their displaced citizens. But they won't–they have overtly refused, at least until
none of America's debts can be paid with devalued petrodollars, because that would let Russia
off the hook, whom Washington wants to see crushed as badly as der Fuehrer did–I think
it's trying to complete his mission. Plus the glorious new war against Iran would have to be
cancelled. They used to say, "all roads lead to Rome." They oughta re-write that for the
modern world as, "all strife traces from Washington."
mike k , November 18, 2018 at 8:19 am
Excellent comments Realist.
Joe Tedesky , November 18, 2018 at 10:55 am
Like our 'Big Pharma Over Medicated Society' we in the West would rather beat the hell out
of the symptom rather than cure the cause, is our American hegemonic trademark. Similar to
tightening the screw so tight the fragile glass begins to crack so you fix it with a hammer.
It appears our leaders love spreading their chaos. None of this shows signs of ever ending
well, but yet we overdose the symptom to the extreme that the side affect is what finally
kills us. In the end it only matters how it shows on a profit and loss sheet.
rosemerry , November 18, 2018 at 2:05 pm
An excellent contribution-thanks realist.
The USA has steadfastly refused to rebuild their devastated victims' lands even when UN legal
demands clearly demanded it eg Nicaragua.
Excellent reporting, Max! I'm curious. Is there any connection with present or former Eric
Prince mercenary soldiers, or soldiers from other private mercenary organizations, with these
fascist movements?
Joe Tedesky , November 17, 2018 at 11:15 pm
This fascist trend should go well with Operation Timber Sycamore, where the U.S. armed the
terrorist jihadist. When will our American leaders learn, that if you play with fire you will
get burned. The rise of the Nazi is one more reason that we Americans should focus on this
type of news as Max Blumenthal reports. Furthermore the American Jewish who do not support
the Israeli apartheid state should join good thinking Americans to put down this disgusting
happening. So thank you Victoria Nuland, Geoffrey Pratt, and the rest of this sick and insane
DC bunch, because without you where would our Homeland Security budget be?
Think it can't happen here . the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter lived 4 blocks from me. Btw
these racist don't vote, they just hate. And 'no' I didn't know him, but I know of others
sick birds all of them.
And especially a warm thank you goes out to Max Blumenthal for his courageous reporting.
Bless you Max. Joe
Bob Van Noy , November 18, 2018 at 10:32 am
Thank you Joe. The larger picture and insanity of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Philosophy, is and always has been totally without moral responsibility. Interestingly, it
seems to be a fundamental aspect of post WWII organizing by our own OSS, who became the CIA
in 1949. Alan Dulles was busy organizing this kind of activity before that war ended.
Thanks to you Joe and of course Max Blumenthal for addressing this subject. I'll include a
link to the early heritage of this bizarre and illegal concept here. Many thanks Consortium
News.
Thanks Bob reading John Mearsheimer well defined portrayal of what led up to the fall of
the Ukraine as we once knew it, is reminiscent of reading Robert Parry's many articles on
this subject. If you recall Parry was deeply into this U.S. led NATO aggression. Through the
MSM of the West the tables were turned to point the finger to instead Russian aggression.
Putin is never shown in light of his policy achievements nor are his speeches calling out to
the world for sensible detente where needed ever covered, but instead Putin is demonized to
no end.
Little is remembered, or even known by those in the West of another time where American
and British capitalism hugged the very nature of Nazism, while the Russians even back then
were too the target of this type of Western aggression. Who's needs history when dreams of
speculative profit should cloud their eyes?
It's in Europe's elite that we find the spirit of appeasement that once enabled fascists
and communists. •
November 16, 2018
French President Emmanuel Macron has a new go-to rhetorical trope: alarm over the return of
the horrors of the 1930s. Last summer, he decried the reappearance of populist governments
"rising like a leprosy, throughout Europe," as well as a "resurgent nationalism" and the
emergence of governments that support the closing of frontiers and don't respect "even the
right to asylum."
Macron's targets are the newly formed government of Italy, along with Hungary, Poland, and
the Czech Republic, all resistant to the flow of migrants into Europe. He returned again to the
analogy earlier this month, telling an interviewer he was "struck" by the present's
similarities to the 1930s and calling again for resistance to the "nationalist leprosy." He
went on this tear yet again while hosting the Armistice Day centenary commemorations, where he
contrasted the "generous" France of "universal values" with the shallow nationalism of nations
that look out only for their own interests, a remark widely interpreted as a rebuke to
President Trump.
To punctuate his point, he added a reference to Julien Benda's Treason of the
Intellectuals , published in 1927, which decried burgeoning nationalist sentiments among
Europe's intellectuals as a whole and certain French conservatives in particular. It closed
with a paean to Franco-German cooperation, the European Union, and the United Nations.
Macron is surely correct that the 1930s were generally a terrible decade. That's true even
if what he said is not all that different from the commonplace left-wing view that all
conservatives who think about anything more than reducing taxes can be safely decried as
fascists and Nazis and deserve no platform in our political system. But the analogy to the
1930s deserves unpacking. Whatever lessons might be learned from history, they're not nearly so
straightforward as Macron seems to believe.
First of all, there was not one but two active murderous totalitarian movements popular in
the '30s: fascism and communism. Communism came first. The Soviet government had probably
killed 10 million innocent people before Hitler came to power. By the 1930s, huge slices of the
intelligentsia in Britain, France, and, yes, the United States were head over heels in love
with Stalinism. These thinkers produced reams of tributes to the bloodthirsty Soviet system,
and were far more dominant in Western intellectual life than the targets of Benda's ire in the
1920s. Second, because Bolshevism came first, it acted as an accelerant, perhaps even a major
cause, of fascism. One definition of fascism -- from my thesis supervisor Bob Paxton, probably
the greatest American expert on the subject -- is "hard measures by a frightened middle
class."
What they were frightened of, of course, was Bolshevism. And rightly so, even if pursuing
violent and anti-democratic means in defense of property and order had a cost in suffering just
as horrific as those they had feared.
Additionally, among the large numbers of people who were neither fascists nor communists,
nor fellow travelers to either, there were significant currents of opinion hardly conducive to
maintaining democratic peace. In early 1933, the Oxford Union held one of its most famous and
historically significant debates: aye or nay on the motion "that this House will in no
circumstance fight for its King and Country." The motion carried by a nearly two-to-one margin,
a result noted and commented upon all over the world.
Some of the arguments made in favor of "aye" were standard communist fare, i.e., "It is no
mere coincidence that the only country fighting for the cause of peace, Soviet Russia, is the
country that has rid itself of the warmongering clique." But it's likely that the vast majority
of the students who supported the motion, the bright and favored sons of Britain's
establishment, were motivated by pure disgust at the horrendous toll, paid for no terribly good
reason, in the trenches of the Western Front. In any case, the sentiment was widespread enough
in Britain's ruling circles to buttress the arguments for appeasement made a few years later.
It certainly contributed to Hitler's view that Britain and France were soft, unwilling to
resist him.
So if one of the evils of the '30s was the extreme nationalism and fascism that Macron
decried, another was communism. And the combined energy of both led to a spirit of appeasement
on the part of those attached to neither far left or right but unable also to summon much
energy to defend an imperfect bourgeois order. It's this spirit that's most analogous to the
regnant attitudes in contemporary Europe.
For as world leaders and press descended upon Paris to commemorate the end of World War I,
one could see that desire for appeasement take a new form. Last week, a middle-aged Pakistani
Christian woman, a farm worker named Asia Bibi, was freed after eight years on death row for
the charge of "blasphemy." Her conviction was overturned by Pakistan's supreme court, a
decision that immediately provoked mass demonstrations by fundamentalist Muslims demanding her
death. Her attorney fled the country for his safety. Her family requested asylum in Britain, a
request that was reportedly denied because the British government feared it would provoke
"unrest" among Muslims.
Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron, those wordy celebrants of Europe's asylum generosity,
have uttered not a word in support of Bibi, even as both (particularly Merkel) have facilitated
entry into Europe of millions of young Muslim men as "refugees." In contrast to them, Italy's
interior minister Matteo Salvini has said that Italy would welcome Bibi and her family -- who
at this writing are still unable to leave Pakistan.
It's a telling moment -- the government indirectly accused by Macron of harkening back the
dark days of the 1930s is ready to open its arms to a genuine political refugee, while the
governments of Theresa May, Macron, and Merkel opt for social peace -- a "paix bien Munichoise"
as a writer for the French journal Causeur aptly describes the establishment's
accommodating stance towards fundamentalist Islam on European soil.
The Bibi case brings to mind the fascinating story of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, the Dutch woman of
Somali origin who became a member of parliament and then, after 9/11, a critic of Islam.
Because of threats of murder from Dutch Islamists, she was first forced to live under police
protection and eventually had her citizenship withdrawn by the Dutch government. She moved to
America, becoming, as Salman Rushdie put it, "maybe the first refugee from Western Europe since
the Holocaust."
But in Macron's view, and the view of others from the West's Davos-style establishment, the
threat to Europe's core values can come only from "nationalists" like Hungary's Victor
Orbán, Italy's Salvini, and the likes of Donald Trump. In his famous poem written at the
outbreak of World War II, W.H. Auden famously called the 1930s "a low dishonest decade." The
attitudes that made it so are very much alive in Europe's ruling classes today.
Scott McConnell is a founding editor of and the author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches From
the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars .
Was French president Emmanuel Macron correct at the WWI commemoration over the weekend when he
asserted that patriotism is the opposite of nationalism in a pointed dig at US president Donald
Trump? RPI Board Members Lew Rockwell and John Laughland join scholar George Szamuely on RT's
Crosstalk to debate whether nationalism is the bogeyman that Macron and others make it out to
be. Or is blaming nationalism just a way to further destroy national sovereignty and bring
about an unelected permanent globalist empire?
President Macron's protests against nationalism this weekend stand in stark contrast with
the words of France's WWII resistance leader and the man who would then become president:
General Charles de Gaulle.
Speaking to his men in 1913, de Gaulle reminded them:
"He who does not love his mother more than other mothers, and his fatherland more than
other fatherlands, loves neither his mother nor his fatherland."
This unquestionable invocation of nationalism reveals how far France has come in its pursuit
of globalist goals, which de Gaulle described later in that same speech as the "appetite of
vice."
While this weekend the media have been sharpening their knives on Macron's words, for use
against President Trump, very few have taken the time to understand what really created the
conditions for the wars of the 20th century. It was globalism's grandfather: imperialism, not
nationalism.
This appears to have been understood at least until the 1980s, though forgotten now. With
historical revisionism applied to nationalism and the great wars, it is much harder to
understand what President Trump means when he calls himself a "nationalist." Though the fault
is with us, not him.
" Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism: nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism
By pursuing our own interests first, with no regard to others,' we erase the very thing that
a nation holds most precious, that which gives it life and makes it great: its moral values,"
President Macron declared from the pulpit of the Armistice 100 commemorations.
Had this been in reverse, there would no doubt have been shrieks of disgust aimed at Mr.
Trump for "politicizing" such a somber occasion. No such shrieks for Mr. Macron, however, who
languishes below 20 percent in national approval ratings in France.
With some context applied, it is remarkably easy to see how President Macron was being
disingenuous.
Nationalism and patriotism are indeed distinct. But they are not opposites.
Nationalism is a philosophy of governance, or how human beings organize their affairs.
Patriotism isn't a governing philosophy. Sometimes viewed as subsidiary to the philosophy of
nationalism, patriotism is better described as a form of devotion.
For all the grandstanding, Mr. Macron may as well have asserted that chicken is the opposite
of hot sauce, so meaningless was the comparison.
Imperialism, we so quickly forget, was the order of the day heading into the 20th century.
Humanity has known little else but empire since 2400 B.C. The advent of globalism, replete with
its foreign power capitals and multi-national institutions is scarcely distinct.
Imperialism -- as opposed to nationalism -- seeks to impose a nation's way of life, its
currency, its traditions, its flags, its anthems, its demographics, and its rules and laws upon
others wherever they may be.
Truly, President Trump's nationalism heralds a return to the old U.S. doctrine of
non-intervention, expounded by President George Washington in his farewell address of 1796:
" It must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary
vicissitudes of [Europe's] politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her
friendships or enmities."
It should not have to be pointed out that the great wars of the 20th century could not be
considered "ordinary vicissitudes", but rather, that imperialism had begun to run amok on the
continent.
It was an imperialism rooted in nihilism, putting the totality of the state at its heart.
Often using nationalism as nothing more than a method of appeal, socialism as a doctrine of
governance, and Jews as a subject of derision and scapegoating.
Today's imperialism is known as globalism.
It is what drives nations to project outward their will, usually with force; causes armies
to cross borders in the hope of subjugating other human beings or the invaded nation's natural
resources; and defines a world, or region, or continent by its use of central authority and
foreign capital control.
Instead of armies of soldiers, imperialists seek to dominate using armies of economists and
bureaucrats. Instead of forced payments to a foreign capital, globalism figured out how to
create economic reliance: first on sterling, then on the dollar, now for many on the Euro. This
will soon be leapfrogged by China's designs.
And while imperialism has served some good purposes throughout human history, it is only
when grounded in something larger than man; whether that be natural law, God, or otherwise. But
such things are scarcely long-lived.
While benevolent imperialism can create better conditions over a period of time, humanity's
instincts will always lean towards freedom and self-governance.
It is this fundamental distinction between the United States' founding and that of the
modern Republic of France that defines the two nations.
The people of France are "granted" their freedoms by the government, and the government
creates the conditions and dictates the terms upon which those freedoms are exercised.
As Charles Kesler wrote for the Claremont
Review of Books in May, "As a result, there are fewer and fewer levers by which the governed
can make its consent count".
France is the archetypal administrative state, while the United States was founded on
natural law, a topic that scarcely gets enough attention anymore.
Nationalism - or nationism, if you will - therefore represents a break from the war-hungry
norm of human history . Its presence in the 20th century has been rewritten and
bastardized.
A nationalist has no intention of invading your country or changing your society. A
nationalist cares just as much as anyone else about the plights of others around the world but
believes putting one's own country first is the way to progress. A nationalist would never seek
to divide by race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual preference, or otherwise. This runs contrary to
the idea of a united, contiguous nation at ease with itself.
Certainly nationalism's could-be bastard child of chauvinism can give root to imperialistic
tendencies. But if the nation can and indeed does look after its own, and says to the world
around it, "these are our affairs, you may learn from them, you may seek advice, we may even
assist if you so desperately need it and our affairs are in order," then nationalism can be a
great gift to the 21st century and beyond.
"... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist, you must be bad. ..."
... Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you think like me. You
are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are a nationalist,
you must be bad.
I think that the wisdom of Humpty Dumpty when speaking to Alice fits here:
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is which is to be master -- that's all."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
In a rebuke that bordered on a national insult Sunday, Emmanuel Macron sniped at Donald
Trump's calling himself a nationalist.
"Patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism; nationalism is a betrayal of patriotism,"
Macron said.
As for Trump's policy of "America first," Macron trashed such atavistic thinking in this new
age: "By saying we put ourselves first and the others don't matter, we erase what a nation
holds dearest, what gives it life, what makes it great and what is essential: its moral
values."
Though he is being hailed as Europe's new anti-Trump leader who will stand up for
transnationalism and globalism, Macron revealed his ignorance of America.
Trump's ideas are not ideological but rooted in our country's history.
America was born between the end of the French and Indian War, the Declaration of
Independence in 1776, and the ratification of the Constitution in 1788. Both the general who
led us in the Revolution and the author of that declaration became president. Both put America
first. And both counseled their countrymen to avoid "entangling" or "permanent" alliances with
any other nation, as we did for 160 years.
Were George Washington and Thomas Jefferson lacking in patriotism?
When Woodrow Wilson, after being re-elected in 1916 on the slogan "He Kept Us Out of War,"
took us into World War I, he did so as an "associate," not as an Allied power. American troops
fought under American command.
After that war, the U.S. Senate rejected an alliance with France. Under Franklin Roosevelt,
Congress formally voted for neutrality in any future European war.
The U.S. emerged from World War II as the least bloodied and least damaged nation because we
stayed out for more than two years after it had begun.
We did not invade France until four years after it was occupied, the British had been thrown
off the Continent, and Josef Stalin's Soviet Union had been fighting and dying for three
years.
The leaders who kept us out of the two world wars as long as they did -- did they not serve
our nation well, given that America's total losses were just over 500,000 dead, compared with
the millions that other nations lost?
At the Armistice Day ceremony, Macron declared, "By saying we put ourselves first and the
others don't matter, we erase what a nation holds dearest its moral values."
But Trump did not say that other countries don't matter. He only said we should put our own
country first.
What country does Emmanuel Macron put first?
Does the president of France see himself as a citizen of the world with responsibility for
all of Europe and all of mankind?
Charles de Gaulle was perhaps the greatest French patriot of the 20th century. Yet he spoke
of a Europe of nation-states, built a national nuclear arsenal, ordered NATO out of France in
1966, and, in Montreal in 1967, declared, "Long live a free Quebec" -- inciting French
Canadians to rise up against "les Anglo-Saxons" and create their own nation.
Was de Gaulle lacking in patriotism?
By declaring American nationalists anti-patriotic, Macron has asserted a claim to the
soon-to-be-vacant chair of Angela Merkel.
But is Macron really addressing the realities of the new Europe and world in which we now
live? Or is he simply assuming a heroic liberal posture to win the applause of Western
corporate and media elites?
The realities: in Britain, Scots are seeking secession, and the English have voted to get
out of the European Union. Many Basques and Catalans wish to secede from Spain. Czechs and
Slovaks have split the blanket and parted ways.
Anti-EU sentiment is rampant in populist-dominated Italy.
A nationalism their peoples regard as deeply patriotic has triumphed in Poland and Hungary
and is making gains even in Germany.
The leaders of the world's three greatest military powers -- Trump in the U.S., Vladimir
Putin in Russia, and Xi Jinping in China -- are all nationalists.
Turkish nationalist Recep Tayyip Erdogan rules in Ankara; Hindu nationalist Narendra Modi is
head of India. Jair Bolsonaro, a Trumpian nationalist, is the incoming president of Brazil. Is
not Benjamin Netanyahu an Israeli nationalist?
In France, a poll of voters last week showed that Marine Le Pen's renamed party,
Rassemblement National, has moved ahead of Macron's party for the May 2019 European Parliament
elections.
If there is a valid criticism of Trump's foreign policy, it is not that he has failed to
recognize the new realities of the 21st century. It's that he has not moved expeditiously to
dissolve old alliances that put America at risk of war in faraway lands where no vital U.S.
interests exist.
Why are we still committed to fight for a South Korea far richer and more populous than the
nuclear-armed North? Why are U.S. planes and ships still bumping into Russian planes and ships
in the Baltic and Black seas?
Why are we still involved in the half-dozen wars into which Bush II and Barack Obama got us
in the Middle East?
Why do we not have the "America first" foreign policy we voted for?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
It's probably more complex and there is not solid boundary between nationalism (love of your
own country or ethnicity at the expense of other) and patriotism (just love of you own country).
Envy is a very human trait (Great Russian poet Alexander Pushkin said that it is the sister of
competition, so it comes for noble family) and if you love you country you definitely can envy
other countries and this feeling complicates things -- bridging the gap between the patriotism
and the nationalism.
The two are not always easy to distinguish and a 'My country right or wrong' mindset seems to
be dangerously on the rise. Also often this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny. You are a patriot if you
think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't. Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you
are a nationalist, you must be bad.
Ukrainians has a saying that reflect this deep feeling of envy " God I do not want any
specific favors for myself, but please make it so that my neighbor house was burned out"
Notable quotes:
"... I long ago decided that Nationalism as these two great minds defined it was a bad thing and that I hoped the United States would not descend to such a depth of false pride as to become nationalistic in this sense. I have lived to be disappointed in this. ..."
George Orwell wrote in "Notes on Nationalism," that "By 'patriotism' I mean devotion to a
particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world
but has no wish to force upon other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both
militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseparable from the desire for
power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige,
not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his
own individuality ."
I have tried to act as I imagine a patriot should and in a way that Kedourie and Orwell
might approve. I long ago decided that Nationalism as these two great minds defined it was
a bad thing and that I hoped the United States would not descend to such a depth of false pride
as to become nationalistic in this sense. I have lived to be disappointed in this.
In general I support Macron's expressed view on this subject but it should be said that much
of his vehemence on this subject is caused by his own search for approval in France and
reluctance to see Europe deprived of the post WW2 economic benefits and subsidized defense
against the USSR long provided by the United States. From my point of view Macron appears a
self serving politician in this matter.
We should all be careful not to confuse Patriotism and Nationalism. pl
Orwell's intellect is overrated, and his aphorisms have become thought-ending cliches.
Look at the string of assumptions in quote above. Do individuals really 'choose' to
'sink' their consciousness into a greater body? What makes far more sense is that at the
'core' of I there is a 'we', which is conditioned by prior forms of particularity -
religion, ethnicity, language, race, and culture. This is the basis of a harmonious
common good, and a meaningful lifeworld.
Orwell grew up in a time of increasing scale, managerialism, and atomizaton. His
thinking narrates the moral discourse shaped by that anti-social environment and its
effects (mass wars) but dresses it up in an emancipatory narrative. One is immediately
struck by his lack of foresight in predicting how power would operate as the 20th century
wore on (Foucault and and Huxley are a lot closer the truth), and his inability to
grapple with the essence of power and its moral and conceptual implications as a
whole.
In reality, power is a moral imperative, and its acquisition and application the
inaugural raison d'être of the state and the concomitant society. Hence, the cogito
subject at the heart of Orwell's evaluative presuppositions is itself a product of prior
systems of power, upstream from personal judgement and value sets. Orwell proceeds to
demand by implication we view the ancestral efforts which secured our position in the
present day as illegitimate, since they conformed to emergent anthropological patterns of
conflict and conquest instead of categorical laws plucked out of thin air by self-styled
'enlightened' big-brains during the 18th century. Had we actually lived by these
'standards', those of us left would be a marginalized set of tribes pushed to the far
north of Europe, regularly getting shafted by whatever Magian civilization moved in. As a
matter of fact, that's happening right now as these self-critical ideas have installed
themselves within our cultural substrate.
These pious set of mere assertions are deployed by the ruling globalist cabal to
justify the replacement of Western founding stocks. Yet they are so ingrained among our
senior cohort, when their *own people actually under attack* seek to affirm themselves
without contradiction in *response*, they are viewed as the root menace. But if you have
a decline and you have a desire to assert yourself to arrest the decline, and you have to
apologize to yourself about even having the idea of assertion to arrest decline, you're
not going to get anywhere, are you?
Those who feel uncomfortable about this should have worked harder to prevent the
erosion of the historic American nation, and if there is nothing they could have done
against the DC Behemoth, abstain from opposing the instinctive response of the cultural
immune system.
I'm not American, but i'm 5th generation in an Anglo-setter nation. The
implication here is that i'm an ungrateful you whipper-snapper who just doesn't
grasp the sacrifices and horrors of the 20th century. Exactly when does my
generation get the moral cachet entitling us to input directions into the
civilizational compass? Arguments predicated on commitment to a cause haven no
inherent validity. I'm certainly not disparaging or denying here, but you're
putting us in a position where our ambit of choice is circumscribed by the
ideology that justified post-War US hegemony (for which people from my community
were still dying until very recently in Afghanistan).
I have long thought that NATO should have been abolished after the fall of the
USSR. Go your own way. I am not concerned with you foreigners in Europe or
anywhere else. I am concerned with the state of mind of my own people who should
wise up and forget about Europe except as a trading partner and a tourist
destination.
Well, I would love to do that Col., but unfortunately Western civilization as a
whole goes the way of Washington, New York, Brussels, and maybe Paris and Moscow.
What happens to weaker power centres without the strong ones? What has happened
Tibet, that's what.
Thinking in terms of elites tied to specific nations is no longer a good model
to conceive of politics. Formal institutions like NATO are an expression of that.
We have to address transnational networks of soft power that bind together and
enculturate the ruling class. I have more in common with a Trump voter from
flyover country and he with me than either of us with our respective 'national'
elites.
An important distinction, thank you for forcing us to consider the difference.
The two are not always easy to distinguish and a 'My country right or wrong'
mindset seems to be dangerously on the rise. I was considering the use of the
national flag on homes in the US and UK. It surprised me how common it seemed in
the States and assumed it was a show of Patriotic fervor when I see it in the UK
it sends a shiver down my spine as (with the exception of major international
sporting events) I interpret it as extreme Nationalism often associated with
racist or Neo-Nazi sympathies. Conflation of the two seems much the same as that
of Anti-Israeli, Anti-Zionist and Anti-Semitic again three very distinct
mindsets.
I can truthfully state that I am either fish, nor fowl, nor good red meat on this
one. It seems to me to be a standard bit of verbal "wanking" so beloved by the
folks in the political arena.
I think that mostly this is a in your face dig at Trump, same tenor, same
sneering superiority that was displayed by the urban democrats who are currently
in their third year of an extended tantrum over Trump's taking their shiny ball
from them.
Look, mostly this whole patriotism/nationalism word game is just sadly funny.
You are a patriot if you think like me. You are a nationalist if you don't.
Patriotism is good, nationalism is bad. If I am a patriot, I am good, if you are
a nationalist, you must be bad.
I think that the wisdom of Humpty Dumpty when speaking to Alice fits here:
"When I use a word..it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor
less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."
"The question is which is to be master -- that's all."
But I suspect he also does not want to see another Verdun. Or another
Douaumont charnel house where the unidentified bones of 130,000 French and German
soldiers reside.
Or he does not want another Zone Rouge like the two million acres around
Verdun that remains forbidden territory even now. The only ones allowed in are
the EOD techs of the Département du Déminage that are still
digging out unexploded ordnance 102 years later. Much of that UXO contains
mustard, phosgene, or chlorine. All of it is badly corroded and volatile. French
EOD pulls out hundreds of tons every year.
I just heard that ignorant swine pansy Jesse Watters say that the French have not
known military glory sine Bonaparte. Too bad we cannot deposit him in that
contaminated zone to find his way out.
Somewhat related: Trump's refusal to stand in the rain on that solemn 100th
anniversary spoke more of the man than anything previous. Didn't want to get
rained on! That war, those trenches, the rain, the rain, the rain. He probably
cannot spell infantry, much less describe what it is. There is the Commander In
Chief in all his glory. We are lost.
Rob,
That was the fake news take on it. The reality is that the Secret Service wasn't
prepared to get him there in a vehicle. The original plan was to arrive by helo.
He was there the next day in the rain. Fake news is the enemy of the people.
No military record here, sir, I am a civilian, born in peace time, even at a time
when military service was no more mandatory....But no unaware of war fatigues,
since here in Europe we have had almost all relatives who fought the great
war....Granpa was a partisan then....
Just read that about the trenches and the rain...and remembered this film....I
hope you all can enjoy it....It´s good to watch this kind of films,
especially for us who had the great fortune of never being there...
It did not learn a single lesson from its fake reporting that led the Iraq War
Eh? They learned everything from it. They got away with it. Subsequent wars and aggression
in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Georgia could not have happened without Iraq paving the way.
Self professed liberals and leftists cams out in favour of, or remained indifferent to, all
of these assaults on national sovereignty. What is under attack here is the concept of
independent and sovereign nation states and national governments. Imperfect they might be,
but they are the only mechanism we have for protecting citizens' rights and freedom to pursue
a path of development independently of the dictates global monopoly capitalism is trying to
impose on the world.
>>Johnstone: The Best Way To Honor War Veterans Is To Stop Creating Them<<
Preach!
The military defends Money Power Monopolist Mega-Corporate Fascist Global Empire, not
America, and definitely NOT the Constitution. The New Deal effectively wiped out the
Constitution, which was the "Old Deal."
Syria and Iran aren't threats, they are countries that don't have debt-based money systems
controlled by the Money Power Monopolists.
"In a sense, there is no "future". Currently, you note a consolidation of the few
remaining countries without a "central bank" ...and how rapidly this is occurring. Look for
Syria next to fall, and fall quickly.
North Korea has already cut a deal under the aegis of China...feit accompli. Cuba has also
agreed to the North American integration once Fidel "passes".
That leaves IRAN. And biblical prophesy. The fallout from that conflict sets the stage for
the true new world order as has been broadcast in the media for the last 13 years or so."
~Unnamed Rothschild
The establishment of central banks is ALWAYS a necessary first step of subjugation of
geographically congregated bloodlines. Note that Libya's first official act, before even the
corpses turned stiff...was the establishment of a central bank. Those rebel forces were
certainly well schooled by someone!
~Unnamed Rothschild
Amazing how Libyan rebels took time out of their daily war duties to establish a CENTRAL
BANK! Imagine the paperwork in getting that done on the battlefield!
Those rebels are a well educated lot!
Laughing out Loud!
Seriously, don't the serfs notice things like this?
~Unnamed Rothschild
The financier of the military makes it clear they are attacking Western countries -
monetarily and economically.
"Remember, the equity and bond markets exist only to remove fiat from circulation!"
~Unnamed Rothschild
Our soldiers joined, were trained, given orders. The best way to honor veterans is to quit
putting it on them. This is the government we have because it is the government we
want. It's the government we allow. This is on all of us . I think it's time for
people who are dissatisfied with the treatment of veterans, with the voter fraud, with the
lies and theft of elected officials, local, state, and federal, tired of the media lying to
us and creating fake events... perhaps it's time to peacefully strike. Perhaps it's time to
say No to vote fraud, to say No to lies and deceit.
Perhaps it's time to peacefully petition the government for redress of grievances. That's
a Constitutional Right guaranteed to Citizens of the United States. That requires an active,
constructive peaceful assembly. Everyone has had it up to the eyes with this ******** and
this con-game we're being fed.
I'd rather get stomped to death than live on with this never ending slow coup against We
The People. We hold the power. Just us. We designate that power. It should be here to protect
us. That social contract deserves respect. You may be watching the only chance in your life
that you could do anything about it, given the current President and his attitude. I really
think that. It's not enough to watch the Proud Boys punch an Antifa in the jaw. That doesn't
do it for me. That's theatre.
My girlfriends father is old army security. I'm paying the bill at Dennys and he says, let
me put my military discount on that. So he's behind a guy in an Operation Iraqi Freedom
jacket. He says, hey; I like your jacket. The guy looks at him and he says, nice hat. Army
Security Agency. The military deserves more than a discount at ******* Denny's. They deserve
a country. So do I. So do you. But there's not going to be any country if we don't peacefully
come together to hang every last traitor scumbag lying trasonous seditious bastard by just
saying NO! Arrest these traitors! I don't want my vote raped. I don't want my speach raped.
Or yours! I don't give a **** about illegals or their kids because I take care of my kids
legally and lawfully and didn't put them in that **** expecting a parent of the century
award.
I don't ******* care what you call yourself. But if it's more important than your right to
call yourself whatever you want, you are my enemy and I tell you no.
If it's legal to vote and legal to be off work to vote, to peacefully assemble, it should
be legal to redress government. It's time to show out. It's time to say we want this ********
to stop. We have paid very well for the lifestyles and presidential libraries and foundations
and kept all the traitors in good health. But we reserve the right to cut you off if you
abuse our sacrifice to you and our votes to you. We reserve the right without prejudice to
say NO. That's our right. And until we say NO! our silence equals consent.
I say NO. I say **** THE SEDITIOUS TRAITORS trying to hold on to rape us of all our
Rights. And I say long live Trump for giving our country back to us at inauguration. That's
what's up. Let's peacefully **** these people up. USE IT OR LOSE IT.
And from a movie that says the futility of it all: "We fight because we are here." Imagine
dying in the trenches of WWI or in a shithole like the trenches of Korea.
The least we could do is to learn what really happened and why. I realize I was taught an
endless string of lies about history, especially US History, WWI, WWII, Vietnam war.
Be very careful and informed before joining the military.
Libtards don't really know much about anything, so it seems. Here's the deal:
As long as there are assholes in the world, there will be wars.
I don't have a problem with that. It's the world that I live in. It's been the case
throughout all of human history. A world without wars is pure ******* fantasy. It will never
happen. It's high time that libtards start accepting the world that they live in.
The problem that we're having , is that we're shooting the wrong assholes instead
of the right ones. But you know what? All of human history shows that problems like that are
always remedied as well. And if you're doing some soul-searching, trying to figure out who
the assholes are, they're probably going to be any group of people, who can't leave other
groups of people the hell alone .
Not surprisingly, the 20th century seems to be characterized by assholes fighting each
other.
Our psychopathic dna as a nation comes mainly from england, one of the most, if not the
most murdering countries in history. england cruelly colonized Asia and Africa, and literally
never stopped murdering the innocents. Now as our ALLY, among the other killing nations, such
as France and Germany, we the USA can kill literally any country or countries for any reason
or no reason.
we as the american people will be blamed for all the monstrous destruction and
innocents deaths. separation of our country and our politicians would be necessary if we are
to have a future. looking dim. why are we still dirty, and killing innocents, why are we
allowing saudi and israel to mass murder innocent women and children ?
no one cares enough
yet. you would think by 2018 we all would have banned war and conflict, we have not. this
makes me sick. I am a vet.
I'm actually thinking of not watching football anymore the war propaganda is constant. I
went to a game and it was like walking into an armed camp. Hundreds of cops and military.
Every five minutes they're marching around and everyone has to "honor" them. It's disgusting.
All the players are told to kiss every soldiers ***. The Army are the terrorists. They all
make me want to puke.
In Australia at the moment the suicide rate is a shocker among those coming back from
Afghanistan, Iraq and places unknown, the solution they are proposing is for priority airport
treatment and more medals and other stuff along the model the US has, which is an insult as it
does nothing to financially support or mentally cure, its a cop out.
Very few wars are even about righting some amazing wrong. They merely tend to be about
treasure i.e. nat gas, oil, rare earth materials, diamonds, water, blah blah blah. And, if
there happens to be some fight, ala WWII, then you can bet your *** on it that all corporate
assholes are funding and benefiting from the war....on both sides of the coin i.e. backing
each side until a peace is called.
I don't have an answer to the human condition or our propensity to be violent and fight
etc., but I sure as **** am not cool with sacking places, and killing kids, over *******
things. We're better than this.
I have 2 kids myself. You can all be on notice that if a bomb were to be dropped on my
house, and if my kids were killed, I would likely devolve and start picking off the low
hanging fruit i.e. the zombies shuffling in and out of said bomb makers companies, and
wasting them 1 person as a time. I'd slowly, if still able, work my way up to the execs.
Hopefully, and along the way, I'd be able to wipe shareholders off of the grid, also.
When you go off to fight for "freedom", and arrive home to find that you have little to no
real freedom and essentially live in a police state, it's a shocking blow.
This sounds like something I would write. And even the damn CHURCHES honor the veteran
"serving" his country. What a crock of ****. I tell the pastor that he will be judged harshly
when his time comes. And I tell Christians that because they support the rampant murder of
millions that when they die and are standing before Jesus for judgement they will be soaked
in the blood of the innocent and he will ask you why did you support this? Why did you not
speak out against it? Then I look at them and say "good luck because you're gonna need
it".
The world is not ruled by pure evil yet. In Brazil A nationalist was elected, in Italy and
much of eastern Europe other nationalists were elected. You think the Chinese protected the
Italian and Brazilian right to free and fair elections? You think Russia is the arsenal of
freedom? You think the EU upheld the votes of the people, allowing Britain to vote on leaving
the EU and Italy and eastern Europe? You think the unelected rulers of the EU respected other
peoples right to vote? Look out onto the world, and recognize that as of today, the nations
of the world have A group to join if they chose to fight for liberty, capitalism and all the
other virtues, and that group is grounded and guaranteed by the United States of America. In
G-d I trust.
Hopeful thinking for a hopeless reality. Truth is tyrants never fall by their own swords.
It always takes someone else's. The modern problem is a bit more complex when we make the
tyrants that we later topple. The toppling is where the bucks are... just ask any of the the
last 4 Presidents and their respective Congresses.
So war is just an American problem, something we just invented? Do we read much history or is it all PBS specials now. War has ALWAYS been fucked up. Violence has been a major contributor to immigration for
all of history. Like it or not, we live in dangerous times. We can ASSUME that if America shrank it's
military and ended all interventions that world peace would magically appear....but it won't.
We can pray that while we retreat behind of big screen TVs that China will end their
territorial expansion and military programs, but they WON'T.
I'm all for reigning in our interventions, but let's not pretend that America is to blame
for human evil and aggressive behaviors....just because we are good at it..
There is an endless stream of history illustrating the absolute brutality and evil that
had persisted since the beginning of time. We should avoid embracing it but we should avoid
thinking we have the power to end it. More arrogance to be used for destructive purposes.
Nah, it is just that USA has made forever war such a profitable and ongoing
mega-business. The degenerate banker and royal families of Europe would only fight every generation or
two. You fight all the time and try to start new ones, before you finish off with the old ones,
and print global toilet paper to pay for it all. Because it is good business. **** laws,
lives and human decency.
And then you have Hollywood make ****-for-brain movies about just wars, war comradery and
heroic sacrifice and spread that **** all over the world.
So yeah, you got all the reasons for being hated for your war business.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make
sure no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of
evil, stupid, meaningless violence
A bit too close to the Bone for the average American to appreciate. A well thought out & articulated article.
The machine is not the problem. It's like a gun. Guns are just mechanical devices and
can't kill until people aim them and pull the trigger. It's people that kill by forcing the
machine to do their terrible evil bidding.
It's the business and political leaders that build, guide and enable the machine and
facilitate the infrastructure and culture to wage war.
Democrats love War as we saw with LBJ, Bill Clinton (bombing the hell out of and
destroying Yugoslavia), Obama and Hillary Clinton. Democrat McNamara was one of their finest! McNamara's Folly: The Use of Low-IQ Troops in the Vietnam War
It's both Republicans and Democrats - George Bush I's Desert Storm, Panama; George Bush II
invading Iraq, Afghanistan; Reagan invading GRENADA!, Nixon in Vietnam, assassinating
Salvador Allende in Chile, bombing Laos and Cambodia; Eisenhower started in Vietnam,
installed a dictator in Guatemala in 1954, installed Batista in Cuba, Kennedy was going to
withdraw from Vietnam and part of the reason he was assassinated; and on and on and on.
"... Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left. ..."
"... Every single person who has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil. ..."
"... Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth. ..."
"... Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check. ..."
The US will be celebrating Veterans Day, and many a striped flag shall be waved. The social
currency of esteem will be used to elevate those who have served in the US military, thereby
ensuring future generations of recruits to be thrown into the gears of the globe-spanning war
machine
Veterans Day is not a holiday to honor the men and women who have dutifully protected their
country. The youngest Americans who arguably defended their nation from a real threat to its
shores are in their nineties, and soon there won't be any of them left.
Every single person who
has served in the US military since the end of the second World War has protected nothing other
than the agendas of global hegemony, resource control and war profiteering. They have not been
fighting and dying for freedom and democracy, they have been fighting and dying for
imperialism, Raytheon profit margins, and crude oil.
I just said something you're not supposed to say. People have dedicated many years of their
lives to the service of the US military; they've given their limbs to it, they've suffered
horrific brain damage for it, they've given their very lives to it. Families have been ripped
apart by the violence that has been inflicted upon members of the US Armed Forces; you're not
supposed to let them hear you say that their loved one was destroyed because some sociopathic
nerds somewhere in Washington decided that it would give America an advantage over potential
economic rivals to control a particular stretch of Middle Eastern dirt. But it is true, and if
we don't start acknowledging that truth lives are going to keep getting thrown into the gears
of the machine for the power and profit of a few depraved oligarchs. So I'm going to keep
saying it.
Last week I saw the hashtag #SaluteToService trending on Twitter. Apparently the NFL had a
deal going where every time someone tweeted that hashtag they'd throw a few bucks at some
veteran's charity. Which sounds sweet, until you consider three things:
2. The NFL has taken millions of
dollars from the Pentagon for displays of patriotism on the field, including for the
policy of bringing all players out for the national anthem every game starting in 2009 (which
led to Colin Kaepernick's demonstrations and the obscene backlash against him).
3. VETERANS SHOULD NOT HAVE TO RELY ON FUCKING CHARITY.
Seriously, how is "charity for veterans" a thing, and how are people not extremely weirded
out by it? How is it that you can go out and get your limbs blown off for slave wages after
watching your friends die and innocent civilians perish, come home, and have to rely on charity
to get by? How is it that you can risk life and limb killing and suffering irreparable
psychological trauma for some plutocrat's agendas, plunge into poverty when you come home, and
then see the same plutocrat labeled a "philanthropist" because he threw a few tax-deductible
dollars at a charity that gave you a decent prosthetic leg?
Taking care of veterans should be factored into the budget of every act of military
aggression . If a government can't make sure its veterans are housed, healthy and happy in a
dignified way for the rest of their lives, it has no business marching human beings into harm's
way. The fact that you see veterans on the street of any large US city and people who fought in
wars having to beg "charities" for a quality mechanical wheelchair shows you just how much of a
pathetic joke this Veterans Day song and dance has always been.
They'll send you to mainline violence and trauma into your mind and body for the power and
profit of the oligarchic rulers of the US-centralized empire, but it's okay because everyone
gets a long weekend where they're told to thank you for your service. Bullshit.
Veterans Day, like so very, very much in American culture, is a propaganda construct
designed to lubricate the funneling of human lives into the chamber of a gigantic gun. It
glorifies evil, stupid, meaningless acts of mass murder to ensure that there will always be
recruits who are willing to continue perpetrating it, and to ensure that the US public doesn't
wake up to the fact that its government's insanely bloated military budget is being used to
unleash unspeakable horrors upon the earth.
The only way to honor veterans, really, truly honor them, is to help end war and make sure
no more lives are put into a position where they are on the giving or receiving end of evil,
stupid, meaningless violence. The way to do that is to publicly, loudly and repeatedly make it
clear that you do not consent to the global terrorism being perpetrated in your name. These
bastards work so hard conducting propaganda to manufacture your consent for endless
warmongering because they need that consent . So don't give it to them.
Your rulers have never feared the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the terrorists, the
Iranians, the Chinese or the Russians. They fear you. They fear the American public suddenly
waking up to the evil things that are being done in your name and using your vast numbers to
shrug off the existing power structures without firing a shot, as easily as removing a heavy
coat on a warm day. If enough of you loudly withdraw your consent for their insatiable
warmongering, that fear will be enough to keep them in check.
This Veterans Day, don't honor those who have served by giving reverence and legitimacy to a
war machine which is exclusively used for inflicting great evil. Honor them by disassembling
that machine.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for
everything I publish. My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece
please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast , throwing some money into my hat on
Patreon or Paypal , buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With
Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book
Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
"... You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal. ..."
"... Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little naive, by most foreigners. ..."
"... Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite. ..."
"... Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with Russia. ..."
"... The problem however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people. ..."
"... The only thing Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia. ..."
"... The US 'Deep State' did this in response to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump attempting to put the interests of the American people first . ..."
Billed as a 'referendum on Trump's presidency', the US Midterm Elections drew an
unusually high number of Americans to the polls yesterday. The minor loss, from Trump's
perspective, of majority Republican control of the lower House of Representatives, suggests, if
anything, the opposite of what the media and establishment want you to believe it means.
An important clue to why the American media has declared permanent open season on this man
transpired during a sometimes heated post-elections press conference at the White House
yesterday. First, CNN's obnoxious Jim Acosta insisted on bringing up the patently absurd
allegations of 'Russia collusion' and refused to shut up and sit down. Soon after, PBS reporter
Yamiche Alcindor joined her colleagues in asking Trump another loaded question , this time on the 'white
nationalism' canard:
Alcindor : On the campaign trail you called yourself a nationalist. Some people saw
that as emboldening white nationalists...
Trump : I don't know why you'd say this. It's such a racist question.
Alcindor : There are some people who say that now the Republican Party is seen as
supporting white nationalists because of your rhetoric. What do you make of that?
Trump : Why do I have among the highest poll numbers with African Americans?
That's such a racist question. I love our country. You have nationalists, and you have
globalists . I also love the world, and I don't mind helping the world, but we have to
straighten out our country first. We have a lot of problems ...
The US media is still "not even wrong" on Trump and why he won the 2016 election.
You know something is fundamentally wrong when the average high school drop-out
MAGA-hat-wearing Texan or Alabaman working a blue collar job has more sense, can SEE much more
clearly, than the average university-educated, ideology-soaked, East Coast liberal.
Trump is a "nationalist". More or less every administration previous to his, going back at
least 100 years, was "globalist". For much of its history, the USA has been known around the
world as a very patriotic (i.e., nationalist) country. Americans in general had a reputation
for spontaneous chants of "USA! USA! USA!", flying the Stars And Stripes outside their houses
and being very proud of their country. Sure, from time to time, that pissed off people a little
in other countries but, by and large, Americans' patriotism was seen as endearing, if a little
naive, by most foreigners.
Globalism, on the other hand, as it relates to the USA, is the ideology that saturates the
Washington establishment think-tanks, career politicians and bureaucrats, who are infected with
the toxic belief that America can and should dominate the world . This is presented to the
public as so much American largess and magnanimity, but it is, in reality, a means to
increasing the power and wealth of the Washington elite.
Consider Obama's two terms, during which he continued the massively wasteful (of taxpayer's
money) and destructive (of foreigners' lives and land) "War on Terror". Consider that he
appointed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, who proceeded to joyfully bomb Libya back to
the stone age and murder its leader. Consider that, under Obama, US-Russia relations reached an
all-time low, with repeated attacks (of various sorts) on the Russian president, government and
people, and the attempted trashing of Russia's international reputation in the eyes of the
American people. Consider the Obama regime's hugely destructive war waged (mostly by proxy) on
the Syrian people. Consider the Obama era coup in Ukraine that, in a few short months, set that
country's prospects and development back several decades and further soured relations with
Russia.
These are but a few examples of the "globalism" that drives the Washington establishment.
Who, in their right mind, would support it? (I won't get into what constitutes a 'right mind',
but we can all agree it does not involve destroying other nations for profit). The problem
however, is that the Washington elite want - no, NEED - the American people to support such
military adventurism, and what better way to do that than by concocting false "Russian
collusion" allegations against Trump and having the media program the popular mind with exactly
the opposite of the truth - that Trump was a "traitor" to the American people.
The only thing
Trump is a traitor to is the self-serving globally expansionist interests of a cabal of
Washington insiders . This little maneuver amounted to a '2 for 1' for the Washington
establishment. They simultaneously demonized Trump (impeding his 'nationalist' agenda) while
advancing their own globalist mission - in this case aimed at pushing back Russia.
Words and their exact meanings matter . To be able to see through the lies of
powerful vested interests and get to the truth, we need to know when those same powerful vested
interests are exploiting our all-too-human proclivity to be coerced and manipulated by appeals
to emotion.
So the words "nationalist" and "nationalism", as they relate to the USA, have never been
"dirty" words until they were made that way by the "globalist" element of the Washington
establishment (i.e., most of it) by associating it with fringe Nazi and "white supremacist"
elements in US society that pose no risk to anyone, (except to the extent that the mainstream
media can convince the general population otherwise). The US 'Deep State' did this in response
to the election of Trump the "nationalist" and their fears that their globalist, exceptionalist
vision for the USA - a vision that is singularly focused on their own narrow interests at the
expense of the American people and many others around the world - would be derailed by Trump
attempting to put the interests of the American people first .
"... Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion. ..."
"... Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class privilege, the real basis of the elite's power. ..."
"... The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the US. ..."
"... Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and without – from the moment of their election. ..."
"... The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more violence. ..."
"... As in Pinochet's Chile, Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with neoliberalism. ..."
"... Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net . ..."
With Jair Bolsonaro's victory in Brazil's presidential election at the weekend, the doom-mongers among western elites are out in force once again. His success, like Donald Trump's, has confirmed a long-held prejudice: that the people cannot be trusted; that, when empowered, they behave like a mob driven by primitive urges; that the unwashed masses now threaten to bring down the carefully constructed walls of civilisation.
The guardians of the status quo refused to learn the lesson of Trump's election, and so it will be with Bolsonaro. Rather than engaging the intellectual faculties they claim as their exclusive preserve, western "analysts" and "experts" are again averting their gaze from anything that might help them understand what has driven our supposed democracies into the dark places inhabited by the new demagogues. Instead, as ever, the blame is being laid squarely at the door of social media.
Social media and fake news are apparently the reasons Bolsonaro won at the ballot box. Without the gatekeepers in place to limit access to the "free press" – itself the plaything of billionaires and global corporations, with brands and a bottom line to protect – the rabble has supposedly been freed to give expression to their innate bigotry.
Here is Simon Jenkins, a veteran British gatekeeper – a former editor of the Times of London who now writes a column in the Guardian – pontificating on Bolsonaro:
"The lesson for champions of open democracy is glaring. Its values cannot be taken for granted. When debate is no longer through regulated media, courts and institutions, politics will default to the mob. Social media – once hailed as an agent of global concord – has become the purveyor of falsity, anger and hatred. Its algorithms polarise opinion. Its pseudo-information drives argument to the extremes."
This is now the default consensus of the corporate media, whether in its rightwing incarnations or of the variety posing on the liberal-left end of the spectrum like the Guardian. The people are stupid, and we need to be protected from their base instincts. Social media, it is claimed, has unleashed humanity's id.
Selling plutocracy
There is a kind of truth in Jenkins' argument, even if it is not the one he intended. Social
media did indeed liberate ordinary people. For the first time in modern history, they were not
simply the recipients of official, sanctioned information. They were not only spoken down to by
their betters, they could answer back – and not always as deferentially as the media
class expected.
Clinging to their old privileges, Jenkins and his ilk are rightly unnerved. They have much
to lose.
But that also means they are far from dispassionate observers of the current political
scene. They are deeply invested in the status quo, in the existing power structures that have
kept them well-paid courtiers of the corporations that dominate the planet.
Bolsonaro, like Trump, is not a disruption of the current neoliberal order; he is an
intensification or escalation of its worst impulses. He is its logical conclusion.
The plutocrats who run our societies need figureheads, behind whom they can conceal their
unaccountable power. Until now they preferred the slickest salespeople, ones who could sell
wars as humanitarian intervention rather than profit-driven exercises in death and destruction;
the unsustainable plunder of natural resources as economic growth; the massive accumulation of
wealth, stashed in offshore tax havens, as the fair outcome of a free market; the bailouts
funded by ordinary taxpayers to stem economic crises they had engineered as necessary
austerity; and so on.
A smooth-tongued Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton were the favoured salespeople, especially
in an age when the elites had persuaded us of a self-serving argument: that ghetto-like
identities based on colour or gender mattered far more than class. It was divide-and-rule
dressed up as empowerment. The polarisation now bewailed by Jenkins was in truth stoked and
rationalised by the very corporate media he so faithfully serves.
Fear of the domino effect
Despite their professed concern, the plutocrats and their media spokespeople much prefer a
far-right populist like Trump or Bolsonaro to a populist leader of the genuine left. They
prefer the social divisions fuelled by neo-fascists like Bolsonaro, divisions that protect
their wealth and privilege, over the unifying message of a socialist who wants to curtail class
privilege, the real basis of the elite's power.
The true left – whether in Brazil, Venezuela, Britain or the US – does not
control the police or military, the financial sector, the oil industries, the arms
manufacturers, or the corporate media. It was these very industries and institutions that
smoothed the path to power for Bolsonaro in Brazil, Viktor Orban in Hungary, and Trump in the
US.
Former socialist leaders like Brazil's Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or Hugo Chavez in
Venezuela were bound to fail not so much because of their flaws as individuals but because
powerful interests rejected their right to rule. These socialists never had control over the
key levers of power, the key resources. Their efforts were sabotaged – from within and
without – from the moment of their election.
Local elites in Latin America are tied umbilically to US elites, who in turn are determined
to make sure any socialist experiment in their backyard fails – as a way to prevent a
much-feared domino effect, one that might seed socialism closer to home.
The media, the financial elites, the armed forces were never servants of the socialist
governments that have been struggling to reform Latin America. The corporate world has no
interest either in building proper housing in place of slums or in dragging the masses out of
the kind of poverty that fuels the drug gangs that Bolsonaro claims he will crush through more
violence.
Bolsonaro will not face any of the institutional obstacles Lula da Silva or Chavez needed to
overcome. No one in power will stand in his way as he institutes his "reforms". No one will
stop him creaming off Brazil's wealth for his corporate friends. As in Pinochet's Chile,
Bolsonaro can rest assured that his kind of neo-fascism will live in easy harmony with
neoliberalism.
Immune system
If you want to understand the depth of the self-deception of Jenkins and other media
gatekeepers, contrast Bolsonaro's political ascent to that of Jeremy Corbyn, the modest social
democratic leader of Britain's Labour party. Those like Jenkins who lament the role of social
media – they mean you, the public – in promoting leaders like Bolsonaro are also
the media chorus who have been wounding Corbyn day after day, blow by blow, for three years
– since he accidentally slipped past safeguards intended by party bureacrats to keep
someone like him from power.
The supposedly liberal Guardian has been leading that assault. Like the rightwing media, it
has shown its absolute determination to stop Corbyn at all costs, using any pretext.
Within days of Corbyn's election to the Labour leadership, the Times newspaper – the
voice of the British establishment – published an article quoting a general, whom it
refused to name, warning that the British army's commanders had agreed they would sabotage a
Corbyn government. The general strongly hinted that there would be a military coup first.
We are not supposed to reach the point where such threats – tearing away the
façade of western democracy – ever need to be implemented. Our pretend democracies
were created with immune systems whose defences are marshalled to eliminate a threat like
Corbyn much earlier.
Once he moved closer to power, however, the rightwing corporate media was forced to deploy
the standard tropes used against a left leader: that he was incompetent, unpatriotic, even
treasonous.
But just as the human body has different immune cells to increase its chances of success,
the corporate media has faux-liberal-left agents like the Guardian to complement the right's
defences. The Guardian sought to wound Corbyn through identity politics, the modern left's
Achille's heel. An endless stream of confected crises about anti-semitism were intended to
erode the hard-earned credit Corbyn had accumulated over decades for his anti-racism work.
Slash-and-burn politics
Why is Corbyn so dangerous? Because he supports the right of workers to a dignified life,
because he refuses to accept the might of the corporations, because he implies that a different
way of organising our societies is possible. It is a modest, even timid programme he
articulates, but even so it is far too radical either for the plutocratic class that rules over
us or for the corporate media that serves as its propaganda arm.
The truth ignored by Jenkins and these corporate stenographers is that if you keep
sabotaging the programmes of a Chavez, a Lula da Silva, a Corbyn or a Bernie Sanders, then you
get a Bolsonaro, a Trump, an Orban.
It is not that the masses are a menace to democracy. It is rather that a growing proportion
of voters understand that a global corporate elite has rigged the system to accrue for itself
ever greater riches. It is not social media that is polarising our societies. It is rather that
the determination of the elites to pillage the planet until it has no more assets to strip has
fuelled resentment and destroyed hope. It is not fake news that is unleashing the baser
instincts of the lower orders. Rather, it is the frustration of those who feel that change is
impossible, that no one in power is listening or cares.
Social media has empowered ordinary people. It has shown them that they cannot trust their
leaders, that power trumps justice, that the elite's enrichment requires their poverty. They
have concluded that, if the rich can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the planet, our
only refuge, they can engage in slash-and-burn politics against the global elite.
Are they choosing wisely in electing a Trump or Bolsonaro? No. But the liberal guardians of
the status quo are in no position to judge them. For decades, all parts of the corporate media
have helped to undermine a genuine left that could have offered real solutions, that could have
taken on and beaten the right, that could have offered a moral compass to a confused, desperate
and disillusioned public.
Jenkins wants to lecture the masses about their depraved choices while he and his paper
steer them away from any politician who cares about their welfare, who fights for a fairer
society, who prioritises mending what is broken.
The western elites will decry Bolsonaro in the forlorn and cynical hope of shoring up their
credentials as guardians of the existing, supposedly moral order. But they engineered him.
Bolsonaro is their monster.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include
"Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East"
(Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair" (Zed Books).
His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
"... By taking a similarly pragmatic look at the activities of Ukrainian far right, I claim that they should be viewed as political entrepreneurs who are trying to capitalise on their expertise in violence. ..."
"... Azov's network amounts to a far-right "state within a state" – a universe that aims to monopolise the nationalist sector of Ukraine's political field ..."
"... On the national level, this makes Azov's political patron, Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov, the second most powerful person in the country, effectively possessing a private army which once in a while makes ambiguous comments about the possibility of a coup . However, the patronage networks and conflicts go much deeper on the local level. Some of them can be uncovered by analysing the events mentioned above. ..."
"... Many of Azov's public gestures, including incidents involving violence, are aimed at reinforcing the image of an independent movement, opposed to both Ukraine's police leadership and corrupt elites ..."
"... November 2016: Autonomous Resistance's social centre in Lviv is attacked by far-right. Source: YouTube / Kateryna Benjuk. ..."
"... In Kyiv, open struggle against the (weaker) leftists and liberals is the preferred activity of C14 – an organisation headed by Yevgen Karas, a former Svoboda activist who split from the party to become an independent entrepreneur of political violence. ..."
"... Aiming for Ukraine's mainstream patriotic public, C14 positions itself as a group of young and resolute men ready to employ violence for the sake of (national) justice. Their enemies are usually represented as (latent) supporters of pro-Russian separatists, which automatically diminishes their worth in the eyes of the public and amplifies the attackers' heroism. In effect, C14 is trying to take the niche that was occupied by Svoboda before Maidan: relatable and well-meaning troublemakers prepared to break the law for the greater good (by comparison, the agenda of National Corps stresses the values of order). ..."
"... Karas freely admitted to a sympathetic journalist that he cooperates with Ukraine's security services. Among Ukrainian far-right organisations, the activities of C14 are closest to those of Russian online vigilante movements such as "Occupy Pedophily" or "Lev Protiv"; their YouTube channel is consciously crafted to attract audiences (thus literally monetising their violence), and the most popular videos have between 50,000 and 300,000 views. ..."
"... Having created a "municipal guard" officially financed by Kyiv's city council, C14 works towards realising both aims: it gives them a pretext to patrol streets and maximise the probability of violent encounters (which can be publicised), and at the same time provides a "second-best" opportunity to those who could or would not join the structures of Azov. ..."
"... Its advertised readiness to resort to violence was the key to Svoboda's electoral success before Maidan, but this was overshadowed by the efforts of the competing entrepreneurs of political violence in the post-Maidan conjuncture, in which the level of and tolerance to violence has escalated. On the other hand, Svoboda keeps holding on to its hegemony in regional power settings in western Ukraine, even though its relations to nation-wide patronage networks is unclear. All in all, Azov/National Corps seems to be clearly the most successful partner in the big nationalist threesome, receiving the most from this alliance. ..."
"... As I have argued above, Ukraine's far right are taking the logic of "violent entrepreneurship" outside the purely commercial and apolitical realm – and employing it in the domain of political contestation, where illicit violence is a precious resource that can be bought and rented. ..."
The recent wave of anti-Roma pogroms in Ukraine has spawned
a new series of texts on right-wing violence. However, a significant part of this literature
still
mostly relies on discourse analysis , which cannot fully explain the actions of far right
organisations on the ground. Analysing far-right movements' programmes and ideological
statements can be useful when combined with a closer look at the actual activities of the
movements in question, the way they interact among themselves and the wider social and
political context. But judging a group primarily by how it presents itself to the world is
misleading.
The lack of primary sources from Ukraine's far-right milieu, as well as the general scarcity
of research on non-EU (and non-Russian) eastern Europe, has led to an exoticised perception of
central and eastern Europe as whole – and one that is open to politicisation by both
liberals and leftists. Public discussion thus tends to degenerate into either liberal denial of
the very existence of the far-right problem in Ukraine or sensationalist and exaggerated
"anti-imperialist" accounts of the "fascist junta" ruling the country.
To avoid oversimplification, I focus on the grounded context rather than ideologies and
programmes of far-right groups. Here, I will try to contribute to a better understanding of the
far right in Ukraine by conceptualising them as "entrepreneurs of political violence" – a
portmanteau of two established terms from different fields. A "political entrepreneur" is a
political actor who pursues opportunistic strategies aimed at gaining popularity and influence,
rather than following a specific ideological agenda. Likewise, "Violent
entrepreneurs" is the title of an influential study of Russian organised crime by
sociologist Vadim Volkov, who analysed post-Soviet mafia as a particular kind of
entrepreneurship where violence resources become a crucially important capital asset.
By taking a similarly pragmatic look at the activities of Ukrainian far right, I claim
that they should be viewed as political entrepreneurs who are trying to capitalise on their
expertise in violence. This can be a more productive lens than engaged approaches which
"take a stance" on the far right – approaches that simply acknowledge the gravity of the
situation or belittle it. These tend to be accompanied by wider political conclusions, and do
not seek to understand the issue at hand.
I give a concise chronology of the incidents of right-wing violence between January and
April 2018 (i.e. before the more recent string of Roma pogroms). I will look only at episodes
reported in the media, involving violence or a realistic threat of violence by members of
various organised far-right groups, directed outside the far right subculture, in peaceful
areas of Ukraine. I will then regroup these episodes, interpreting them as several processes
that have their own inner logic, but which intersect in time and space.
Chronology of
events
The 2018 season of political violence opened in Kyiv on 19 January, when nationalist
organisation C14
attacked a demonstration commemorating Russian antifascists Stanislav Markelov and
Anastasia Baburova.
This annual event is a traditional
target for the far right , although previous attacks had been led by different forces. C14
activists blocked the demonstration organised by liberal and leftist activists in central Kyiv,
shouting down the speakers and attacking them with snowballs and eggs. The Kyiv police failed
to create a barrier separating the two demonstrations, advising the antifascists simply "not to
provoke" their opponents. Later, the police detained eight anarchists; the arrest was met with
cheers from the nationalists, who were free to keep assaulting the demonstrators physically and
verbally. After the end of the demonstration, the far right attacked a random passerby whom
they mistook for an antifascist – he
happened to be a British tourist .
19 January 2018: attack on anti-fascist march, Kyiv. Source: Youtube. Ten days later, an
important incident
took place in Lviv . On 28 January, a large group of far-right activists, mostly members of
the Azov National Corps and its allied group Misanthropic Division, violently attacked a
demonstration (organised by the local leftist scene) against the use of animals in circuses.
The attackers threw smoke grenades into the crowd and shook hands with police officers,
exchanging the motto "White Pride". The police soon intervened by detaining leftist
demonstrators in a brutal manner; they were all taken to a police station, where they spent
several hours.
On the next day, 29 January, Azov's vigilante organisation National Militia blocked
Cherkasy city hall in central Ukraine. Here, they forced city deputies to vote for the
self-dissolution of the city council after they refused to approve new members of the executive
committee proposed by the mayor. The police did not intervene.
These January events set the trends for the period that followed. On 11 February, Azov
fighters violently
intervened and stopped a lecture about discrimination in the film industry, held at a
cultural centre in Mariupol. On 13 February, a group called Freikorps, which is believed to be
close to the Azov/National Corps movement, attacked a
lecture on the LGBT movement in Kharkiv in a similar manner. Two days later, C14 and Azov's
National Militia clashed
with police forces in Kyiv during a bail court hearing concerning Odessa city mayor Gennady
Trukhanov, who is facing theft charges.
International Women's Day, 8 March, saw many public events and almost as many attacks by far
right groups. Azov assaulted feminists and liberals marching in Mariupol. In Kyiv, attackers
from several organisations made use of the benevolent passivity of the police,
who were reluctant to protect the marchers . A plainclothes police officer actually helped
them steal a feminist banner.
The Kyiv police ignored statements by victims of violence. Instead, they opened criminal
proceedings against Olena Shevchenko, the organiser of the Women's March, after nationalists
claimed that the contents of the banner were tantamount to desecration of national symbols. The
first court hearing was held in the presence of a large nationalist audience, mobilised by C14,
Katekhon (a conservative circle tied to Ukrainian far-right political party Svoboda) and
Tradition and Order (TiP), a conservative nationalist group. At the second hearing, the defence
mobilised their own support, including some diplomats and liberal politicians. With the
dignitaries present in the court hall, and with far right waiting outside, the court acquitted
Shevchenko. She had to leave by taking a taxi from the court's backdoor.
On the same day in Lviv, members of National Corps physically assaulted
visitors at a feminist exhibition and participants of a "Sisterhood, Support, Solidarity"
march. When the marchers retreated into a tram, the attackers started throwing cobblestones at
it and later burnt one of their banners saying "No means no". The city police, meanwhile, stood
by, ready to intervene the moment the leftists would try to fight back. Some of the police
exchanged friendly greetings with the far right.
Meanwhile, in Uzhgorod, events took a slightly different turn. Activists of the local
organisation Karpatska Sich (KS)
poured red paint over a speaker at a local feminist demonstration, which led to a chemical
eye burn. Here, the police promptly detained the attackers – though they were released
later that day. In the week that followed, Karpatska Sich organised a string of attacks against
local leftist and liberal activists. Coincidentally, that week also hosted a wave of anonymous
property destruction against cars with Hungarian or other EU number plates. Once again, local
police reacted very reluctantly. According to activists, these were preparations for a large
demonstration that Karpatska Sich staged on 17 March. In Uzhgorod as well as in Lviv, local
police, realising their own inability to control the streets during such big events, simply
gave carte blanche to the far right.
A 17 March event in Uzhgorod to honour wartime nationalist anti-Hungarian fighters
(Karpatska Sich's namesake) became an event of
nationwide importance , gathering a wide spectrum of Ukraine's extreme right, from Right
Sector and Tryzub to C14 and Freikorps. Karpatska Sich, the hosting organisation, accounted for
a few dozen of the 250 participants. Contrary to the customary repertoire, the marchers readily
demonstrated "controversial" symbols like the "Celtic cross" and gestures like the "Roman
salute". Normally these are avoided at public events as too "provocative".
17 March: Karpatska Sich hosts a march in honour of wartime anti-Hungarian fighters,
Uzhgorod. Source: Karpatska Sich. On the eve of this gathering, the regional police chief
refused to take measures to protect a roundtable on discrimination and hate crimes organised by
an LGBT organisation, and strongly advised them to cancel it. Upon receiving this information,
the hotel that was to host the event revoked its agreement. Rank-and-file police officers were
better disposed to the organisers and helped them leave the town safely.
The town's leftist/liberal milieu reacted to these events by
organising a demonstration "For a European Uzhgorod" on 31 March. Their opponents occupied
the same square with their own demonstration,"For traditional family values". The city council
tried to forbid all demonstrations on that day, citing public safety considerations. However, a
local court did not prohibit the gatherings. Notably, Karpatska Sich was not officially present
at the counter-demonstration: it was formally organised by a KS-allied group "Black Sun",
Social-Nationalist Assembly (SNA) and a few less significant organisations. Karpatska Sich
militant activists were present next to the square, but there was no violence on that day. The
police did their job, efficiently separating the two demonstrations.
On 19 March, the far right blocked two events organised by liberal NGOs: a roundtable on
countering discrimination and hate crimes in
Vinnytsia and a lecture on gender-sensitive words in
Ivano-Frankivsk . In Vinnytsia, around 40 far right introduced themselves as ordinary
citizens, blocking the entrance and demanding to be let inside. The police created a corridor
to evacuate the participants of the roundtable. In Ivano-Frankivsk, the lecture was sabotaged
by Karpatska Sich and their partner organisation, Sokil. KS promised to repeat such
interventions in the future.
Unlike Right Sector, which tried and failed a strategy of violent confrontation with the
post-Maidan government, Azov's leadership has opted for a "long march through the
institutions"
On 23 March, a special police squad conducted searches at Kyiv's ATEK factory, which is used
by Azov as its headquarters and training grounds. Police chiefs explained that the intervention
had nothing to do with Azov, but the latter nevertheless quickly mobilised around 1,000
supporters, including members of parliament from Svoboda, to block the work of the police and
expel them. On that day, Azov leader Andriy Biletsky mentioned that "a considerable part of the
military will support in their hearts" a hypothetical coup d'état.
Three days later, 26 March was marked by
far-right violence against a lecture about the dangers of the far-right violence in Kyiv:
Right Sector, Svoboda and Tradition and Order, altogether around 40 people, invaded a cultural
centre and tore down posters bearing the slogan "Respect diversity". The police pushed them
outside, where they verbally attacked people coming in. Two hours later, the police evacuated
the building due to an anonymous report of a bomb threat.
On 29 March, several dozen National Militia members
broke into the Mykolayiv regional council and demanded that the deputies impeach the
regional governor. The deputies did not comply with this request, but the next day the governor
himself asked the president Poroshenko for temporary suspension.
On 16 April, an art exhibition dedicated to the far-right violence, which was opened at the
premises of a university in Kyiv under heavy police protection, had to close down . The exhibition's curator
insisted on shutting it down, citing the risk of aggression from far-right groups; the
administration of the university put additional pressure, accusing the artists of a
provocation.
On 18 April, C14 organised an anti-Roma raid at Kyiv railway station. The Roma, who had been
staying at the station for a few days, had become the subject of a moral panic in the
mainstream Ukrainian media a few days before. On 20 April, Hitler's birthday, a voluntary
"municipal guard" consisting of C14 activists violently expelled a Roma camp from a Kyiv
park, burning their possessions in the process. Their report, illustrated with picturesque
photos, received a very enthusiastic feedback from the wider public on social media. The city
police chief said they had not received any official violence complaints, and that the
municipal guard had simply burnt some garbage left by the Roma.
A few days later, when a news website published a video of men chasing Roma
families and attacking them with pepper spray and stones, the police said they had opened two
criminal proceedings into hate crime and hooliganism.
Connecting the dots
Can this intimidating but chaotic sequence of events be disentangled and regrouped into
several distinct plots, each having its own main characters and dynamics even while
intersecting with others? I will try to do so below.
The main character of the first thread to be found here, and indeed of the far-right
political scene in Ukraine as a whole, is the extended network of various structures known under the
general Azov movement brand . Unlike Right Sector, which tried and failed a strategy of
violent confrontation with the post-Maidan government, Azov's leadership has opted for a "long
march through the institutions", extending local patronage networks with criminals and
politicians and building a wide network of organisations and side projects.
Azov's network amounts to a far-right "state within a state" – a universe that
aims to monopolise the nationalist sector of Ukraine's political field
The creation of the Azov Civil Corps was the first step in this direction. This structure,
formally divorced from the Azov National Guard regiment, decided on a more pronounced public
political face. The Civil Corps served the double purpose of keeping Azov military regiment
veterans busy while also spreading Azov's hegemony among the far-right audience. This was
followed by creating the National Corps political party, the network of Azovets children's
summer camps, the Sports Corps, the veterans organisation Zirka, the nation-wide vigilante
network of National
Militias and other outlets. Azov's network thus amounts to a far-right "state within a
state" – a universe that aims to monopolise the nationalist sector of Ukraine's political
field.
Azov has become an important umbrella brand for Ukrainian far right organisations. On
the national level, this makes Azov's political patron, Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen
Avakov, the second most powerful person in the country, effectively possessing a private army
which once in a while makes ambiguous comments about the possibility of a
coup . However, the patronage networks and conflicts go much deeper on the local level.
Some of them can be uncovered by analysing the events mentioned above.
For instance, the March 2018 incident at the ATEK factory in Kyiv. Here what's at stake is
the struggle for ownership rights to this factory, which currently hosts Azov's headquarters.
The factory previously belonged to Oleksandr Tretiakov, a politician and owner of a Ukrainian
lottery operator which allegedly
benefits from the National Corps' violent raids directed against competing lottery outlets
under the pretext of a campaign against illegal gambling. Tretiakov's old political partner,
Ukraine's former justice minister Roman Zvarych, helped Azov establish itself at the factory's
premises in November 2014.
At the time, the factory was at the centre of a corporate conflict. As reported by Hromadske , a
former lawyer for one of the parties to the factory dispute, KVV Group, claimed he paid
$195,000 to Sergey Korotkikh, Azov's head of intelligence, to occupy the factory on KVV's
behalf. However, after Azov did this, they refused to permit KVV to enter. Instead, according
to KVV's former lawyer, Azov advised KVV to discuss financial matters with Svitlana Zvarych,
whose charity foundation demanded 45.5m UAH ($3m) in order for Azov to leave the premises.
Svitlana Zvarych refutes this claim. Meanwhile, Azov started converting the factory to produce
military equipment with an eye on attracting government orders, while Azov Civil Corps, headed
at that time by Roman Zvarych, politicised the conflict by staging street protests "in defense of the
factory" .
Many of Azov's public gestures, including incidents involving violence, are aimed at
reinforcing the image of an independent movement, opposed to both Ukraine's police leadership
and corrupt elites
In October 2016, the co-owner of KVV Group, having spent two months in prison on charges of
financing separatism, surrendered his ownership rights to Zvarych's charitable foundation.
However, in the same month, according to Svitlana Zvarych, she was kicked out of the factory by
Azov's forces after refusing to give a share in the company's capital to Sergey Korotkikh and
Vadym Troyan, Kyiv regional police chief and former Azov battalion commander.
This context allows us to better understand Azov's apparent overreaction to the police visit
in March 2018 in contrast to their official explanation, which stated that the ""unreformed"
police wanted to plant weapons at Azov's base and then disband them. Indeed, Azov's official
version helps them mute their ties with Avakov, posing for the nationalist audience as victims
of the regime.
Many of Azov's public gestures, including incidents involving violence, are aimed at
reinforcing the image of an independent movement, opposed to both Ukraine's police leadership
and corrupt elites. Azov's clash with Odessa mayor Gennady Trukhanov's hired thugs and, more
importantly, with the police, is one such publicity stunt which "cleanses" the image of
National Squads from allegations of Avakov's patronage.
Azov's involvement in the incidents in Cherkasy and Mykolayiv, on the other hand, seems to
be connected with its involvement in patronage networks. Cherkasy city council was
torn by a conflict between city mayor Anatoliy Bondarenko and city council secretary
Oleksandr Radytsky. The latter, supported by the president's Petro Poroshenko Bloc and the
nationalist Svoboda party, commanded the majority of votes in the assembly and paralysed the
budget confirmation process. The mayor asked the parliament to dissolve the city council and
call a new election.
Here, the sudden intervention of Azov's National Militia, sporting balaclavas and firearms
cases, turned the tide in the mayor's favour. The city council passed the budget and then voted
for its own dissolution. Whether or not the claims about Avakov's political interests in
Cherkasy are true, this episode shows that the local configuration of power is often more
important than broad political agreements on the national level. Azov played into the hands of
the forces belonging to a different camp on the national scale, against fellow nationalists and
formal partners from Svoboda.
In Mykolayiv, the official reason for the intervention of Azov's National Militia were
accusations against regional governor Oleksiy Savchenko, whose corrupt ways allegedly motivated
the suicide of the local airport director, a war veteran. However,
according to another interpretation , this is an episode of a wider conflict between Azov's
patron Arsen Avakov and Ukraine's former general attorney, police general Vitaliy Yarema. The
latter is gaining influence on president Poroshenko, putting his trusted men, former policemen,
to important positions in the regions – and Oleksiy Savchenko is one of Yarema's
protégés. For Avakov, who wants to monopolise influence on the Ukrainian police
force, this situation is perceived as a threat.
Finally, the Mariupol episodes demonstrate the behaviour of Azov in their "base" city close
to the front line. As any large industrial city,
Mariupol has a lot of powerful local and regional interests , such as the important
metallurgical assets belonging to the country's richest man, Rinat Akhmetov -- these would
normally dwarf the influence of the likes of Azov. But the war, given the city's strategic
importance and reasonable doubts about the political loyalty of its population, has made Azov a
more influential player.
Mariupol's Azov movement feel enough at home to have installed a statue of medieval prince
Sviatoslav (a central figure in post-Soviet anti-Semitic mythology) in the city centre, despite
the lack of official permission from the city council, and to organise regular torchlight
marches there. A soldier from Azov, who killed a man in the street after a political argument
earlier this year,
was released by the local court , which sentenced him to a fine. Even if they do not
possess a complete monopoly on violence, Azov has certainly established political control of
the streets in Mariupol. To maintain this control, they have to react violently, even if not
officially, to any public event which diverges sufficiently from their political agenda.
The struggle for hegemony in Lviv
The contested hegemony over street-level political activism is the common rationale behind
the acts of far-right political violence in Lviv. This western city, Ukraine's "national
Piedmont", has always been considered the heartland of Ukrainian nationalism.
As early as 2010, Svoboda gained an absolute majority in the city council and relative
majority in the regional council. At that point, the party was in the control of an energetic
militant movement, Autonomous Resistance (AO). Founded by the former Hitlerist leadership of
the now defunct Ukrainian National Labour Party, it was headed by Svoboda deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn,
whose PhD thesis dealt with the history of NSDAP and Mussolini's PNF. The militant movement,
which followed Strasserism , borrowed its political style from
the German autonomists. After a bitter conflict with Mykhalchyshyn in 2013, Autonomous
Resistance cut ties with Svoboda and gradually slided leftward politically. It played a
prominent role during Maidan in Lviv, occupying the regional council and fighting Svoboda
deputies. Coming from a right-wing background, AO paid attention to the development of combat
skills of its membership. It created its own MMA training facility, which is the core of a
social centre that hosts lectures and presentations. An online shop selling imported athletic
clothing previously provided the organisation with an independent source of income.
The peculiar political face of AO – their eclectic left nationalist ideology,
commitment to key nationalist symbols and figures, and active participation in the military
conflict in the east – has allowed them to survive politically, unlike most other leftist
organisations which have failed to find a winning strategy in the post-Maidan environment. A
number of splits gave birth to several other organisations, less nationalist but very active,
possessing street violence skills and maintaining partnerships with AO. This meant that the
street politics of the most important city in western Ukraine was dominated by a leftist
milieu.
The first far-right organisation that attempted to contest this situation was Right Sector.
In 2015, its local cell
forcibly blocked the 1 May "Social march" organised by AO, in order to "prevent a
neo-Bolshevik revanche". However, after a series of splits, Right Sector lost its mobilising
potential, as did Svoboda. Over 2016-2017, Lviv has seen a string of dramatic incidents of
right-wing violence: a
mobilisation against a Festival of Equality which intended to tackle LGBT rights issues; a
brutal attack on an AO march by several hundred Nazis;
attacks at a Publishers Forum because of two books allegedly promoting LGBT and leftist
politics. However, Right Sector did not figure prominently in these incidents. Most of these
far-right mobilisations were to a large extent anonymous, featuring "patriotic youth" instead
of specific political brands.
November 2016: Autonomous Resistance's social centre in Lviv is attacked by far-right.
Source: YouTube / Kateryna Benjuk.
The same lack of clear authorship is also true of violent incidents in 2018. However, in
personal communication to me, activists who were present on the ground clearly indicate the
leading role of Azov's National Corps in these attacks. According to them, Right Sector today
constitutes an alternative to Azov only as a military unit in eastern Ukraine, but politically
the latter "has swallowed up both Right Sector and Svoboda". Most participants of the 2015
blockade have since then either joined National Corps, or military battalions allied to Right
Sector or the police force. Having consolidated the local far-right scene, Azov is trying to
clean the political field of its leftist competitors. The Lviv police rank-and-file, which is
infiltrated by the far right according to local activists, do not prevent, or even choose to
help them to achieve this aim.
Why then is the National Corps reluctant to lead the struggle in Lviv as openly as it does
elsewhere? Several hypotheses can help answer this question. First, it cannot afford to lose
publicly. In November 2016, a potent coalition of several hundred Nazis joined forces to
physically destroy the organised left in Lviv – activists arrived from different regions,
representing Azov's Civic Corps, Right Sector and Karpatska Sich. Amazingly, they lost: failing
to penetrate the gates of the office under attack, eventually they had to retreat. For
political reasons, this kind of loss is unacceptable for an ambitious movement like Azov.
Therefore, they will not lead the fight officially unless they are guaranteed to win.
The second hypothesis concerns competition between the agencies of state violence. Both 2016
and 2017 have seen attacks on the Lviv left scene organised by the
Security Service of Ukraine (SBU). According to persons involved, these investigations seem
to have been partially motivated by SBU's own strategic aims, partially by the request of a
local developer, and partially by the personal revenge of Yuri Mykhalchyshyn (who now works for
the SBU as a consultant). Whatever the exact reasons in each specific case, Azov's National
Corps would hardly consider it expedient to be seen voluntarily helping the state institution
which is traditionally hostile to their political patron Arsen Avakov – and to give other
far right groups even more grounds to talk about their subservience to "the regime".
Finally, Azov's hegemony over the local extreme right may still not be quite consolidated
yet. Their relations with Svoboda may be too complicated for open involvement in Lviv at a
scale similar to other cities which have less competitive far-right scenes.
Challengers in Kyiv
In Kyiv, open struggle against the (weaker) leftists and liberals is the preferred
activity of C14 – an organisation headed by Yevgen Karas, a former Svoboda activist who
split from the party to become an independent entrepreneur of political violence. Compared
to the other far right organisations mentioned above, C14's profile has less to do with quietly
establishing informal domination and engaging in illicit activities for material gain, and more
with mediatised activities oriented at a wider audience.
Aiming for Ukraine's mainstream patriotic public, C14 positions itself as a group of
young and resolute men ready to employ violence for the sake of (national) justice. Their
enemies are usually represented as (latent) supporters of pro-Russian separatists, which
automatically diminishes their worth in the eyes of the public and amplifies the attackers'
heroism. In effect, C14 is trying to take the niche that was occupied by Svoboda before Maidan:
relatable and well-meaning troublemakers prepared to break the law for the greater good (by
comparison, the agenda of National Corps stresses the values of order).
C14's profile has less to do with quietly establishing informal domination and engaging in
illicit activities for material gain, and more with mediatised activities oriented at a wider
audience
This orientation is obvious from a Facebook poll in which C14 asked their audience which
politician associated with the old regime they would like the group to beat up (so far they did
not manage to target any of the persons mentioned in the poll). In line with this strategy,
Karas
freely admitted to a sympathetic journalist that he cooperates with Ukraine's security
services. Among Ukrainian far-right organisations, the activities of C14 are closest to those
of Russian online vigilante movements such as "Occupy Pedophily" or "Lev Protiv"; their YouTube
channel is consciously crafted to attract audiences (thus literally monetising their violence),
and the most popular videos have between 50,000 and 300,000 views.
The recent wave of anti-Roma pogroms fits this strategy very well: it has produced immense
positive feedback in the form of online comments from non-politicised "regular citizens",
enhancing brand recognition for C14. Roma can hardly pass as "separatists", but their
marginalised status makes them a perfect aim for this kind of strategically calculated
violence. Notably, the first anti-Roma raid at Kyiv railway station was a reaction to swelling
public demand (heated up by a moral panic in the media), rather than C14's own ideologically
dictated initiative. Meanwhile, the attack on the Kyiv antifascist rally in January 2018 is the
continuation of C14's more traditional political style – attacking easy targets that can
be represented as the "fifth column".
The 2018 feminist march in Kyiv also proves the selective approach of C14: it did not figure
prominently among the counter-protesters on 8 March, but afterwards it seized the opportunity
to inflate the hysteria around the feminist banner, claiming that the symbol of Azov's National
Militia on it looked too much like Ukraine's national symbol, and was located too close to the
woman's anus. Characteristically, the National Militia ignored the story, but C14 did its best
to mobilise its activists to attend the court hearings.
Here, though, there is a deeper calculation: consolidating Kyiv's far-right scene behind
C14. Just like Azov, C14 combine generic "healthy patriotic" message with subtler hints which
can be easily deciphered by members of the subculture (such as the symbolic date of the Roma
pogrom on Hitler's birthday or indeed the very name of the organisation). Similarly, people
belonging to politicised subcultures understand very well that the antifascists who were
attacked in January 2018 were not Kremlin agents, but old political enemies who cannot be
allowed to grow stronger. Having created a "municipal guard"
officially financed by Kyiv's city council, C14 works towards realising both aims: it gives
them a pretext to patrol streets and maximise the probability of violent encounters (which can
be publicised), and at the same time provides a "second-best" opportunity to those who could or
would not join the structures of Azov.
The desire to dominate the local far-right milieu is also apparent behind another series of
violent acts by C14, not mentioned above because they were directed against the participants of
the far-right scene. Dmitry Riznichenko, a prominent veteran of Ukraine's far right scene and
former member of C14, left the organisation after Maidan. After serving in the Donbas volunteer
battalion, Riznichenko created his own organisation, more socially liberal than is custom among
today's far right. (Some have gone as far as declaring him a leftist.) Whatever Riznichenko's
actual political views, the important thing is that he, along with another "erring rightist"
organisation ChorKom (Black Committee), maintains openly friendly relations with Lviv's AO and
openly challenges the hierarchy within the scene. Struggling to defend its authority, C14
launched an intensive
campaign of brutal physical attacks against Riznichenko.
"Anti-gender" ideology as a universal mobiliser
Even though neither Azov nor C14 explicitly mobilised for International Women's Day on 8
March, the demonstration did encounter violent far-right counter-protesters, aided and abetted
by some rank-and-file policemen belonging to the same political milieu.
The most prominent violent proponent of the "anti-gender" agenda in the post-Maidan years
has been Right Sector. Its ideological face was always more "fascist" or "Francoist" than the
white supremacist/Hitlerist Azov or LePen-like Svoboda. Inside the movement, Right Sector was
the main engine behind violent mobilisations against LGBT events such as the Equality March in
Kyiv. On the wider scale, it contributed to popularising and reinforcing the dichotomy between
pro-EU, pro-Poroshenko liberals and revolutionary conservative nationalists.
Today, this dichotomy is a common-sense understanding. The "anti-gender" ideology has turned
from an exclusive feature of Right Sector into a generic far-right set of ideas, which can be
used by anyone. This is one reason behind the anonymity of some attacks and blockages: their
authorship is known inside the relevant milieu, serving as one of the criteria for building
subculture hierarchies.
It is also noticeable that Azov has never officially participated in any "gendered" violent
actions. Even in their "home" town of Mariupol, attacks are not formally done on behalf of the
movement. Partially, this can be explained by their special relationship with the state
leadership, which was dying to hide all visible manifestations of xenophobia, homophobia and
other signs of lack of social progress from the eyes of the EU, which could have reacted by
backtracking on the visa-free regime, politically important for Ukrainian government.
However, this type of violence also generally does not fit Azov's strategy of publicity.
They like repeating that they fight "real and strong" enemies – Russians and separatists,
but also corrupt officials and other powerful figures within the society, almost ignoring some
classic rightist scapegoats.
Instead, the "anti-gender" violence scene has recently seen the rise of two new aspiring
actors, which stand behind all recent "gendered" episodes in Kyiv. One of them, Katekhon, is a
conservative Orthodox group, somewhat resembling the Russian
Union of Orthodox Banner-Bearers with their aggressive fundamentalist style. This group is
headed by Yuriy Noyevyi, a politician from Svoboda. Not long ago, in 2012-2014, Noyevyi and his
comrades were active in a different niche: their organisation Ukrainian Student attempted to
become a far-right student union, competing for the influence with the anarcho-syndicalist
union Priama Diya (Direct Action). When the latter ceased to be an important political
contender, Noyevyi's interests shifted from university syndicalism to religious fundamentalism.
Effectively, Katekhon is the rebranded Ukrainian Student, serving the same technological
purposes – promoting the interests of the party in the spheres which are considered the
most promising at the moment.
The second ambitious newcomer at the market of gendered political violence is Tradition and
Order (TiP). This party was created in the second half of 2016, and took Revanche, a group of
admirers of Italian fascism, as its basis. The creation of the party was facilitated by
political technologists involved in the patronage circles of the president's political
party, Petro Poroshenko Bloc. Today, the perception of TiP as "pro-Poroshenko" is widely shared
in Kyiv's marginal political subculture. Most likely, their task is to try and create an
alternative centre of gravity among the far right that would balance the influence of Azov
(whose political patron is not unconditionally loyal to Poroshenko) and the remaining authority
of Svoboda and Right Sector.
Thus, people violently fighting against "gender propaganda" shoulder to shoulder were
brought together in the same place by very different, and sometimes mutually exclusive,
considerations. In March 2017, National Corps, Svoboda and Right Sector
signed a "National Manifesto", pledging to coordinate their efforts in a joint struggle
against the government; however, in reality this political field is full of conflicting
interests as well as ambitious newcomers with powerful patrons.
The regional monopoly in Uzhgorod
There is one more far right group actively and violently fighting against "gender ideology"
in Ukraine – Karpatska Sich (KS), whose area of activity is mostly confined to Uzhgorod.
Unlike Azov, they are not tied by the limitations imposed by high-status patrons and
parliamentary political ambitions, and do not shy away from certain topics, catering to all
possible audiences in the regional far-right milieu.
This group is a financially self-sufficient political and criminal unit, functioning in a
border region where smuggling and similar petty criminal activities are an important source of
income for a large part of the population. The leadership of KS are founders of a
charitable foundation that receives goods confiscated at the customs for free, pledging to
deliver them to soldiers at the eastern front. However, among the goods thus obtained there
were two
tonnes of marble and women's lingerie , which can be hardly considered a useful material
aid but can be profitably sold. One of the founders also figures in cases of illicit land
allocations by Uzhgorod city council.
Simultaneously, KS has successfully established its exclusive control over street-level
violence in Uzhgorod. The publication of the information on their illicit activities by a local
anti-corruption activist was followed by a string of attacks against him and his colleagues by
KS. On the other hand, the nature of their relations with the police and local government is
markedly different from the situation in Kyiv and Lviv. In this case, there is hardly an
infiltration or benevolent attitude on the part of rank-and-file policemen; rather, the police
and the state apparatus are too weak to persecute KS as severely as they perhaps would like to.
In 2017, the leader of KS Taras Deyak was included in the list of 100 most influential people
of the region – this is very unusual, and suggests the depth of the group's involvement
in local criminal networks.
This influence is used to expand the clout of KS among the far-right scene and reap benefits
in high politics. The list of organisations which participated in the 79th anniversary march
was telling. It did not include either National Corps or Svoboda. Instead, it featured C14
(whose sphere of influence is geographically divided from KS) and the Social-National Assembly.
According to some
rumours , the leader of SNA Oleh Odnorozhenko (who was previously Azov's main ideologue) is
drifting closer to Oleh Lyashko and Igor Mosiychuk – people who left Azov in 2014.
Lyashko's Radical Party is an influential player in mainstream politics, and he personally
enjoys high rankings in presidential polls, opposing both Avakov and Poroshenko. Odnorozhenko's
frequent visits to Uzhgorod and participation in joint events may be a prelude to the inclusion
of SNA and KS into Lyashko's electoral machine.
Hegemony toolkit: Dosing violence, choosing friends and victims
The first and most important of the plots we have been able to discern above is the
establishment of the Azov movement as dominant in Ukraine's far-right scene on the national
level – and as a significant political player in the mainstream political scene.
The key factors that have allowed Azov to rise to these positions are its strategic choices
to maintain a reserved but not hostile public attitude towards the government and to maintain
close patron-client relationships with certain factions both on the national level and in
specific regional and local configurations. The third factor is Azov's military background,
which grants it access to the infrastructure of violence (arms, training facilities etc.) and
ensures its legitimacy both in the eyes of the wider public and of the nationalist scene. This
legitimacy hinges on the balanced demonstration of the resources of violence available to the
movement and its discretion in using them.
This combination is unique among the major far-right structures in Ukraine. Right Sector has
a strong military component, but its decision to choose an openly
confrontational path in its relations with the governing factions of the ruling class has
prevented it from gaining access to important physical and symbolic resources. In this
situation, Right Sector's bet on their clientelist relations with an opposition faction of
Ukraine's haute bourgeoisie (Ihor Kolomoisky's Privat Group) and revolutionary image did not
pay off. Now this movement seems to be in decline.
Svoboda, meanwhile, was too compromised by its perceived proximity to power during and
immediately after Maidan. The creation of Svoboda's own volunteer war units appears to have
failed to neutralise the lack of radicalism and militarism in its public image. Its
advertised readiness to resort to violence was the key to Svoboda's electoral success before
Maidan, but this was overshadowed by the efforts of the competing entrepreneurs of political
violence in the post-Maidan conjuncture, in which the level of and tolerance to violence has
escalated. On the other hand, Svoboda keeps holding on to its hegemony in regional power
settings in western Ukraine, even though its relations to nation-wide patronage networks is
unclear. All in all, Azov/National Corps seems to be clearly the most successful partner in the
big nationalist threesome, receiving the most from this alliance.
As mentioned above, Azov's success hinges partly on the measured dosage of violence in the
public space, which should project an image of a force conscious of its superiority in terms of
violent resources – but still using it sparingly. This is why National Corps prefers
semi-anonymity when acting in situations where its single-handed superiority is not guaranteed
a priori, like in Kyiv and Lviv. Its interpenetration with the police forces helps it establish
its hegemony in a covert manner. The efforts of National Corps to dominate street politics in
Lviv are the second plot.
The third plot concerns the activities of C14 in Kyiv. This movement is closer to a classic
vigilante group, generously using violence against commonly recognised "public enemies", i.e.
subjects of moral panic like the Roma or alleged pro-Russian fifth columnist. In their
activity, they appeal to two audiences: the wider public with its patriotic and anti-Roma
instincts and the far-right political subculture able to see more nuanced details. The first
dimension makes C14 a structural analogue of Russian vigilante groups with their commercialised
online platforms; the second dimension, oriented inside the far-right scene, has elevated C14
to the position of a co-organiser of the annual nationalist marches on 14 October, on a par
with the much more powerful Azov, Svoboda and Right Sector.
The use of "anti-gender" ideology is the fourth theme. The cases analysed here show that
this mobilising subject is used as a self-promotion arena by two competing groups: Katekhon,
trying to restore Svoboda's once leading positions in the scene; and TiP, aimed at creating
there a separate gravitation pole embedded in Poroshenko's patronage network. On the other
hand, Azov/National Corps seems reluctant to invest too much effort in forcing the topic.
Finally, a separate plot is unfolding in Uzhgorod, where the locally entrenched political
and criminal structure Karpatska Sich is overtly competing with the state apparatus for
influence on the regional level and is struggling to build alliances on the national scale.
These alliances, if constructed successfully, will be able to undermine the dominance of
Azov/National Corps by creating a patronage network of comparable capacity to compete with it
politically and otherwise on all levels.
As I have argued above, Ukraine's far right are taking the logic of "violent
entrepreneurship" outside the purely commercial and apolitical realm – and employing it
in the domain of political contestation, where illicit violence is a precious resource that can
be bought and rented.
Ukrainian Nazi movements thus exist on the intersection of several worlds (criminal,
commercial, military, marginal-political, mainstream political) and are prepared to mobilise
their violent resources for advancement of their own positions, up to and including displacing
former patrons and stepping into their shoes. The skillful and measured management and use of
these violent resources is the key to success in this strategy.
Because that is precisely how the smear game works. The way it works is, the smearers bait
the smearee into defending himself against the defamatory content of the smears. Once the
smearee has done that, the smearers have him. From then on, the focus of the debate becomes
whether or not the smears are accurate, rather than why he's being smeared, how he's being
smeared, and who is smearing him .
This is the smearers' primary objective, i.e., to establish the boundaries of the debate,
and to trap the target of the smears within them. If you've followed the fake "Labour
Anti-Semitism" scandal, you've witnessed this tactic deployed against
Corbyn , who unfortunately
fell right into the trap and gave the smearers the upper hand.
No, the only way to effectively counter a smear campaign (whether large-scale or
small-scale), is to resist the temptation to profess your innocence, and, instead, focus as
much attention on the tactics and the motives of the smearers as possible . It is
difficult to resist this temptation, especially when the people smearing you have significantly
more power and influence than you do, and are calling you a racist and an anti-Semite, but,
trust me, the moment you start defending yourself, the game is over, and the smearers have
won.
@Justsaying The evidence is that before Cockburn died Counterpunch would routinely
publish articles which were basically honest about Israel (ie not terribly flattering) and
now does not (as it states in the article above viewpoints of the extreme left and right ie
genuine critique will not be tolerated so only critique from inside established paradigms
will be allowed-just like every other media outlet).
Counterpunch used to be outside of the Jewish paradigm (ie it was genuinely leftist) but
now will be just another gelded publication. Cockburn did a good job of fending off
criticism-Counterpunch was a rather niche publication so it flew under the radar of the
Jews.
Counterpunch was routinely critical of the neocons and even pointed out their Jewishness
but a lot of liberal Jews did not like the neocons. Israel was and is the real litmus
test.
The Guardian always had Alan Rusbridger who I beleive was Jewish. It is not exactly funded
by Jewish money- it mainly subsists off of government departments advertising public sector
jobs. Before the rise of the internet and gumtree etc it was mainly funded by sales of
autotrader a car trading magazine (lol at the nost po faced anti pollution newspaper being
funded by the sales of cars).
What changed is that the Jews are no longer able to control the narrative- they used to
feel they could afford semi-critical comments about Israel before but not any more. This has
gone hand in hand with increased efforts to censor the internet. The Jews were able to
infiltrate BDS and subvert it, they were able to use their explicit power to pass anti BDS
laws but they were not able to really turn the tide of public opinion. They have resorted to
outright censorship.
As you say it is not suprising that Counterpunch was taken over any
publication/organisation that wants to work outside of established Jewish limits on
intellectual discourse will eventually be subverted. Just look at the British Labour party.
Corbyn is an old school lefists (ie he wants to give people options other than the new labour
globalist neo liberalism) and a very principaled one. He stands up for the Palestinians (some
people say he just does this because of his Muslim constituents but that is not the case-he
has always stood up for them) and as a result has been smeared time and time again by the
Jewish press.
There is a power struggle in the Labour party (Muslim ethnics weight of numbers vs Jewish
money) and it looks like the Jews will win.
It's very sad and like I said I hope the new Counterpunch will fold leaving Cockburn's
histroy of excellent journalism unsullied.
Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."
A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."
I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe
to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."
On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic
principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov "
("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").
What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It
teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and
directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not,
religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify
Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for
no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .
The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in
particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my
books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the
antediluvians.
When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh
l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.
The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is
almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence,
when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate
sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that
perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.
If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not
replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave
like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at
Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with
the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.
There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the
primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate
"sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves
(something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they
became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of
Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .
A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a
supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part
and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew
12:25-26).
Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods
Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."
A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."
I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe
to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."
On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic
principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov "
("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").
What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It
teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and
directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not,
religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify
Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for
no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .
The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in
particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my
books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the
antediluvians.
When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh
l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.
The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is
almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence,
when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate
sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that
perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.
If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not
replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave
like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at
Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with
the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.
There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the
primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate
"sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves
(something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they
became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of
Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .
A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a
supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part
and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew
12:25-26).
Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods I don't buy your cloying and passive aggressive pretense of
not hating Jews but being merely interested in their salvation.
I even struggle to imagine anyone who'd be stupid enough to do so.
(Does it help you sell books or is it merely a prop against horrific
self-realisation?)
Regardless, it is a shame that even your "scholarship" may be unbooked. Painfully dumb
arguments have value. They provide it by contrast.
I am not even particularly interested in that here though. Inevitably there's lots of
weird stuff in a milennia old wikipedia and bozos, sorry "revisionists", will read into it
what they feel like.
The issue though is very simple. Were any of these effluent theories that take causation
to run from Judaism to globalism to actually be true then we would see that the more Orthodox
the Jew, the more globalist they would be.
Yet the facts sit precisely opposite.
The very worst Jews, on politics, that I've met or read have never heard of the Talmud.
Indeed, the Ultra-Orthodox wouldn't even consider them (or me) actual Jews at all.
That you can't even get this most basic of observations right totally discredits you.
Still, I hope your books get reinstated. I don't care what people who hate me choose to
waste their money on and, to be honest, it makes my meagre qualities look good by
comparison.
@Miro23 There are useful parallels with Christianity, which went from being powerless and
persecuted in its early days under Imperial Rome to eventual domination of Medieval Europe.
It was a longish process, but an early small, private and ethical movement did eventually
morph into a dictatorial organization that hunted down its own dissidents (heretics).
In this game of power, the church certainly collected great wealth, developed a complex
administration, made alliances with temporal (non-spiritual) power holders , and instituted
the Holy Office of the Inquisition (or equivalents) to root out dissidents (heretics) or
anyone who got in the way.
Green quotes a complaint by historian Manuel Barrios[172] about one Inquisitor, Diego
Rodriguez Lucero, who in Cordoba in 1506 burned to death the husbands of two different
women he then kept as mistresses. According to Barrios,
the daughter of Diego Celemin was exceptionally beautiful, her parents and her husband
did not want to give her to [Lucero], and so Lucero had the three of them burnt and now
has a child by her, and he has kept for a long time in the alcazar as a mistress,
(Wikipedia).
It was the "higher power" in the form of the Revolutionary Republican Napoleon
Bonaparte who finally abolished the Inquisition with the French invasion of Spain, which
suggests by parallel that when the US state collapses it will take its Jewish inquisitors
with it. Also the Jewish attempt to develop "Holocaustianity" with themselves as the leading
martyrs is failing, since Judaism doesn't have the mass appeal of Christianity: 1) it lacks
the ethical content 2) it isn't universalist (accepting all races).
Bolshevism (class guilt) was an earlier attempt to found a religion with Saint Trotsky and
themselves as the leading martyrs, which did actually (for a while) connect with the public,
since they harnessed the rising tide of Socialism/Communism with its fantasy of an
egalitarian "workers paradise" (themselves in the leadership role).
Unfortunately Jewish leftism (not to be confused National Democratic leftism) still
survives in the West in its bizarre SJW LGBT form, with Jews yet again trying to present
themselves as victims – this time of fabricated "White Oppression" – never mind
that white America gave them a generous refuge and a home after they were chased out of
Central Europe.
However, the search for power through SJWism (race guilt) is being rejected in the West,
so realistically Jews can only maintain their ethnic group power through a straightforward
coup at the centre (United States) – which they seem to be working on a the moment,
with some kind of fabricated Emergency involving Russia/Syria/Iran designed to give them a
dictatorship.
And if they get it, it won't be benevolent judging by the mass murdering precedents in
Russia and Hungary.
Thank you for describing my work as "meticulously researched and argued."
A point of dissent: I don't know of any "Jewocracy."
I'm cognizant of the power and influence of Zionism and Talmudism, but I would be loathe
to generalize about Judaic people under the rubric of "Jewocracy."
On pp. 463-466 of Judaism Discovered this writer attempts to elucidate the rabbinic
principle taught to Orthodox youth: " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh l'Yaakov "
("It is a given law: it is known that Esau hates Jacob").
What does this instruction connote within the broader context of Orthodox Talmudism? It
teaches that all goyim are irrevocably Jew-haters and that this hate is irrational and
directed at all Judaic persons, whether good or bad, Left or Right, Zionists or not,
religious or not. The intent of this deceitful and racist generalization is to unify
Judaics and keep them in the rabbinic fold, since it is asserted that they will be hated for
no reason no matter what they do, even if they reject the Talmud .
The antidote to this rabbinic propaganda is love for Judaic people and openness in
particular to those Judaics who seek a way out of Talmudism and/or Zionism. This is what my
books represent and one reason why they are viewed as a mortal threat to the
antediluvians.
When terms such as "Jewocracy" are employed then " Halacha hi beyoduah she'Eisav soneh
l'Yaakov " is being fulfilled.
The vast majority of the movement by non-Judaics to critique or oppose the Talmud is
almost always grounded in some sort of negative typecasting about "The Jews. " Hence,
when the individual Judaic who is trying to get free of the bondage of the Orthodox rabbinate
sees generalizations like that, their motivation is subverted and their suspicions that
perhaps the teaching imparted to them in their youth was true, is kindled anew.
If we truly wish to convert people into allies of truth and freedom, then we will not
replicate their slavemasters' tropes in our discourse. In other words, we will not behave
like Talmudists. If on the other hand, our principal aim is to vent our rage and anger at
Talmudic supremacy, then reckless disregard for these distinctions will hold sway, along with
the continued defeat of our espoused objectives.
There actually is only one fount of racism and supremacy on earth and it emanates from the
primeval antecedents of the Babylonian Talmud and the Zohar (Kabbalah), and the cognate
"sacred texts" that proceed from them. When the Germans began to worship themselves
(something Luther and Nietzsche detested and eschewed), as part of the Nazi praxis, they
became rabbis spiritually and psychologically, since the most fundamental constituent of
Orthodox Judaism is self-worship .
A sincere and empowered critic of the theology of the Talmud cannot himself be a
supremacist or a racist since those mental attitudes and philosophical commitments are part
and parcel of the Talmudic mentality. A Talmudist cannot cast out the Talmud (Matthew
12:25-26).
Michael Hoffman
Author: Judaism Discovered
and Judaism's Strange Gods I thank you for that comment. Beautifully put, logically
reasoned. Now I want to propose an idea for you to consider. The Orthodox Talmudic
instruction that you mention above has morphed well beyond the limitations of the Orthodox
rabbinate. You yourself just mentioned Judaics that want to "seek a way out of Talmudism and
/ or Zionism". Zionism certainly isn't Talmudism; it is blood and soil nationalism of a land
that belongs to other people. Couching this original Talmudic instruction as merely a method
of keeping Jews in "the rabbinic fold" is inaccurate. The unifiying of Jews through this
belief that all goyim are Jew-haters and vilification of those Judaics who break out has
grown well beyond the rabbinic fold, and it is present in every manifestation of Judaism,
from the secular atheist to the most Orthodox. Indeed, it seems to be the common thread that
holds all Jews together.
I thank you again for your ideas, Michael Hoffman. I will visit your website and try to
purchase your books, even though I am not a wealthy man.
Jonathan Sacks is given an award by the war-criminal Tony Blair
Jeremy Corbyn
has a beard. So has
Jonathan
Sacks
. But this shared
philopogony
hasn't
brought the two men closer together. Sacks is the former Chief Rabbi
of Britain and, to be fair, I think we be better off if more Jews
were like him. He doesn't seem to
hate
Whites and the Christian religion
in the way so many of his
co-ethnics do.
Battle of the Beards
But that doesn't mean Sacks is a reasonable or objective man where
his own race is concerned. He can be ethnocentric and apply double
standards with the best of them, as he's just proved by his comments
on his fellow beardie:
Jeremy Corbyn is "an anti-Semite" who has "given support to
racists, terrorists and dealers of hate", the former chief rabbi
Jonathan Sacks has said. In an exclusive interview with the
New
Statesman
, the peer described Corbyn's recently reported
2013 remarks on "Zionists" as "the most offensive statement made
by a senior British politician since Enoch Powell's 1968 'Rivers
of Blood' speech".
Sacks, who was chief rabbi from 1991 until 2013, added: "It was
divisive, hateful and like Powell's speech it undermines the
existence of an entire group of British citizens by depicting
them as essentially alien."
At a speech made at the Palestinian Return Centre in London in
2013, Corbyn said of a group of British "Zionists": "They
clearly have two problems. One is they don't want to study
history and, secondly, having lived in this country for a very
long time, probably all their lives, they don't understand
English irony either." (
Corbyn's
"Zionist" remarks were "most offensive" since Enoch Powell, says
ex-chief rabbi
,
The
New Statesman
, 28th August 2018)
Enoch Powell
predicted
that
mass immigration would lead to race war.
Jeremy
Corbyn
said that some Zionists don't get "English irony."
Whether or not you agree with Powell, is it reasonable to compare
the words of the two men? Are they "hateful" and "divisive" in a
similar way? I'd say no, they're obviously not, and the vast
majority of British Whites probably agree with me.
Sacks doesn't agree with me, and he has the Community with him,
according
to
the
Jewish
Chronicle
: "Reform Rabbi Jonathan Romain of Maidenhead
Synagogue said that, while the Enoch Powell analogy may have shocked
people, 'it accurately reflected what most British Jews feel.'"
The poisoning of Britain's politics
Well, if Rabbi Sacks and other Jews want anti-Semitism, I think they
should look much closer to home. This is from the
Jerusalem
Post
in 2007:
Sacks: Multiculturalism threatens democracy
Multiculturalism promotes segregation, stifles free speech and
threatens liberal democracy, Britain's top Jewish official
warned in extracts from [a recently published] book Jonathan
Sacks, Britain's chief rabbi, defined multiculturalism as an
attempt to affirm Britain's diverse communities and make ethnic
and religious minorities more appreciated and respected. But in
his book,
The
Home We Build Together: Recreating Society
, he said the
movement had run its course. "Multiculturalism has led not to
integration but to segregation," Sacks wrote in his book, an
extract of which was published in the
Times
of
London.
"Liberal democracy is in danger," Sacks said, adding later: "The
politics of freedom risks descending into the politics of fear."
Sacks said Britain's politics had been poisoned by the rise of
identity politics, as minorities and aggrieved groups jockeyed
first for rights, then for special treatment. The process, he
said, began with Jews, before being taken up by blacks, women
and gays. He said the effect had been "inexorably divisive." "A
culture of victimhood sets group against group, each claiming
that its pain, injury, oppression, humiliation is greater than
that of others," he said. In an interview with the
Times
,
Sacks said he wanted his book to be "politically incorrect in
the highest order." (
Sacks:
Multiculturalism threatens democracy
,
The
Jerusalem Post
, 20th October 2007; emphasis added)
So Sacks claimed that "Britain's politics had been poisoned" by a
self-serving, self-pitying, self-aggrandizing ideology that "began
with Jews" and had been "inexorably divisive." His claim is
absolutely classic anti-Semitism, peddling a stereotype of Jews as
subversive, manipulative and divisive outsiders whose selfish
agitation has done huge harm to a gentile society.
Sacks was right, of course: Jews do demand special treatment and did
indeed invent the "identity politics" that has poisoned British
politics (and
American
,
Australian
,
French
and
Swedish
politics
too).
By saying all that, Sacks was being far more "anti-Semitic" than
Jeremy Corbyn was, even by the harshest interpretation of those
comments on Zionists. Furthermore, Sacks has proved that Corbyn was
right. Zionists
do
lack
irony. In 2007 Sacks, a staunch Zionist, claimed that the
"poisoning" of British politics "began with Jews." In 2018 he's
condemning Jeremy Corbyn for saying something much milder about
Zionists.
"Absolutely nothing apartheid about this"
And in 2018 Sacks is also offering a ridiculous defence of a new law
in his beloved land of Israel:
Asked by the
New
Statesman
to comment on Israel's new nationality law, which
states that the Jewish people have "an exclusive right to
national self-determination" in the country and stripped the
Arab language of its official status, Sacks said: "I'm not an
expert on this. My brother is, I'm not, he's a lawyer in
Jerusalem, he tells me that there's absolutely nothing apartheid
about this, it's just correcting a lacuna. As far as I
understand, it's a technical process that has none of the
implications that have been levelled at it." (
Corbyn's
"Zionist" remarks were "most offensive" since Enoch Powell, says
ex-chief rabbi
)
When Sacks said there was "absolutely nothing apartheid about this,"
he was
protesting
too much
. He is clearly uncomfortable about the new law and
struggling to defend it, which is why his usual fluency deserted him
when he spoke to the
New
Statesman
. One "levels" accusations, not implications. And the
implications of
the
new law
are perfectly clear, which is why Sacks was driven to
waffle about "a technical process." Yes, the law is a technical
process whereby Arabs are defined as second-class citizens and
Jewish supremacism is openly proclaimed as the guiding principle of
the Israeli state.
Of Monkeys and Men
I'm sure that one of Sacks' heroes, the great Jewish philosopher and
Talmudic scholar
Maimonides
(c.
1135-1208), would have applauded the new law. This is what
Maimonides wrote in his hugely influential
Guide
for the Perplexed
(c. 1190), one of the most revered and
respected texts in the three thousand years of Judaism:
The people who are abroad are all those that have no religion,
neither one based on speculation nor one received by tradition.
Such are the extreme Turks that wander about in the north, the
Kushites [Blacks] who live in the south, and those in our
country who are like these. I consider these as irrational
beings, and not as human beings; they are below mankind, but
above monkeys, since they have the form and shape of man, and a
mental faculty above that of the monkey. (
Guide
for the Perplexed
, Book 3, chapter 51)
Now
that
is
racism, ladies and gentlemen. And if you want proof that Maimonides'
poisonous ideas are alive and well in the Jewish world today, look
no further than Yitzchak Yosef, the Sephardic Chief Rabbi in Israel,
who
was
condemned
this very year for "calling black people 'monkeys'."
Rabbi Yosef has visited the headlines before: in 2016 he "stated
that non-Jews should not be allowed to live in Israel, except to
serve the Jewish population." The
Jewish
Chronicle
added
that
he "later reversed this position."
"Very, very good relations with the Jewish community"
Well, he might have said he no longer believed it, but that wouldn't
be speaking the truth. Servitude for goyim, the superiority of Jews
and the subhumanity of Blacks are all perfectly orthodox Jewish
doctrines. Jews are not the philanthropic egalitarians that they
pretend to be, and Jonathan Sacks was perfectly correct to describe
them as poisoners of British politics. He himself has upended
another vat of poison by joining in the hysteria and hyperbole about
Jeremy Corbyn's mild comments on Zionists.
Let's compare Corbyn with the
shabbos
goy
Tony Blair,
who
gave Sacks
a "Lifetime Achievement Award" in February this year
and hailed Sacks as "one of my heroes."
According
to
the
Jewish
Chronicle
, Blair "was conscious of the need to have very, very
good relations" with "the Jewish community."
In other words, the tiny Jewish minority pulled Blair's strings. At
the behest of his Jewish "fundraiser"
Lord
Levy
, Blair lied Britain into a hugely expensive
war
on Iraq
that killed vast numbers of
innocent
civilians
, fomented sectarian strife in the Middle East and
terrorism in Europe, and led directly to the rise of Islamic State.
Jeremy Corbyn
resolutely
opposed
the war and predicted its dire consequences. Blair is a
liar, confidence-trickster and war-criminal who will one day, I
hope, face
the
death-penalty
for what he and his Jewish immigration minister
Barbara
Roche
did to Britain. Jeremy Corbyn, by contrast, is a virtue-signalling
Marxist idiot who opposes war and the
military-industrial
complex
.
But Blair obeyed Jewish orders and Corbyn doesn't. That's why Blair
is now worth
more
than Ł60 million
and Corbyn is endlessly vilified in the British
media. Few British Whites know the term "
ethnocentrism
,"
but more and more of them can see the Jews practising it.
"Jeremy Corbyn has acknowledged Labour has a "real problem" with antisemitism as he
attempted to defuse the row engulfing his party."
Well, yes, "real problems," but not what you might think from a quick glance at the
headline.
The real problem is people using the accusation as a cheap attack, a way to libel a decent
man and influence a party, and doing so regularly over a considerable period of time.
Where was all this "anti-Semitism" hiding in Tony Blair's day? Or even after? It just
suddenly exploded into existence under Corbyn? Like a parody of Athena suddenly erupting from
the head of Zeus? No reasonable person can believe that. It's a bizarre notion. No, what has
changed since Blair's day is simply this.
A leader who helped kill about a million people and destroy a society, lying continuously
about what he was doing, and received the Israel Peace Prize plus many handsome sinecures for
his efforts, stopped being leader. Another man, a decent man who is fair-minded about the
Middle East, as he is about many other matters, became leader. So, all stops were pulled by
interested parties in doing something about it.
He's been attacked from the beginning. He had to win his leadership vote twice. The attacks,
here or there, seem to fade a bit, then, wham!, they're back, this recent round perhaps the
worst ever.
Well, you can have whatever kind of country you like, but this way of doing things is shabby
and dishonest and can produce nothing good.
Much as some of Theresa May's incompetent efforts and unwarranted attacks, all damaging and
utterly without evidence.
As a young man, I always thought of Britain as more honorable political society than the
United States with its folks like Senator Joseph McCarthy or FBI Director J Edgar Hoover or
blood-drenched liar, Lyndon Johnson.
But either I was naive or Britain has changed, and changed greatly for the worse
_________________________
Response to a comment, "But Jeremy Corbyn has said that Jews, uniquely, can't be trusted
to define anti-Semitism and that he knows best":
That's just plain dishonest.
He said no such thing.
But your using that claim as an argument is symbolic of this whole shabby business.
In the US, it is amazing how few young Americans know anything about the Vietnam War, a war
in which America conducted a holocaust killing 3 million Vietnamese, many in the most horrible
fashion as with napalm.
It was also a time that nearly divided America like a new Civil War.
Polls find few young Americans know much about it.
___________________________
Response to a comment:
Please, don't forget, the USSR lost 27,000,000 in the Hitler invasion.
The loss of men caused a huge demographic deficit.
Also, alcoholism in the USSR, in the 1970s, was widespread and desperate. Many men died
prematurely.
But the suffering from the collapse of the USSR did a lot of damage.
_________________________
Response to a comment:
I wasn't labeling Russians.
It is just a fact about the drinking, and it did shorten average lifespan.
Some of the conditions in the Soviet era could be pretty grim. You've heard the joke about
"They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work?"
Americans are indeed drug addicts. They consume about as many drugs as the rest of countries
together.
There is a whole range of this activity from cocaine at wealthy parties to people in the
streets and gutters consuming God-knows-what.
It's American demand that drives the awful drug cartels of Mexico, but Americans never give
that a thought.
In a number of American cities recently, the murder rates among blacks have been dramatic,
and it involves competitive gangs selling drugs.
The price of some drugs has dropped on the streets and there is over-supply. This has a lot
to do with America's pointless invasion of Afghanistan.
Growing opium poppies had been virtually halted by the Taliban government. Then America
invaded, and it has been "let her rip" with a flood of drugs.
This always happens in such regions with America. It happened too in the Vietnam War. Many
believe CIA makes off-the-books cash by working with drugs in such places. It was said Air
America, a then covert private airline serving CIA used to fly loads out. I don't doubt it at
all.
By the way, in early America, heavy drinking was very common. Rum from the Caribbean and
home-made whisky.
And it is said that Britain's industrial revolution was fueled by cheap gin for the
workers.
_______________________________
Response to a comment about the need for education:
You get no argument from me about education.
Trouble is, as with so many of society's institutions, public education – especially
in the United States – is highly political.
Many subjects and many ways of talking about those subjects are dangerous territory.
And what could be more stifling than the political correctness of local school boards, state
education departments, and the teachers' unions?
It's amazing when anything gets done beyond the basics.
With all these forces at work, in many locations of the US, public education likely has
little more latitude than in the good old USSR. Religion? Hands off. Political corruption?
Hands off. The delirious effects of plutocracy? Hands off. The political corruption of money?
Hands off. Why all the American wars? Hands off.
I don't see a lot of hope in general from education, although there always are exceptional
teachers who manage somehow. I had a few.
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MICHAEL KREIGER IN RUSSIA INSIDER
"People Aren't Having Intelligent Conversations Anymore, They're Just Yelling at Each
Other"
I agree with the tone of the article.
But the United States has never been a place where what the French call "politesse"
featured. It is a myth for anyone to think so.
Going back to President Andrew Jackson, who horsewhipped an opponent and who regularly
challenged men to duels, this plainly is the fact. Yet note that his image is honored today on
the twenty-dollar bill.
You can never forget all those years of slavery – Jackson owned gangs of them (As did
Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and others) – which entailed public auctions of slaves
stripped of their clothes, including women who were sometimes bought by lonely rural farmers
for "company."
Slavery existed for the best part of a century in the formal United States, but of course it
went back long before that in order to build the colonial society that would become strong
enough to seek independence.
The culture and undertone of much of America were heavily colored for the future by this
pervasive and poisonous institution. It was definitely was not one that encouraged
conversations among either camps, supporters and opponents. There were violent disagreements
and brawls by politicians over much of the era.
The fact that slave owners quite typically slept with pistols and/or hunting knives under
their pillows or within easy reach, such was the constant paranoid fear of slave rebellion,
explains a great deal about America's violent gun culture down to this day and its relations
between black and white citizens.
Slavery, de facto, continued for about a century after the Civil War (1861-5) in the South's
sharecropper system combined with Jim Crow Laws. You know, even when Franklin Roosevelt was
President in the 1930s, lynching in town squares was common. It was even a practice, in parts
of the South, to hold family picnics on the grass at a lynching.
Then for much of the same period, we had America's treatment of Native people. Again, early
on, the honored Andrew Jackson featured. He signed a bill called the Indian Removal Act which
was to uproot tens of thousands of peaceful Natives belonging to about half a dozen tribes like
the Cherokee in America's Southeast, people who in many cases practiced agriculture, and drive
them with the American Cavalry to what was then the remote west, Oklahoma Territory, a land
that had no relationship to the places like Florida whey had lived and farmed for a long time.
It was quite a different climate and physical geography into which they were unceremoniously
dumped.
This forcible removal, named the Trail of Tears (1830s), caused the deaths of several
thousand by hunger, exhaustion, and exposure. This was a big number in those days when military
battles losses were often counted in hundreds. Their farms and settlements and resources in the
Southeast were greedily seized by white Americans.
Years later, as American population grew and pushed West, we had the Indian Wars, which
involved the American Calvary's again driving Natives off their lands. Since these were not
mainly settled farmers but migrating hunters on horseback, the tactics used against them were
much harsher. Whole villages were burned down and all the people killed, just as though they
were packs of wild animals being subdued. It was viewed about the same way as farmers shooting
coyotes or wolves.
We have old photos of things like a Cavalry Trooper posed proudly with his boot on a man's
dead body, resembling an image from the film, "Planet of Apes," and of long trench-like mass
graves into which rows of bodies were flung, something resembling smaller, rural versions of
Auschwitz.
As America continued to expand and drive westward, there was a constant sequence of such
violent events, including the appalling and unwarranted Mexican War (1846-8) intended only to
steal land from Mexico.
Still later in the 1890s, we had America's seizure of the Hawaiian Islands, a place which
had its own royalty and an established society. The Hawaiians were overwhelmingly opposed to
Washington's rule and sent a delegation to submit a petition signed by virtually everyone on
the islands. No one in Washington would even speak to them. They were ignored and treated with
contempt.
The ruthlessness and crudity weren't limited to stealing land and killing natives. Americans
practiced the kind of wholesale theft of what today is called "intellectual property" from
Europe. Many mechanisms and machines, as for farming, were purchased in Europe, shipped to
America, and then copied. This was done with anything you care to mention, even books. Charles
Dickens got quite bitter about the way a new book of his would appear shortly after publication
in London as a separate edition in Boston. He never saw a penny in royalties. It is ironic that
today America feels so self-righteous about the Chinese, for example, in this regard. All they
are seeing is their own history repeated.
Well, that's just a part of the story, but a surprising number of Americans have no idea of
the brutality involved in America's growth. There was mighty little civility ever. America was,
and remains, in many respects a raw place. G B Shaw joked that it went from barbarism to
decadence without ever passing through civilization. The fact that we still laugh at the joke
tells us something of its sharp truth.
A lot of what people complain of today in political discussion reflects some effects of the
Internet. All the ugly thoughts and words that once were reserved for the streets and alleys
now are put on view for anyone to share, and they do share them. And believe me, having grown
up in Chicago in the 1950s, there was plenty of ugly stuff around. There was just no way to
broadcast it, except graffiti, and there was plenty of that.
Look at Trump. You simply could not find a ruder, more careless-mouthed man if you tried,
and here he is, as President, constantly sending out thoughtless, libelous, and brutal words.
Maybe the incivility of much of the Internet helped pave the way for acceptance of his
record-setting public crudity.
Candidates for President were once limited by something so simple as having been divorced.
Although those kinds of limits were a social pretense, representing a lot of hypocrisy and
dishonesty, we have dropped the pretense. And we have dropped the pretense about the rudeness
and crude expression that was always there in private.
In many ways, Trump represents a large portion of contemporary American society. The words
and thoughts are not new, but the method of widespread transmission is, as is the ready
willingness to use it. And note that he is not ignored, by the mainline press or anyone else.
His stupidities if unreported would have far less effect, but his words are reported and
commented upon and copied daily.
I think it probably is creating something of a downward spiral in the public tone of
discussion as people become accustomed to nasty language, ugly thoughts, and prejudice openly
broadcast on the Internet, even by the President of the country. Experience suggests that any
practice which becomes much repeated, one way or another, tends to drive things even further
along. New norms keep being set.
By that, I'm not advocating any form of censorship, something to which I'm utterly opposed,
but I am making it clear that we are unavoidably into a new era of public discussion, although
I think "discussion" a wholly inadequate word, carrying, as it does, the connotation of calm
and rational exchange of ideas.
Indeed, the whole discussion of notions like "fake news," a Trump favorite with its
pejorative and accusatory tone, is muddled and meaningless since all sides in the debate
constantly engage in lying, distortion, and hypocrisy. That goes for The New York Times and
Washington Post as much as it does for an outfit like Breitbart News.
Everyone wants to get their views "out there," with little authentic regard for facts.
Outfits like The Times still maintain a façade of tone and claim of respectability, but
behind the façade, they have an immensely long history of dishonesty and promoting ugly
establishment interests, supporting wars and coups and aggression and imperialism in polite
words. I actually do not find that more attractive than what we are getting with the Internet.
They are both repulsive for anyone who wants to understand some truth.
And I stress that the nastiness and brutality have always been there as an integral part of
American culture, only lacking a mechanism of direct communication to large numbers and perhaps
being tamped down somewhat by a desire to seem a bit less crude in public. An awareness that
others in the world did not engage in quite the same way and responded badly to it may have
played a role. But such niceties are lost today.
Traditional religious values may have played a role too in tamping down the public tone, but
not only is traditional religion declining rather quickly, a good deal of what remains in
America has morphed into bizarre forms with preachers in some cases having parishioners bring
their guns to church services or preaching in fervent support of the kind of absolutely brutal
violence we see in Israel. Ditto for invoking God's blessings on "our troops" as they illegally
invade yet another country and bomb more women and children.
Actually, the traditional press used to act as something of a filtering mechanism. A great
deal of ugly stuff never made it out for anyone's attention, but it was in fact still there in
private. That same impulse to maintain an appearance of civility brought many dishonesties to
journalism.
Americans never even knew facts like Roosevelt being wheel chair-bound or Kennedy being
anything but a family man or Nixon, around the time of his resignation, putting his wife into
the hospital with a serious beating.
And likewise, they never knew the lies and most of the horror of Korea or Vietnam or Iraq.
The absolutely massive levels of brutality, as the fact that one-fifth of the entire population
of North Korea was exterminated by three years of American carpet bombing. Or that America left
Vietnam having killed 3 million souls with more carpet bombing and napalm and early cluster
bombs, also leaving the land packed with landmines and soaked with Agent Orange to keep killing
and crippling for decades.
Even earlier, there was journalism's lies about things like "Remember the Maine" in the
deliberately-engineered Spanish-American War, a false slogan which made its way into American
grade school history books as fact.
The Internet puts much into plain view, but it also does so with a new confusion, a chaotic
situation in which ugly fact and ugly myth and deliberate propaganda all come jumbled together.
Only people who carefully read and assess and balance realize its potential for communicating
truth, but such people always anywhere are a minority.
The chaotic nature of so much "discussion" in America is, just like the country's brutality
and crudeness, simply a part of America's heritage.
__________________________
Response some days later to someone who wrote a long and angry comment:
There's an old saying you might profitably make note of.
It's usually a good idea to know the words to the music before you get up to sing.
Nothing worse than using a statistic you've picked up somewhere to attempt characterizing a
situation you clearly have no understanding of.
Only a few percent of Americans were slaveholders?
My God, it is only a few percent of any population that are criminal, but they influence us
all every day of our lives.
They make police forces necessary. They make courts necessary. And prison systems and guards
and wardens. They make an entire criminal legal system necessary with criminal lawyers, judges,
juries, parole boards, the acts of politicians legislating, etc. Their acts fill our newspapers
and broadcasting, causing much fear and upset in many ordinary people. Their acts are the topic
of endless private and public discussion.
And just so slavery, perhaps even more so. I've read a good deal of serious history of the
United states. Slavery and all of its related issues colored and affected everything from the
way the Constitution was written to import laws to the courts and political arguments. It
affected the careers of politicians, it affected law enforcement, North and South, it affected
the courts and their decisions. It affected attitudes of people. Its pervasive and noxious
influence never went away, having absolutely no connection with the number of slaveholders.
A person of any understanding knows that this is the case for a great many parts of human
affairs. Today, we have the economic issue of the extremely lopsided distribution of wealth and
income and the "one-percent." And I suppose you think they do not affect almost everything in
society because of their small number? Its politics and the candidates of its political
parties? Its laws? Its wars and turmoil? Its taxation system? The government's treatment of
those less fortunate?
As for Trump, do you really think the approach of some corporate business people should
characterize government? The ways of Google or Apple or Amazon or John D. Rockefeller or Henry
Ford? There are many reasons for thinking that is a terrible idea. Such people already have
inordinate influence on government and its policies., and astute observers on both the Left and
the Right agree.
Running a company and running a government are two very different things. Different skills.
Different understanding. Different expectations. And working under different sets of rules.
Trump is an exceedingly ignorant and impatient man, and he did not even write "The Art of
the Deal," of which he told us he is so proud. He paid a ghostwriter. And that ghostwriter has
now spoken out several times about his private observations of Trump. He is an appalling man
who listens to no one, is totally obsessed with his own opinions, and is rude and unpleasant.
He, of course, only confirms the views of other outsiders who have worked near Trump and
written about it.
And do you really think it is the job of a head of government to publicly insult various of
its citizens? That is the behavior of an angry child, and a not very pleasant child. He is
supposed to be president of all the people, not just some. Imagine Putin doing this in Russia?
No, Putin only speaks to the kind of matters a President should speak to. He has what we used
to call "class," a quality utterly missing in Trump. You, know, some of his cheap-bully
remarks, here or there, might seem funny at first to some because we've never heard their like
before, but they do in fact lasting and long-term damage to society.
Again, the number of lynchings, which you obviously regard as small and try to minimize?
What an asinine statistic to quote. It addresses nothing but your own ego. I am well familiar
with it, but it has nothing to do with what I said.
By the way, from some of your remarks you show that you did not even understand what I
wrote. Hard to know why you would want to comment then, but one detects in your tone that same
Trumpian quality, a person ready to open his mouth, and loudly, without ever pausing to
think.
"... "But he needs to move quickly and decisively now" ..."
"... This fixation over anti-Semitism, always without any effort to provide proof of anything, borders on the days of Stalin. ..."
"... If Stalin was looking for "wreckers of the Revolution," as he did every once in a while, the phrase being his code words for a new purge, and you happened to be one in the eyes of your local NKVD detachment – perhaps for as little cause as the their needing to achieve their quota of wreckers this week – you were in deadly trouble. ..."
"... Corbyn is hated in Israel because he is fair-minded on Israel and Palestine, and that these days is simply not allowed. Actually, true liberals and the Left are hated widely in Israel because they stand for traditional Western values of human and democratic rights. ..."
COMMENT POSTED TO AN ARTICLE BY MATTHEW NORMAN IN THE INDEPENDENT
"But he needs to move quickly and decisively now"
Move on what?
Nothing inappropriate was said or done, but someone has to "move" on it?
There is no anti-Semitism in the words. None. People were called "Trump fanatics." The
people happen to be Jewish, something they themselves continually draw attention to in their
unwarranted attacks on Corbyn.
This fixation over anti-Semitism, always without any effort to provide proof of anything,
borders on the days of Stalin.
If Stalin was looking for "wreckers of the Revolution," as he did every once in a while, the
phrase being his code words for a new purge, and you happened to be one in the eyes of your
local NKVD detachment – perhaps for as little cause as the their needing to achieve their
quota of wreckers this week – you were in deadly trouble.
That truly is the level of so much of this name-calling reverse-prejudice filth against a
decent man, Jeremy Corbyn.
I have never seen such ugliness, and I do understand the reason for it.
Corbyn is hated in Israel because he is fair-minded on Israel and Palestine, and that these
days is simply not allowed. Actually, true liberals and the Left are hated widely in Israel
because they stand for traditional Western values of human and democratic rights.
"... Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and injustice -- he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once denied the Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. It seems, however, that none of this matters to those who would bring him down. ..."
"... The desperation of those seeking to oust Corbyn can be seen by the latest accusation against him: attending a memorial for terrorists. ..."
"... Corbyn did not remain silent. True to himself once again, he struck back, reminding Netanyahu that what is deserving of condemnation is Israeli forces' killing of hundreds of protesters in Gaza and the passing of the new, racist Israel Nation State Law . ..."
"... By trying to silence the discussion regarding Zionism and its legitimacy, Israel abuses the memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust, particularly the Jewish victims. There are entire communities of Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors who are quite ready to discuss and debate any issue, including the Holocaust, and who view the Zionists' stance as absurd. These same Jewish communities also reject Zionism and support the Palestinian call for BDS , or Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel. It is time that these voices be heard. ..."
"... Miko Peled is an author and human rights activist born in Jerusalem. He is the author of " The General's Son. Journey of an Israeli in Palestine ," and " Injustice, the Story of the Holy Land Foundation Five ." ..."
Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and
injustice -- he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once
denied the Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. It seems, however, that none
of this matters to those who would bring him down.
The U.K. Labour Party conference is more than three weeks away and Jeremy Corbyn, true to
himself and his principles, has risen above the mud-slinging and continues to fight for the
principles to which he has dedicated his entire life. He focuses on issues like social justice;
caring for the many rather than the few, the millions not the millionaires; and, as Corbyn
himself said in his speech at last year's convention, "end[ing] the oppression of the
Palestinian people."
Zionist groups within the Labour Party, which include LFI (Labour Friends of Israel) and the
JLM (the Zionist 'Jewish Labour Movement'), skillfully utilize the pro-Zionist media. They are
trying -- and failing -- to paint Jeremy Corbyn as an anti-Semite. However, the problem is not
anti-Semitism but Corbyn's stance on Palestine.
These Zionist groups want to get rid of Corbyn because of his principled stance on Palestine,
Israeli colonialism and occupation of Palestine, and they use anti-Semitism labels because they
think it will work.
The 1972 Munich-attacks issue
The desperation of those seeking to oust Corbyn can be seen by the latest accusation against
him: attending a memorial for terrorists.
It was given impetus by a remark by the Israeli prime minister, in what is a shocking
intervention by Israel in British politics. Benjamin Netanyahu made
remarks about the Labour leader, saying that he deserves "unequivocal condemnation." In
what can only be described as an escalation of the already heavy-handed
intervention of Zionist groups to end Jeremy Corbyn's leadership, Netanyahu said that
Corbyn's participation in a ceremony at a cemetery in Tunis in 2014 is deserving of
condemnation, because -- according to Netanyahu -- terrorists are buried there.
Corbyn did not remain silent. True to himself once again, he struck back, reminding
Netanyahu that what is deserving of condemnation is Israeli forces' killing
of hundreds of protesters in Gaza and the passing of the new, racist Israel
Nation State Law .
Netanyahu -- along with what may well be the loudest Zionist mouthpiece in Britain, The
Daily Mail -- claims that Corbyn was present at a ceremony and even laid a wreath on the
graves of terrorists connected with the 1972 attack on the Israeli athletes during the
Munich
Olympic games .
The truth of the matter is that the event in which Corbyn participated had nothing to do
with the Munich attack. In 2014 Jeremy Corbyn attended a service at a cemetery in Tunis
commemorating the victims of the 1985
Israeli airstrike on the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) offices in Tunis. This
Israeli attack was a breach of international law, violated the sovereignty of another country,
and received worldwide condemnation, including by the United
States .
Furthermore, none of the
eight men who participated in the Munich attack are buried in Tunis. The four men who are
buried there -- and whose tombstones are shown in The Daily Mail photo -- are Salah Khalaf, who was Yasser Arafat's deputy; his aide,
Fakhri al-Omari; Hayel Abdel-Hamid, who was the PLO chief of security; and Atef Bseiso. Bseiso
was assassinated in Paris in 1992 -- 20 years after the Munich Olympics. He was heavily
involved in talks with the CIA in an attempt to advance relations between the U.S. and the PLO.
Israel claimed that all four were involved in the attack in Munich and had all of them
assassinated either directly or by the proxy terror group, Abu-Nidal. There was never a shred
of proof, not to mention a trial, to substantiate Israel's allegations against these men.
Blatant intervention
The big question is why does the Israeli prime minister feel he needs to engage in such
blatant intervention and and make such blatantly false accusations just as Britain's largest
political party is about to convene? Netanyahu and his henchmen must realize that U.K. Labour,
having gained over half a million members since Jeremy Corbyn's ascent as leader, is poised to
win in the next elections, so that, if Israel fails to oust him, Jeremy Corbyn will end up in
10 Downing Street.
One of the ridiculous charges laid against Corbyn is the following: He was criticized for
attending a passover
Seder with a particular group of Jewish people who "dismissed concerns about anti-Semitism
in the party." So it is not good enough that he went to a Seder and that he opted to do so
among people who live in his own constituency; he had to do so with Jewish people who think a
particular way.
Corbyn was also criticized for participating in an event with the late
Hajo Meyer , a Jewish holocaust survivor himself. This was in 2010, when Corbyn hosted a
Holocaust Memorial Day event in London with Meyer as the main speaker. Hajo Meyer was, like
many holocaust survivors, a fervent advocate for Palestinian rights and a severe critic of
Israel -- hence the criticism.
Anti-Semitism
Another sticking point is the self-appointed International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (
IHRA ), which apparently adopted a new and, in their own words, "non-legally binding"
working definition of
anti-Semitism . Initially Labour's national executive committee refused to accept this
definition, but there are signs that a compromise might be on the horizon. This definition of
anti-Semitism is one that entire Jewish communities do not accept because it seeks to silence
criticism of Israel and conflates Zionism with Judaism. The anti-Semitism definition includes
several clauses that have nothing to do with racism or anti-Semitism and have everything to do
with protecting Israel from criticism. For example:
Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination; e.g., by claiming that the
existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
War of attrition
Another example, in which I was personally involved, has to do with a comment that I made at
a fringe event during the 2017 Labour conference and that turned into a major news item. During
a panel on free speech, I said that free speech means we should be able to discuss every issue,
including Palestine and the Holocaust. The Daily Mail published this as though it was a
scandalous thing to say and accused Labour and even Corbyn himself for allowing it to
happen.
Every other
newspaper in Britain followed suit and then papers in Palestine and even the Israeli papers
picked it up as well. I added in my remarks that, while free speech should not be criminalized,
we do not need to give a platform to proponents of any racist ideology, and that includes
Zionists who regularly demand to be present and give their perspective at events and
lectures.
My presence during the conference and my comments did not warrant such attention. However,
this is a war of attrition in which Labour Friends of Israel, the so-called 'Jewish Labour
Movement, and the British Daily Mail are leading the charge and will jump at every
opportunity to get attention. Once again, the problem was not denial of the Holocaust or
anti-Semitism -- because there was no expression of either one -- but the fear of a discussion
on Palestine and Zionism.
By trying to silence the discussion regarding Zionism and its legitimacy, Israel abuses the
memory of the millions who died in the Holocaust, particularly the Jewish victims. There are
entire communities of Jewish Holocaust survivors and descendants of survivors who are quite
ready to discuss and debate any issue, including the Holocaust, and who view the Zionists'
stance as absurd. These same Jewish communities also reject Zionism and support the Palestinian
call for BDS , or Boycott Divestment and
Sanctions against Israel. It is time that these voices be heard.
Jeremy Corbyn is a man who has dedicated his entire life to fighting racism and injustice --
he is not a racist and therefore clearly he is not anti-Semitic. He has not once denied the
Holocaust and therefore he is not a Holocaust-denier. However, none of this matters. As was
stated clearly in The Daily Mail,
"The Board of Deputies of British Jews warned Mr. Corbyn to 'come out of hiding' and said
the anti-Semitism crisis would not go away."
In other words, there is nothing he can say or do to "clear" himself. They are determined to
oust him and they think the anti-Semitic card will do the trick.
FWIW an Israeli journalist has made an FOI request to the Israeli government in an attempt
to tease out Israeli government connections with the villification of Corbyn by the various
'Friends of Israel' in the UK and the role of Masot wrt Israel as partially exposed in the Al
Jazeera undercover video on attempts to oust UK MPs insufficiently obeisant to Israel..
The problem with this scenario is that it's starting to look ineffective. Jeremy Corbyn is
still there and the pro Israelis have had an unprecedented amount of media coverage to convince
the population that he's on a par with Goebbels. I suspect having already suffered the
vilification he received in his ambassador days, he is in a much better position to endure
another campaign. There is also the (not so) small matter of a very loyal and supportive blog
readership which is always willing to help him in his hour of need. Craig Murray isn't the
sitting duck you would like him to think he is.
"... During the C21st the Conservative Party has become reliant on Jewish money. Even more than her predecessor Cameron, May is a "value free zone", as the commentator Richard North categorised her. She does whatever the donors want. Not that the Labour Party in power would be any better. It is just as riddled with Israel-supporting "moderates". ..."
CRITICIZE ISRAEL AND GO TO JAIL? IS THAT HOW LOW ZIONISTS HAVE SUNK?
Thanks for the interesting article, Sir.
As I read it, I felt sick in the abdomen, at how low the Zionists have sunk, demanding
that those who criticize Israel go to jail.
If there is evil in this world, this is it. These are the dark ages. These people are
primitive and seem to resist civilization.
No civilized human being should put up with this sort of evil.
The Brits need to wake up and actually repeal laws that make certain speech criminal
offences that are already on the books (except for incitements to violence and porn).
The need to vote for Labor and keep Corbyn, or vote for BNP, and tell the Zionists that
they are evil to make these demands.
Israel is not a democracy for a much simpler reason than that the author offers.
It denies the vote to the gentile inhabitants of Gaza and the West Bank; that is to say,
to about a quarter of its subjects.
Since the Jewish parties in the Knesset boycott the few Arab representatives that are
there, Israel effectively denies political representation to the gentiles within its
'pre-1967′ boundaries as well -- that is to say, to another sixth or so of its total
subject population.
Obviously, Israel is not a democracy in any sense of the word. 25% of its subjects are
without even theoretical representation, and another 17% lack it in any practical sense. It's
as if the US denied the vote to all inner-city residents except white 'settlers,' refused to
work with Congressmen who weren't Protestants. It would be absurd to regard it as a
democracy.
There are some democracies in the Middle East. Israel isn't one of them.
and Norm Finkelstein brilliantly demolishes the notion that there's any anti-semitism to
speak of in Jeremy Corbyn, the Labour Party, or Britain in general.
Corbyn is shell shocked and cannot comprehend what is required for him to counter this
blatant attempt at his ouster. An individual that could help him tremendously as an advisor
is Miko Peled, an Israeli citizen, living in the U.S. I mention Peled, because he is a
"lefty" just like Corbyn.
Giraldi writes that, "there exists an 'Israel Lobby' in many countries, all dedicated to
advancing the agendas promoted by successive Israeli governments no matter what the actual
interests of the host country might be."
ADL, a branch of the B'nai B'rith global enterprise, confirms they are subversive agents
that work against their host nation. Straight from their mouth
The center of the Axis of Evil is Zionist Israel. No other country, not even the planet's
"sole superpower" wields so much power and control over other "sovereign" nations as does
Zionist Israel. Regime change? Zionist, apartheid Israel has perfected that art and science
-- and without firing a shot. Why do it when others will cheerfully fight your battles for
you? Evil is as evil does. Still obsessed with Russophobia? Distractions aplenty for the
stupefied.
These efforts to criminalize criticism of Israel seem to be the necessary precursors to
major military moves in the Middle East to create 'the greater Israel.'
Probably in coordination with the ongoing efforts to neutralize and destroy all
independent players such as Iran and Russia.
There used to be a "supermarket" chain in Montreal called Steinberg, owned by Steinberg,
"Canadian" Jews. They sold the business to another supermarket label, Métro-Richelieu
or something, owned by a would-be-venture capitalist/economics professor, Michel Gauthier or
something. It was a laughing transaction even in the news. But during the due diligence for
the sale it surfaced that Steinberg had unusual deals with his suppliers, meat, dairy or
whatever. If you wanted to sell your products to Steinberg, Steinberg made you sign an
agreement to buy Israeli bonds. Talk about tied-selling under the Canada Competition Act!
Talk about Stephen Harper financing!
During the C21st the Conservative Party has become reliant on Jewish money. Even more than
her predecessor Cameron, May is a "value free zone", as the commentator Richard North
categorised her. She does whatever the donors want. Not that the Labour Party in power would
be any better. It is just as riddled with Israel-supporting "moderates".
In the near future, the Labour Party will break down into 2 or more groups. The "moderates"
and more radical groups who will be chasing the Muslim vote.
On top of that, a second Scottish Independence Referendum may not be too many years away. I
suspect it will be successful this time.
The dissolution of the British state seems likely over the coming years. The question is how
much damage May and her Conservatives In Name Only will do in the interim.
How ironic that a brave and principled man (Jeremy Corbyn) is being hounded out of office
and defamed from all sides while a dishonest neocon toady like such as John McCain is
lionized by both wings of Washington's duopoly (as well as our MSM) as a 'hero' and a
'maverick'.
Could this really be happening?
Oh it's happening alright.
McCain dutifully pimped for every US war against any Israeli foes since GHW Bush. McCain
expressed no regrets for the destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, the dismemberment
of Palestine, or the destabilization of Syria. McCain never apologized for all the needless
death and suffering caused by spineless servants such as himself. He also openly advocated
for a US war on Iran, just as Israel wanted.
If the Zions didn't control our entire mass media this level of venality would not occur.
But they do and it does.
Indoctrination. Brainwashing. Repetition. Conformity. Taboo. Shame. Blacklisting.
Political corruption.
Do you deny making anti-Semitic remarks? What will your friends and family say?
The falsification of history is an ongoing and daily occurrence.
The manipulation of the masses: it works!
Who are you going to believe?–your own fallible judgement?–or the expert
analysis of our entire political class–including Harvard-educated scholars and
journalists?
C'mon. Get a clue. Think right. Stop talking that way.
It is Israel again up to its old tricks being the real entity that interferes in foreign
elections:
Corbyn is viewed by Israel as effectively the "figurehead of the delegitimisation
network".
"They hope that by taking action against him, they can decapitate what they see as the
most powerful figure in this network," he told Middle East Eye. "By making an example of
him, they can sow division, spread fear and suppress speech on Israel."
Certainly, Israel's fingerprints look to be present in the current claims of an
anti-Semitism crisis supposedly revolving around Corbyn.
Active interference by the Israeli government in British politics was highlighted last
year in a four-part undercover documentary produced by the Qatari channel Al Jazeera. It
secretly filmed the activities of an operative in Israel's embassy in London named Shai
Masot.
The Al Jazeera investigation provoked numerous complaints that it breached broadcasting
rules relating to anti-Semitism, bias, unfair editing and invasions of privacy. However,
Ofcom, the British broadcasting regulator, cleared the programme of all charges.
In fact, I think all of this has more to do with Brexit than with Israel. The Brexiteers
are in total panic. If they put the exit package to a referendum, they'll lose. If they call
an election on it, Corbyn will probably win and he opposes Brexit. Even a parliamentary vote
could be lost inasmuch as the Tories don't have a majority and the Brexiteers are a minority
within the party.
Thus, Corbyn has to be discredited at all costs. Whether accusations of
anti-Semitism will discredit him is quite another matter. In Europe generally, people are
indifferent to Israel. They don't care what happens to it one way or the other.
Nobody who is
likely to vote Labour cares a hoot about Israel and are not going to change their vote
because of the accusations. If anything, people will perceive the campaign against Corbyn as
Jewish bullying and rally to him.
I was surprised to learn that the population of Israel is only 8.8 million. So small!
Contrast that with Iran's 82 million .Egypt's 100 million Iraq's 40 million or Turkey's 82
million. How such a relatively tiny country makes so much noise and disruption for the rest
of the world is something to ponder. If you ever google one of those 'most hated countries in
the world' polls Israel or USA invariably top the list.
Gilad Atzmon, the self-described ex-Israeli and ex-Jew, writes reams about the Jewish
assault on Corbyn. In this
recent piece , he quotes from Douglas Reed's The Controversy of Zion :
The Conservative Party membership numbers are no longer published but they could be as low
as fifty thousand going on revenue from membership fees.
All this smearing has so far had no impact at all, in fact it is leading some to question
what is the agenda here. There is a nice article on the Israeli smear campaign in the Middle
East Eye.
Many believe that the easily observable dominance of the friends of Israel over some
aspects of government policy is a phenomenon unique to the United States, where committed
Jews and Christian Zionists are able to control both politicians and the media message
relating to what is going on in the Middle East.
Thank you for pointing this out.
Although I am no longer much of a Christian myself, I have always bristled every time I
hear some left-wing (usually Jewish) anti-Zionist blame American Christians for Washington's
mid-east policies, while describing the influence of the Jewish lobby as being 'exaggerated'.
The obvious counterargument is: if American Christians have so much power over the federal
government that they can virtually dictate mid-east policy, how come they can't ban abortion
or gay marriage? How come they can't–forgive the metaphor–resurrect prayer in
school?
Indeed, the mere fact that the US now has an entire branch of Christianity
devoted to Rapture-Zionism gives you a clue as to who rules whom in this country. Think about
it, people: we now have 'Christian' churches who are actually willing to put the interests
and well-being of another religion ahead of their own! And their otherwise patriotic
followers are being conned into putting the interests of another country ahead of their own.
Absolutely astounding! In modern America at least, not only have the Christians lost control
of their government; they've even lost control of Christianity!
Moreover, what about all those other western countries, such as Britain, France and
Germany, which really lack anything like American-style Rapture-Christians, yet are still
completely in thrall to Israel? L'affaire Corbyn is, if nothing else, proof that we are not
the only ones being jacked around by the Zionists.
Don't get me wrong: I really wish American Christians would wake the f*ck up and see that
they're being used, being made to look pathetic by the Zionists. But the allegation that
those Christians are actually running the show in the West is completely fatuous. In fact,
it's just a left-wing 'anti-Zionist' gate-keeper story. Don't believe it!
Failure to confront Israel's crimes against humanity combined with an inability to
resist its demands regarding how issues like anti-Semitism and hate speech are defined has
done terrible damage to free speech in Western Europe and, most notably, in the Anglophone
world.
We are all Palestinians now!
I really hope this serves as a wake-up call to all of the pro-Zionist alt-righters out
there. The Zionists can never truly be our friends. After all, once they are able to
ban anti-Zionist talk for being anti-Semitic, how much longer will be it before they are able
to just go ahead and ban all anti-Semitic speech? Then where will you be? You won't
even be allowed to criticize George Soros anymore!
Corbyn is indeed a man of the left who has consistently opposed racism, extreme
nationalism, colonialism and military interventionism.
Well, I'm not a hundred-percent sure about the "nationalism" part. While "extreme" may
well be in the eye of the beholder, it's also true that the IRA and most of the Palestinian
groups do self-describe as 'nationalist', and Corbyn has always been OK with them (as am I).
The only nationalism his seems to have a real problem with is English nationalism.
The traditionally liberal Guardian has in fact been in the forefront of Jewish criticism
of Corbyn, led by its senior editor Jonathan Freedland
They should just go ahead and relaunch The Guardian as The Shomer .
As Norman Finkelstein once observed, Jews "never forgive and never forget." Corbyn ought
to keep that in mind. All his bobbing and weaving will availeth nothing.
Why should there be panic by the Brexiteers ?
Britain's export to the remaining EU is far less than from the remaining EU to GB.
Especially France and Germany have huge exports to GB.
As a Brexiteer already long ago mentioned 'they need us more than we them'.
If Merkel and Macron would survive a hard Brexit, I wonder.
Under estimated is the why of Brexit, they want their country back, as one voter said 'they
even interfere with vacuum cleaners'.
I stopped reading the Guardian full stop 4-5 years ago, back when they launched their
"Russia is evildoer!!" shrill campaign of propaganda–also about the time the Ukraine
civil war got into gear. Never looked back, the Guardian is a steaming pile of
US/NATO/Atlantic Council bullshit. I'll never understand why so many fixate on it, such as
the Off-guardian.org bloggers who've devoted an entire blog for years on end to criticising
Guardian journos, 'comment is free', comment mods, etc. All fine and good, but why?
With so
many other better news sources is there a need? No, there isn't. Just move on. The Guardian
is not a relevant news outlet. I mean, why keep going there to read pro-Israeli/pro-US
government articles which make you angry? Doesn't make any sense.
we keep accepting these arguments like Giraldis' here and functioning intellectually at
this paused rate which is insufficient to the needs of the day and time.
it is immediate the reality in which we live, in all its demands on us and we must respond
at the same speed. the enemy moves at the rate of speed of life and succeeds in slowing us
down with these arguments in the media
Corbyn is bloody well wrong. he has gone out of his way to compromise with the Zionists
and every time they want more. we we knew that, that they would not compromise did we not .we
knew it. we know the game. they know they game. they have the power and they never
compromise..never! they know to give ground is to lose.
and it is in fact to lose..and the same for the people. that is why it is zero sum. the
economic/political game is no place to compromise.
in principle the people have all the power..and we do. where are the leaders who bring the
people into awareness of their total power, set up and lead them into that power in the
process of fixing society?
why must the leader of those who have all the power be at the feet of a minority who is
bleeding the life out of the society?
Corbyn behaves as if he has no power..as if he is not fixing to assume in behalf of the
people the greatest social power there is..the power of the people. so he is apologetic and
compromising of the peoples power, on and in dealing with the peoples issues
the people's power and social interest have been usurped and compromised by a minority
power and their pets in the peoples power structure..and in the media too. that is why we are
dealing with a prevaricator in Giraldi and not a radicalized person who brings us up to
speed..the speed required to fix society
the peoples power has been betrayed by treasonous citizens who have lied to the people and
usurped the peoples power. that is the truth, the immediate truth and requires an immediate
and direct response..no compromise will work. this article here by Giraldi is not an
immediate response but a kind of time-wasting prevarication. Corbyn and his politics are also
prevarication
MoscowBob ( you're never going back to London to live ), the above official Parliamentary
Research Briefing makes alarming reading if you are a Conservative supporter. As of April
2018, Conservative membership is put at 124,000, narrowly ahead of the SNP at 118,000.
Conservative membership collapsed from 1 million in 1990 ( see page 7 ) to less than 500,000
5 years later ( John Major ). Apart from a brief period, it has been declining steadily since
the year 2000, especially from 2009 ( David Cameron).
It is no longer a mass membership political party, it is Conservative In Name Only and at the
beck and call of any (((big donors ))).
This situation cannot continue much longer. Its hold on political power will be ended shortly
unless there is a turnaround, which seems unlikely.
Jonathan Cook has also recently written a very good article on the current Israeli
engineered onslaught against Jeremy Corbyn, making much the same argument as Dr. Giraldi.
Critique of Israeli government interference in internal affair of other states in a form of
pro-Israel lobby, or critique Zionism as an ideology is not equivalent to anti-Semitism.
Neoliberal states like Israel do not represent interests of its citizens, but mostly
transnationals and top 1%. Attempt to link those mean weaponizing anti-Semitism. For example,
while Israel is an ally of the USA some if its action are definitely are against the USA citizens
interests. Although the role of Israel as a collective lobbyist for US MIC should be
acknowledged.
Conversion of Israel into ethnostate is probably a logical development, but the problem here
is that it further alienate Palestinians, which have higher birth rate then Israelites.
Notable quotes:
"... It was also learned that the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs). ..."
"... Corbyn's crime has been that he is critical of the Jewish state and has called for an "end to the repression of the Palestinian people." As a reward, he has been hounded mercilessly by British Jews, even those in his own party, for over two years. ..."
"... Last month, rightwing Labour Parliamentarian Margaret Hodge raised the stakes, calling Corbyn "a fucking anti-Semite and a racist". She then wrote in the Guardian ..."
"... All of the invective has been more-or-less orchestrated by the Israeli government, which directly supports the gaggle of groups that have coalesced to bring down Corbyn. This effort to destroy the Labour leader has included the use of an app disseminating messages via social media accusing Corbyn of anti-Semitism. The app was developed by Israel's strategic affairs ministry , which "directs Israel's covert efforts to sabotage the Palestine solidarity movement around the world". ..."
"... The principal argument being made against Corbyn is that the Labour Party is awash with anti-Semitism and Corbyn has done little or nothing to oppose it. Some of the most brutal shots against Corbyn have come from the usual crowd in the United States. ..."
Many believe that the easily observable dominance of the friends of Israel over some aspects
of government policy is a phenomenon unique to the United States, where committed Jews and
Christian Zionists are able to control both politicians and the media message relating to what
is going on in the Middle East. Unfortunately, the reality is that there exists an "Israel
Lobby" in many countries, all dedicated to advancing the agendas promoted by successive Israeli
governments no matter what the actual interests of the host country might be. Failure to
confront Israel's crimes against humanity combined with an inability to resist its demands
regarding how issues like anti-Semitism and hate speech are defined has done terrible damage to
free speech in Western Europe and, most notably, in the Anglophone world.
For the United States this corruption of the media and the political process by Israel has
meant
endless wars in the Middle East as well of loss of civil liberties at home, but some other
countries have compromised their own declared values far beyond that. Former Canadian Prime
Minister Stephen Harper praised Israel completely inaccurately as a
light that " burns bright, upheld by the universal principles of all civilized nations --
freedom, democracy justice." He has also said "I will defend Israel whatever the
cost" to Canada, an assertion that some might regard as very, very odd for a Canadian head of
state.
In some other cases, Israel plays hardball directly, threatening retribution against
governments that do not fall in line. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
recently warned New Zealand that backing a U.N. resolution condemning Israeli settlements
would be a "declaration of war." He was able to do so because he had confidence in the power of
the Israel Lobby in that country to mobilize and produce the desired result.
It might surprise some that the "Mother of Parliaments" in Great Britain is perhaps the
legislative body most dominated by Israeli interests, more in many respects than the Congress
in the United States. The ruling Conservative Party has a Friends of Israel caucus that
includes more than 80% of its Parliamentary membership. BICOM , the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre,
is an American Israel Political Action Committee
(AIPAC) clone located in London. It is well funded and politically powerful, working
through its various "Friends of Israel" proxies. Americans might be surprised to learn how that
power is manifest, including that in Britain Jewish organizations uniquely are
allowed to patrol heavily Jewish London neighborhoods in police-like uniforms while driving
police-type vehicles. There have been reports of the patrols threatening Muslims who seek to
enter the areas.
Prime Minister Theresa May is careful never to offend either Israel or the wealthy and
powerful British Jewish community. After Secretary of State John Kerry described Israel's
government as "extreme right wing" on December 28, 2016, May sprang to Tel Aviv's defense,
saying "we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the
democratically elected government of an ally." May's rejoinder could have been written by
Netanyahu, and maybe it was. Two weeks later, her government cited
"reservations" over a French government sponsored mid-January Middle East peace conference
and would not sign a joint statement calling for a negotiated two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict after Netanyahu vociferously condemned the proceedings.
This deference all takes place in spite of a recent astonishing expose by al-Jazeera, which
revealed how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to "take down"
parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish
State. It was also learned that the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising
private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament
(MPs).
British Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn has been under unrelenting fire due to the fact that he
is the first major political party leader in many years to resist the demands that he place
Israel on a pedestal. Corbyn is indeed a man of the left who has consistently opposed racism,
extreme nationalism, colonialism and military interventionism. Corbyn's crime has been that
he is critical of the Jewish state and has called for an "end to the repression of the
Palestinian people." As a reward, he has been hounded mercilessly by British Jews, even those
in his own party, for over two years.
The invective being spewed by some British Jews and Israel has increased of late, presumably
because Theresa May's Conservative government is perceived as being weak and there is a
distinct possibility that the leader of the Labour Party will be the next Prime Minister. That
a Prime Minister might be sympathetic to the plight of the Palestinians is viewed as completely
unacceptable.
Last month, rightwing Labour Parliamentarian Margaret Hodge raised the stakes, calling
Corbyn "a fucking anti-Semite and a racist". She then wrote in the Guardian that
Labour is "a hostile environment for Jews." The traditionally liberal Guardian has in
fact been in the forefront of Jewish criticism of Corbyn, led by its senior editor Jonathan
Freedland, who reportedly believes
that "his Jewish identity is intimately tied to Israel, and that to attack Israel is to attack
him personally he is demanding the exclusive right to police the parameters of discussions
about Israel." Last month he featured in his paper a
letter attacking Corbyn signed by 68 rabbis.
All of the invective has been more-or-less orchestrated by the Israeli government, which
directly supports the gaggle of groups that have coalesced to bring down Corbyn. This effort to
destroy the Labour leader has included the use of an app disseminating messages via social
media accusing Corbyn of anti-Semitism. The app was developed by Israel's strategic affairs
ministry , which "directs Israel's covert efforts to sabotage the Palestine solidarity
movement around the world".
There are two principal objectives to the "get Corbyn" campaign. The first is to remove him
from the Labour Party leadership position, thereby ensuring that he will never be elected Prime
Minister, while also eliminating from the party any and all members who are perceived as being
"too critical" of Israel. In practice that has meant anyone who criticizes Israel at all. And
second it is to establish as a legal principle that the "hate crime" offense of anti-Semitism
specifically be defined to include criticism of Israel, thereby making it a criminal offense to
write or speak about Israel's racist behavior towards its Muslim and Christian minority while
also making it impossible to freely discuss its war crimes.
The principal argument being made against Corbyn is that the Labour Party is awash with
anti-Semitism and Corbyn has done little or nothing to oppose it. Some of the most brutal shots
against Corbyn have come from the usual crowd in the United States. Andrew Sullivan
recently
observed in New York Magazine that "When it emerged, that Naz Shah, a new Labour
MP, had opined on Facebook before she was elected that Israel should be relocated to the U.S.,
and former London mayor Ken Livingstone backed her up by arguing that the Nazis initially
favored Zionism, Corbyn didn't make a big fuss." Sullivan then went on to write that "It then
emerged that Corbyn himself had subscribed to various pro-Palestinian Facebook groups where
rank anti-Semitism flourished" and had even " attended a meeting on Holocaust Memorial Day in
2010, called 'Never Again for Anyone: Auschwitz to Gaza,' equating Israelis with Nazis."
In other words, Corbyn should have been responsible for policing the personal views of
Shah and Livingstone ,
both of whom were subsequently suspended from the Labour Party with Livingstone eventually
resigning. He should have also avoided Palestinian Facebook commentary because alleged
anti-Semites occasionally contribute their views and ought not to acknowledge in any fashion
the Israel war crimes being committed on a daily basis in Gaza.
So Corbyn must go based on the "fact" that he has to be a closet anti-Semite as discerned by
the likes of Andrew Sullivan on this side of the Atlantic and a host of Israel-firsters in
Britain. But the Labour leader's worst crime that is being regarded as an "
existential threat " to Jewish people everywhere is his resistance to the pressure being
exerted on him to endorse and adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's (IHRA)
precise multi-faceted definition of what constitutes anti-Semitism. The IHRA basic definition
of anti-Semitism is reasonable enough, including "a certain perception of Jews, which may be
expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are
directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community
institutions and religious facilities."
The Labour Party and Corbyn have accepted that definition but have balked at eleven
"contemporary examples of anti-Semitism" also provided by IHRA, four of which have nothing to
do with Jews and everything to do with Israel. They are:
Accusing Jewish citizens of being
more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of
their own nations. Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g.
One might observe that many Jews
And yes, Israel is a "racist endeavor." Just check out the recent nationality
law passed by the Knesset declaring Israel to be a Jewish State. It grants
self-determination only to those living within its borders who are Jews. And if using racial
distinctions for full citizenship while also bombing hospitals and schools while lining up
snipers to shoot thousands of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators is not Nazi-like behavior, then
what is? Israel and its leader are sometimes compared to Nazis and to Adolf Hitler because they
behave like Nazis and Adolf Hitler.
And finally there is the definition that challenges any "double standard" in demanding
behavior from Israel that is not expected from any other democratic nation. Well, first of all
Israel is not a democracy. It is a theocracy or ethnocracy if you prefer wrapped around a
police state. Other countries that call themselves democracies have equal rights under law for
all citizens. Other democracies do not have hundreds of thousands of settlers stealing land and
even water resources from the indigenous population and colonizing it to the benefit of only
one segment of its population. Other democracies do not regularly shoot dead unarmed
protesters. How many democracies are currently practicing ethnic cleansing, as the Israeli Jews
are doing to the Palestinians?
Will Corbyn give in to the IHRA demands to save his skin as party leader? One has to suspect
that he will as he is already regularly conceding points and apologizing, publicly delivering
the required obeisance to the holocaust as "the worst crime of the twentieth century." And
every time he tries to appease those out to get him he emerges weaker. Even if he submits
completely, the Israel firsters who are hot to get him, having just like in American
significant control over the media, will continue to attack until they find the precise issue
that will bring him down. The Labour National Executive Council will meet in September to vote
on full acceptance of the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. When they, as is likely, kneel
before force majeure that will be the end of free speech in Britain. Criticize Israel and you
go to jail.
And the same thing is happening in the United States in precisely the same fashion.
Criticism of Israel or protesting against it will sooner rather than later be criminalized. I
sometimes wonder if Senator Ben Cardin and the others who are promoting the hate legislation
really understand what will be lost when they sacrifice the U.S. Constitution to defend Israel.
Once free speech is gone, it will never return.
"... I am not here speaking about the elites who dominate our societies. They have their own agenda. They trade only in the language of money and power. I am speaking of us: the 99 per cent who live in their shadow. ..."
"... While this camp concedes that the media is owned by a handful of corporations driven by a concern for profit, it is nonetheless confident that the free market -- the need to sell papers and audiences -- guarantees that important news and a full spectrum of legitimate opinion are available to readers. ..."
"... This camp believes too that western democracies are better, more civilised political systems than those in other parts of the world. Western societies do not want wars, they want peace and security for everyone. For that reason, they have been thrust -- rather uncomfortably -- into the role of global policeman. Western states have found themselves with little choice of late but to wage "good wars" to curb the genocidal instincts and hunger for power of dictators and madmen. ..."
"... The current obsession with Russian conspiracies is in large part the result of the extraordinarily rapid rise of a second camp, no doubt fuelled by the unprecedented access western publics have gained through social media to information, good and bad alike. At no time in human history have so many people been able to step outside of a state-, clerical- or corporate-sanctioned framework of information dissemination and speak too each other directly and on a global stage. ..."
"... This new camp too is not easy to characterise in the old language of left-right politics. Its chief characteristic is that it distrusts not only those who dominate our societies, but the social structures they operate within. ..."
"... This camp regards such structures as neither immutable, divinely ordained ways for ordering and organising society, nor as the rational outcome of the political and moral evolution of western societies. Rather, it views these structures as the product of engineering by a tiny elite to hold on to its power. ..."
"... For this camp, politicians are not the cream of society. They have risen to the surface of a corrupted and corrupting system, and the overwhelming majority did so by enthusiastically adopting its rotten values. These politicians do not chiefly serve voters but the corporations who really dominate our societies. ..."
"... Likewise, the media -- supposed watchdogs on power -- are seen by this camp as the chief propagandists for the ruling elite. The media do not monitor the abuse of power, they actively create a social consensus for the continuation of the abuse -- and if that fails, they seek to deflect attention from, or veil, the abuse. ..."
"... This is inevitable, the second camp argues, given that the media are embedded within the very same corporate structures that dominate our societies. They are, in fact, the corporations' public relations arm. They allow only limited dissent at the margins of the media, and only as a way to create the impression of an illusory pluralism. ..."
"... These "enemies" are a real foe in the sense that, in their different ways, they refuse to submit to the neoliberalising reach of the western-based corporations. But more significantly, they are needed as an enemy, even should they want to make peace. These manufactured enemies, says the second camp, justify the redirection of public money into the private coffers of the military and homeland security industries. And equally importantly, a ready set of bogeymen can be exploited to distract western publics from troubles at home. ..."
"... The second camp is accused by the first of being anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel (or more mischievously anti-semitic) for its opposition to western "humanitarian interventions" abroad. The second camp, it says, act as apologists for war criminals like Russia's Vladimir Putin or Syria's Bashar Assad, portraying these leaders as misunderstood good guys and blaming the west for the world's ills. ..."
"... Putin has power, but it is immeasurably less than the combined might of the profit-seeking, war-waging western military industries. Faced with this power equation, according to the second camp, Putin acts defensively or reactively on the global stage, using what limited strength Russia has to uphold its essential strategic interests. One cannot reasonably judge Russia's crimes without first admitting the west's greater crimes, our crimes. ..."
"... While the whole US political class obsess over "Russian interference" in US elections, this camp notes, the American public is encouraged to ignore the much greater US interference not only in Russian elections, but in many other spheres Russia considers to be vital strategic interests. That includes the locating of US military bases and missile sites on Russia's borders. ..."
"... The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt -- social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians, media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news. ..."
"... The two most significant disrupters of the first camp's narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme, there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we are nearing that point. ..."
"... Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms. ..."
"... We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who decides how it will be rebuilt ..."
"... They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we -- the 99 per cent -- have begun waking each other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances, but learning ..."
"... Corbyn's significance -- and danger -- is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream. He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent. ..."
"... That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing up a bridge to stop an advancing army. ..."
"... The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon -- short of sex-crime smears and assassination -- they have in their armoury. ..."
"... The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in which all of us -- the 99 per cent -- are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism. ..."
The latest "scandal" gripping Britain -- or to be more accurate, British elites -- is over the use of the term "Zionist" by the
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the opposition and possibly the country's next prime minister.
Yet again, Corbyn has found himself ensnared in what a small group of Jewish leadership organisations, which claim improbably
to represent Britain's "Jewish community", and a small group of corporate journalists, who improbably claim to represent British
public opinion, like to call Labour's "anti-semitism problem".
I won't get into the patently ridiculous notion that "Zionist" is a code word for "Jew", at least not now. There are lots of existing
articles explaining why that is nonsense.
I wish to deal with a different aspect of the long-running row over Labour's so-called "anti-semitism crisis". It exemplifies,
I believe, a much more profound and wider crisis in our societies: over the issue of trust.
We now have two large camps, pitted against each other, who have starkly different conceptions of what their societies are and
where they need to head. In a very real sense, these two camps no longer speak the same language. There has been a rupture, and they
can find no common ground.
I am not here speaking about the elites who dominate our societies. They have their own agenda. They trade only in the language
of money and power. I am speaking of us: the 99 per cent who live in their shadow.
First, let us outline the growing ideological and linguistic chasm opening up between these two camps: a mapping of the divisions
that, given space constraints, will necessarily deal in generalisations.
The trusting camp
The first camp invests its trust, with minor reservations, in those who run our societies. The left and the right segments of
this camp are divided primarily over the degree to which they believe that those at the bottom of society's pile need a helping hand
to get them further up the social ladder.
Otherwise, the first camp is united in its assumptions.
They admit that among our elected politicians there is the odd bad apple. And, of course, they understand that there are necessary
debates about political and social values. But they agree that politicians rise chiefly through ability and talent, that they are
accountable to their political constituencies, and that they are people who want what is best for society as a whole.
While this camp concedes that the media is owned by a handful of corporations driven by a concern for profit, it is nonetheless
confident that the free market -- the need to sell papers and audiences -- guarantees that important news and a full spectrum of
legitimate opinion are available to readers.
Both politicians and the media serve -- if not always entirely successfully -- as a constraint on corruption and the abuse of
power by other powerful actors, such as the business community.
This camp believes too that western democracies are better, more civilised political systems than those in other parts of
the world. Western societies do not want wars, they want peace and security for everyone. For that reason, they have been thrust
-- rather uncomfortably -- into the role of global policeman. Western states have found themselves with little choice of late but
to wage "good wars" to curb the genocidal instincts and hunger for power of dictators and madmen.
Russian conspiracies
Once upon a time -- when this camp's worldview was rarely, if ever, challenged -- its favoured response to anything difficult
to reconcile with its core beliefs, from the 2003 invasion of Iraq to the 2008 financial crash, was: "Cock-up, not conspiracy!".
Now that there are ever more issues threatening to undermine its most cherished verities, the camp's response is -- paradoxically
-- "Putin did it!" or "Fake news!".
The current obsession with Russian conspiracies is in large part the result of the extraordinarily rapid rise of a second
camp, no doubt fuelled by the unprecedented access western publics have gained through social media to information, good and bad
alike. At no time in human history have so many people been able to step outside of a state-, clerical- or corporate-sanctioned framework
of information dissemination and speak too each other directly and on a global stage.
This new camp too is not easy to characterise in the old language of left-right politics. Its chief characteristic is that
it distrusts not only those who dominate our societies, but the social structures they operate within.
This camp regards such structures as neither immutable, divinely ordained ways for ordering and organising society, nor as
the rational outcome of the political and moral evolution of western societies. Rather, it views these structures as the product
of engineering by a tiny elite to hold on to its power.
These structures are no longer primarily national, but global. They are not immutable but as fabricated, as man-made and replaceable,
as the structures that once made incontestable the rule of a landed aristocracy over feudal serfs. The current aristocracy, this
camp argues, are globalised corporations that are so unaccountable that even the biggest nation-states can no longer contain or constrain
them.
Illusions of pluralism
For this camp, politicians are not the cream of society. They have risen to the surface of a corrupted and corrupting system,
and the overwhelming majority did so by enthusiastically adopting its rotten values. These politicians do not chiefly serve voters
but the corporations who really dominate our societies.
For the second camp, this fact was well illustrated in 2008 when the political class did not -- and could not -- punish the banks
responsible for the near-collapse of western economies after decades of reckless speculation on which a financial elite had grown
fat. Those banks, in the words of the politicians themselves, were "too big to fail" and so were bailed out with money from the very
same publics who had been scammed by the banks in the first place. Rather than use the bank failures as an opportunity to drive through
reform of the broken banking system, or nationalise parts of it, the politicians let the banking casino system continue, even intensify.
Likewise, the media -- supposed watchdogs on power -- are seen by this camp as the chief propagandists for the ruling elite.
The media do not monitor the abuse of power, they actively create a social consensus for the continuation of the abuse -- and if
that fails, they seek to deflect attention from, or veil, the abuse.
This is inevitable, the second camp argues, given that the media are embedded within the very same corporate structures that
dominate our societies. They are, in fact, the corporations' public relations arm. They allow only limited dissent at the margins
of the media, and only as a way to create the impression of an illusory pluralism.
Manufactured enemies
These domestic structures are subservient to a still-bigger agenda: the accumulation of wealth by a global elite through the asset-stripping
of the planet's resources and the rationalisation of permanent war. That, this camp concludes, requires the manufacturing of "enemies"
-- such as Russia, Iran, Syria, Venezuela and North Korea -- to justify the expansion of a military-industrial machine.
These "enemies" are a real foe in the sense that, in their different ways, they refuse to submit to the neoliberalising reach
of the western-based corporations. But more significantly, they are needed as an enemy, even should they want to make peace. These
manufactured enemies, says the second camp, justify the redirection of public money into the private coffers of the military and
homeland security industries. And equally importantly, a ready set of bogeymen can be exploited to distract western publics from
troubles at home.
The second camp is accused by the first of being anti-western, anti-American and anti-Israel (or more mischievously anti-semitic)
for its opposition to western "humanitarian interventions" abroad. The second camp, it says, act as apologists for war criminals
like Russia's Vladimir Putin or Syria's Bashar Assad, portraying these leaders as misunderstood good guys and blaming the west for
the world's ills.
The second camp argues that it is none of these things: it is anti-imperialist. It does not excuse the crimes of Putin or Assad,
it treats them as secondary and largely reactive to the vastly greater power a western elite with global reach can project. It believes
the western media's obsession with crafting narratives about evil enemies -- bad men and madmen -- is designed to deflect attention
from the structures of far greater violence the west deploys around the world, through a web of US military bases and Nato.
Putin has power, but it is immeasurably less than the combined might of the profit-seeking, war-waging western military industries.
Faced with this power equation, according to the second camp, Putin acts defensively or reactively on the global stage, using what
limited strength Russia has to uphold its essential strategic interests. One cannot reasonably judge Russia's crimes without first
admitting the west's greater crimes, our crimes.
While the whole US political class obsess over "Russian interference" in US elections, this camp notes, the American public
is encouraged to ignore the much greater US interference not only in Russian elections, but in many other spheres Russia considers
to be vital strategic interests. That includes the locating of US military bases and missile sites on Russia's borders.
Different languages
Two camps, two entirely different languages and narratives.
These camps may be divided, but it would seriously misguided to imagine they are equal.
One has the full power and weight of those corporate structures behind it. The politicians speak its language, as do the media.
Its ideas and its voice dominate everywhere that is considered official, objective, balanced, neutral, respectable, legitimate.
The other camp has one small space to make its presence felt -- social media. That is a space rapidly shrinking, as the politicians,
media and the corporations that own social media (as they do everything else) start to realise they have let the genie out of the
bottle. This camp is derided as conspiratorial, dangerous, fake news.
This is the current battlefield. It is a battle the first camp looks like it is winning but actually has already lost. That is
not necessarily because the second camp is winning the argument. It is because physical realities are catching up with the first
camp, smashing its illusions, even as it clings to them like a life-raft.
The two most significant disrupters of the first camp's narrative are climate breakdown and economic meltdown. The planet
has finite resources, which means endless growth and wealth accumulation cannot be sustained indefinitely. Much as in a Ponzi scheme,
there comes a point when the hollow centre is exposed and the system comes crashing down. We have had intimations enough that we
are nearing that point.
It hardly needs repeating, except to climate deniers, that we have had even more indications that the Earth's climate is already
turning against humankind.
Out of the darkness
Our political language is rupturing because we are now completely divided. There is no middle ground, no social compact, no
consensus. The second camp understands that the current system is broken and that we need radical change, while the first camp holds
desperately to the hope that the system will continue to be workable with modifications and minor reforms.
It is on to this battlefield that Corbyn has stumbled, little prepared for the heavy historic burden he shoulders.
We are arriving at a moment called a paradigm shift. That is when the cracks in a system become so obvious they can no longer
be credibly denied. Those vested in the old system scream and shout, they buy themselves a little time with increasingly repressive
measures, but the house is moments away from falling. The critical questions are who gets hurt when the structure tumbles, and who
decides how it will be rebuilt .
The new paradigm is coming anyway. If we don't choose it ourselves, the planet will for us. It could be an improvement, it could
be a deterioration, it could be extinction, depending on how prepared we are for it and how violently those invested in the old system
resist the loss of their power. If enough of us understand the need for discarding the broken system, the greater the hope that we
can build something better from the ruins.
We are now at the point where the corporate elite can see the cracks are widening but they remain in denial. They are entering
the tantrum phase, screaming and shouting at their enemies, and readying to implement ever-more repressive measures to maintain their
power.
They have rightly identified social media as the key concern. This is where we -- the 99 per cent -- have begun waking each
other up. This is where we are sharing and learning, emerging out of the darkness clumsily and shaken. We are making mistakes, but
learning. We are heading up blind alleys, but learning. We are making poor choices, but learning. We are making unhelpful alliances,
but learning .
No one, least of all the corporate elite, knows precisely where this process might lead, what capacities we have for political,
social and spiritual growth.
And what the elite don't own or control, they fear.
Putting the genie back
The elite have two weapons they can use to try to force the second camp back into the bottle. They can vilify it, driving it back
into the margins of public life, where it was until the advent of social media; or they can lock down the new channels of mass communication
their insatiable drive to monetise everything briefly opened up.
Both strategies have risks, which is why they are being pursued tentatively for the time being. But the second option is by far
the riskier of the two. Shutting down social media too obviously could generate blowback, awakening more of the first camp to the
illusions the second camp have been trying to alert them to.
Corbyn's significance -- and danger -- is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the mainstream.
He offers a fast-track for the second camp to reach the first camp, and accelerate the awakening process. That, in turn, would improve
the chances of the paradigm shift being organic and transitional rather than disruptive and violent.
That is why he has become a lightning rod for the wider machinations of the ruling elite. They want him destroyed, like blowing
up a bridge to stop an advancing army.
It is a sign both of their desperation and their weakness that they have had to resort to the nuclear option, smearing him as
an anti-semite. Other, lesser smears were tried first: that he was not presidential enough to lead Britain; that he was anti-establishment;
that he was unpatriotic; that he might be a traitor. None worked. If anything, they made him more popular.
And so a much more incendiary charge was primed, however at odds it was with Corbyn's decades spent as an anti-racism activist.
The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really believe
that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon -- short of sex-crime smears and assassination
-- they have in their armoury.
The truth is the ruling elite are exploiting British Jews and fuelling their fears as part of a much larger power game in
which all of us -- the 99 per cent -- are expendable. They will keep stoking this campaign to stigmatise Corbyn, even if a political
backlash actually does lead to an increase in real, rather than phoney, anti-semitism.
The corporate elites have no plan to go quietly. Unless we can build our ranks quickly and make our case confidently, their antics
will ensure the paradigm shift is violent rather than healing. An earthquake, not a storm.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations:
Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press) and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in Human Despair"
(Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net .
"The corporate elite weaponised anti-semitism not because they care about the safety of Jews, or because they really
believe that Corbyn is an anti-semite. They chose it because it is the most destructive weapon – short of sex-crime smears
and assassination – they have in their armoury."
I must admit I assumed it was because he's less than 100% behind Israel and thinks, not unreasonably, that the Palestinians
have had a pretty rough deal over the last 60 years. He raises the frightening (to some) prospect of a UK government that is more
neutral on the issues, and doesn't think we can bomb peace into the Middle East.
Occam's Razor would seem to suggest that's the answer.
"Corbyn's significance – and danger – is that he brings much of the language and concerns of the second camp into the
mainstream. "
You're right about the electorate being divided – but I'd suggest young Corbyn voters are just as blinkered as any Daily Mail
reader. My kids all voted for him because they thought he'd cancel their student debt.
Maybe Corbyn activists are better informed, but I very much doubt it.
Corbyn has to resist the temptation to give way to them. He is right on the Palestinian issue, and, since the Palestinians
are 100 % semites (though "anti-semitism" has been appropriated to mean anti-Jewish most Jewish emigrants from Europe have considerable
non-semitic blood mixed in) the real anti-semites here appear to be the Israeli element bent on eliminating the Palestinians.
The Gaza strip is a ghetto operated in a similar manner to how the Nazis operated the ghettoes in occupied Poland (though without
the Auschwitz end game up to now). The thing is, if Corbyn stands up to this, in my view, his supporters will fully back him up.
In my view, the Israelis are risking real anti-Israeli blowback which could resurrect evils buried with the collapse of the Nazi
regime. Indeed, the way they are acting on this and other related issues, threatening those who criticise them in any fashion
seems to be providing ex post facto justifications of the most absurd propaganda the Nazis put forward during that era.
The real question is why it is that even the slightest hint of a politician not being totally onboard with >1% of the population
results in a years long campaign to destroy him by most of the media, but mentioning the open desire of all three parties to discriminate
against and replace the native population of Britain makes you a pariah.
You said it. It's because Corbyn is not totally on board with the less than 1% that he is seen as a threat. Total control of
everyone and everything is their aim.
There is certainly an MSM/Blairite full court press to push the anti-Semitism story, that is mostly being fronted by goyim
who are kissing up – Jess Phillips, Maajid Nawaz, Dan Hodges (Glenda Jackson's son) etc. But it is getting no traction with the
public at large. If they force another leadership contest Corbyn will win easily.
These people live in a North London Anglo-American bubble, and they are now realizing that there is no large Evangelocon constituency
in Britain.
No Bubbas waiting to be raptured = Nobody much cares about Israel
"... Empire – the old far left and the new far right are against the USA having an Empire and against perpetual war. ..."
"... Economy – the old far left and the new far right think free trade and Wall Street are killing middle class jobs and the ladders of success. ..."
"... Race/Sex/Gender – the old far right KKK vlugar bigoted view is pretty much dead in America. The new far right is trying to work through real facts on group differences and what is reasonable to do about it. Everyone else is CCCrazy. ..."
I think we are all struggling to come up with a new vocabulary to rationally describe the
new forces at work in our society. I would welcome suggestions because I've got nuthin
here.
I agree. I used to be liberal, then became far left, and I am now far right. And I never
changed my views! The politics around me changed.
Here are some forces at work:
1. Empire – the old far left and the new far right are against the USA having an
Empire and against perpetual war. Read Pat Buchanan and Mike Whitney on Middle East wars
and Russia and they sound a lot alike. Everyone else in America supports the Empire, either
actively or passively.
2. Economy – the old far left and the new far right think free trade and Wall
Street are killing middle class jobs and the ladders of success. It's the old Democrat pro
union view and the old Republican main street vs. wall street view. If you like socialism, you
gotta hate Wall Street. If you like free markets, you gotta hate Wall Street. Everyone else in
America supports Wall Stree rule over the Fed and economic policy, either actively or
passively.
3. Race/Sex/Gender – the old far right KKK vlugar bigoted view is pretty much dead
in America. The new far right is trying to work through real facts on group differences and
what is reasonable to do about it. Everyone else is CCCrazy.
A name embraced by white nationalists and/or white supremacists to refer to themselves and
their ideology, which emphasizes preserving and protecting the white race through populist
endeavors, which includes the return of patriarchy, the revocation of the 1965 Immigration
Act, an emphasis on race realism and/or the reinstitution of Western Christian
civilization.
"Who speaks for it?"
John Derbyshire. Steve Sailer. Vox Day. Richard Spencer. Mike Cernovich. For starters.
There are antisemitic rants in many places on the web, almost all of which are ignored.
But make an objective criticism of the Zionist enterprise now a days and its apologists resort immediately to unrestrained
howls and accusations of antisemitism.
One ought, therefor, to understand this rhetorical device for the simple ad hominem attack that it is.
"... I never meet Jew haters in my personal life but there sure are a lot on this site. How does less than 2% of the US population utterly dominate the nation? Is each Jew 50 times stronger than every gentile. ..."
"... They tend to be urban dwellers where salaries are higher but standards of living are often lower. Those in my neighborhood are very well assimilated. They put elaborate Christmas lights on their houses. It is not a rich neighborhood. ..."
"... Their earlier history was wretched and included slavery and persecutions for thousands of years. Don't waste much time fearing Jews ..."
I never meet Jew haters in my personal life but there sure are a lot on this site. How does less than 2% of the US population
utterly dominate the nation? Is each Jew 50 times stronger than every gentile.
I meet many Jews but can't recall a single
super Jew. Maybe they are clever deceivers? The great majority are middle earners. There are some rich and some poor. Jews dominate
Hollywood and certain occupations but they are underrepresented as engineers and architects. So what.
They tend to be urban dwellers where salaries are higher but standards of living are often lower. Those in my neighborhood
are very well assimilated. They put elaborate Christmas lights on their houses. It is not a rich neighborhood.
Jewish history does not support the idea of a super race. They only entered middle classes in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries, and only in the western world. Before that they were not allowed to attend universities or even own land in many cases.
Their earlier history was wretched and included slavery and persecutions for thousands of years. Don't waste much time
fearing Jews.
The Labour is in the midst of an "antisemitism crisis" orchestrated by the media, pro-Zionist Jewish groups, and the party's Blairite
faction bent on ousting Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader.
The UK's media is overwhelmingly rightwing and pro-Israel. Even the BBC, terrified of being donated to Rupert Murdoch in a Tory
privatization, is pro-Tory and pro-Israel in its news reporting, all its professions of "objectivity" notwithstanding.
Corbyn has been their constant target since he became the party's leader, and the "antisemitism" smear is the latest installment
in this rightwing effort to discredit him.
Even the supposedly liberal Guardian newspaper, whose editorial line on Israel is led by the staunch Zionist Jonathan
Freedland, is resolutely anti-Corbyn.
No leader of a major political party has been as resolute as Corbyn in defending Palestinian rights. The
Observer newspaper put this succinctly: "As a long-term and ardent critic of Israel's policies and staunch supporter of
Palestinian causes, he has always been distrusted by the Jewish community".
Pro-Zionist Jewish groups fear that under his leadership Britain will become much more like Ireland (which recently banned the
import of products made in the illegal Israeli settlements) in its disposition towards Israel.
A clue to the motivation of these pro-Zionist UK Jewish groups was provided by the recent public protest in London against Labour's
"antisemitism"– many protesters carried the Israeli flag and "Israel we stand behind you" signs, thereby making it clear that their
concern for Zionist Israel was highly instrumental, and perhaps primarily so, in their presence at this rally against Labour's "antisemitism".
Several Blairite Labour MPs were present at this demonstration.
The Blairite faction in Labour has already made one attempt to overthrow Corbyn when it made him submit to an unprecedented reelection
shortly after he became party leader.
Corbyn went on to win this challenge with a percentage exceeding Blair's when the latter was elected Labour leader.
Labour's Blairite bloc know that Corbyn has to lose the next general election if they are to survive as a force within the party.
If Labour (under Corbyn) wins this election, they will have little choice but to take the option already being talked about by some
of these Blairites, that is, splitting from Labour and forming a new "centrist" party.
Their eminence grise, Tony Blair himself, has already talked about creating this "centrist" party.
So, paradoxically, Labour's Blairites would rather have the Conservatives win the next general election as their ticket to survival
within their own party!
Predictably, one of these Blairites, Labour's deputy leader Tom Watson, jumped on the "crisis" bandwagon by
saying
that Labour faces "eternal shame" over antisemitism.
Of course, there are pockets of antisemitism in Labour, as is the case in nearly every non-Jewish British walk of life, including
the Tories (though dressing up in Nazi uniform and chanting "Sieg Heil!" at parties, as opposed to upholding Palestinian rights,
is their forte).
A few days ago, it was revealed that the senior Tory politicians Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, and Jacob Rees-Mogg had recently
met in secret with Steve Bannon, who runs Breitbart News , a haven for antisemitic views. The British media, and the Blairite
Labour MPs hounding Corbyn, have said nary a word about these meetings. Nor have the vociferous UK Jewish organizations.
The notion that there is significant antisemitism in Labour, let alone one amounting to a "crisis", is a red herring.
The most recent purported manifestation of this crisis pivots on the decision of Labour's National Executive Committee (NEC) to
adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Association's "non-legally binding working definition" of antisemitism, but not the
"illustrations" which accompany it. The definition states:
"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations
of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions
and religious facilities."
The "illustrations" which accompany this definition include some which are uncontroversial for any fair-minded and relatively
rational person, and others which are highly problematic for such a person.
The uncontroversial "illustrations" of antisemitism:
+ advocating the killing or harming of Jews for ideological or religious reasons;
+ making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such;
+ holding Jews as a people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group;
+ Holocaust denial;
+ using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism (e.g., claims of Jews killing Jesus or blood libel) to
characterize Israel or Israelis;
+ holding Jews collectively responsible for actions of the state of Israel;
+ accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust.
The controversial "illustrations" of antisemitism (and non-coincidently they all have a bearing on the Palestinian cause):
+ accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their own nations;
+ claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour;
+ applying double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation;
+ drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
A close examination of this latter set of "illustrations" shows that Labour is absolutely right to resist the immense pressure
from Zionists and their supporters to accept these latter "illustrations" as part of the definition of antisemitism.
There are examples of Jewish US citizens being more loyal to Israel than to the interests of their country.
The casino mogul Sheldon Adelson donated $25 million to Trump's 2016 campaign ($82 million in total to Republicans in 2016), and
$5 million towards his inauguration. Earlier this year Adelson donated $70 million to Birthright, the organization that brings young
Jews to Israel for nothing (he's donated $100m in total to Birthright). He also donated $30 million to Republicans after Trump withdrew
from the nuclear agreement with Iran. Adelson spent $150m in the 2012 election in a futile attempt to unseat the "anti-Israel" Barack
Obama.
Adelson's aim in all of this is to swing Trump behind his friend Netanyahu's "Greater Israel" political agenda. To this end Adelson
pushed hard for the US's withdrawal from the Iran deal, appointing the arch-Zionist John Bolton as a Trump adviser, recognizing Jerusalem
as Israel's capital (in contravention of international law), and moving the US embassy to Jerusalem. Adelson has succeeded in all
of these objectives.
Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and "envoy" for a "peace" deal in the Middle East, has made it clear that any such deal will
have to be compatible with Likud's "Greater Israel" political agenda.
According to The New York
Times , Kushner's family real estate company "received a roughly $30 million investment from Menora Mivtachim, an insurer
that is one of Israel's largest financial institutions".
The same NYT article also reported that "the Kushners had teamed up with at least one member of Israel's wealthy Steinmetz
family to buy nearly $200 million of Manhattan apartment buildings, as well as to build a luxury rental tower in New Jersey".
More from the same article: "Mr. Kushner's company has also taken out at least four loans from Israel's largest bank, Bank Hapoalim,
which is the subject of a Justice Department investigation over allegations that it helped wealthy Americans evade taxes".
Kushner's family foundation also donates to an illegal settlement in the West Bank.
Meanwhile , US military aid to Israel amounts to $3.8 billion annually, or $23,000 per year for every Jewish family living in
Israel for the next 10 years.
At the same time, 40 million Americans live in poverty, seniors and veterans are sleeping rough, and teachers have to buy school
supplies, and in some cases food, for their students.
Given these two examples of prominent Jewish individuals with loyalties divided between the US and Israel, with Israel acquiring
much and the US gaining so little from their actions, it is arguable whether it is "antisemitic" to broadcast the information detailed
above.
Claiming that the existence of the state of Israel is a racist endeavour is likewise hardly antisemitic. The recently passed Israeli
Nationality Law confirms why.
According to the law, Israel's full name is "Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people". The law stipulates that Eretz Israel
(historical Palestine) is the homeland of the Jewish people, while the state of Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people.
As such, only Jews have the right to self-determination in Israel. Hebrew is the only official language, with Arabic no longer
considered an official language.
The nationality law enjoins that future Jewish settlement in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories is a supreme national
objective (in contravention of international law).
The law also grants Jewish communities the right to a segregated territory in the state(in practice legalizing exclusive villages
and towns for Jews).
The nationality law effectively deprives Arabs of any official semblance of their national identity, and confirms Israel's status
as an apartheid, i.e. racist, state. Saying this is certainly anti-Zionist, but only a dogmatist would insist that it is ipso facto
"antisemitic".
The IHRA "illustration" maintaining that it is antisemitic to apply double standards by requiring of Israel conduct not expected
or demanded of any other democratic nation is likewise extremely awkward in formulation and also in practice.
The 2017 Democracy Index used 4 categories
to assess countries– full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime.
The following countries were ranked by the Index as full democracies: Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany,
Iceland, Ireland, Luxembourg, Malta, Mauritius, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and
Uruguay.
Israel was listed as a flawed democracy, as was the US.
Israel's leaders have always touted their country as "the only democracy in the Middle East", as if their country stood on a par
with the 19 countries ranked as full democracies by the 2017 Democracy Index.
Is it "antisemitic" to hold Israel to a standard deemed to be achieved by Mauritius and Uruguay?
Or to say that Israel is really an "ethnocracy", as opposed to being a democracy?
The Israeli political geographer Oren Yiftachel argued in his 2006 book Ethnocracy: Land and Identity Politics
in Israel/Palestine that an ethnocracy is a regime promoting "the expansion of the dominant group in contested territory
while maintaining a democratic façade".
When it comes todrawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis, it all depends on the basis used in making
the comparison between Israel and the Nazis.
Having gas chambers for mass exterminations, then certainly not.
However, nearly everyone who believes that comparing Israel with the Nazis is "antisemitic" invariably takes the concentration-camp
gas chambers as the implicit norm, whether out of bad faith or ignorance, for making such comparisons.
The Nazi "final solution", vast as it was, had many strands, with horror piled upon horror. This multiple-layering must be considered
when making the Israel-Nazi comparison.
Encircling and starving-out an entire community in a ghetto (Warsaw?), then yes, the comparison is valid– this is precisely what
is taking place in Gaza.
The Nazis confiscated Jewish property wholesale; the Israelis are doing the same to Palestinian houses and land in order to "clear"
them for the expansion of the illegal settlements, and for alleged military purposes. B'Tselem, Israel's human rights watchdog, confirms
this on their website . So, yes, in this case the comparison between
Israel and the Nazis is valid.
Jews were prevented from leaving German-occupied Poland by the SS. Similarly, Palestinians are prevented from leaving Gaza (even
for medical treatment) by the combined efforts of Israel and the Egyptian dictatorship. So, yes, in this case the comparison between
Israel and the Nazis is valid.
German Civil Police K-9 Units were used by the SS to assist in the roundup and deportation of Jews in WW2. Similarly, the Israeli
army uses attack dogs on
unarmed Palestinians when raiding their homes, and when
arresting
peaceful demonstrators. So, yes, in this case the comparison between Israel and the Nazis is valid.
It is difficult to see why comparing Israel to the Nazis on these latter bases, while scrupulously eschewing the gas chambers
as a basis for comparison (the Palestinians have not been sent to gas chambers en masse), necessarily makes one an "antisemite".
The Israeli historian Ilan Pappé describes Israel's policy regarding Gaza as "incremental genocide", in contrast to the Nazi's
absolute genocide. The final outcome however is not in doubt.
The distinguished Oxford jurist Stephen Sedley (himself a Jew) has saidthat "there is no legal bar on criticising Israel. Yet
several of the "examples" that have been tacked on to the IHRA definition (by whom is not known) seek to stifle criticism of Israel
irrespective of intent. The House of Commons select committee on home affairs in October 2016 advised adding: "It is not antisemitic
to criticise the government of Israel, without additional evidence to suggest antisemitic intent"."
Corbyn, under siege from the media and Jewish groups (who say, with risible hyperbole, that he poses an "existential threat" to
British Jews), has apologized for not doing enough to root out antisemitism in the Labour Party.
Corbyn's apology was unnecessary. Not just because it was not merited by the real circumstances underlying this manufactured "crisis",
but also because every step he takes now is dismissed as "meaningless" and "too little, too late" by his opportunistic opponents.
Instead Corbyn should have given an immediate forensic analysis of the IHRA's flawed "examples" of "antisemitism", indicating
that Labour was wise not to incorporate these, root and branch, in the definition of antisemitism it adopted.
Corbyn should also have come out earlier with his pledge to deal firmly with those justifiably guilty of antisemitism in the Labour
party.
Corbyn has many admirable qualities, but perhaps doing forensics is not one of them. However, he has many surrogates capable of
undertaking this task, and they should be entrusted with it immediately.
The late and much missed Robin Cook, the former Labour minister who demolished Blair's rationales for the Iraq war in the House
of Commons debate on Blair's push for the war, would have been perfect for the job.
Doesn't matter if it's 2004 or 2018, the (((usual suspects))) keep playing this cruel game
to maintain their eternal victim status, garner pity, sympathy and the mandatory outpouring
of tax dollars from the city/state/nation's Treasury to their jew supremacist pockets.
And it's been going on for centuries....all over the western world.
It's worth pointing out that described abstractly, Zionism and Nazism are ideologically very
similar. Both are essentially exaggerations of Nineteenth century European racial
nationalism, both posit a more or less imaginary history to justify their territorial claims,
both ignore the rights of all others in favor of their chosen group, both openly worship
violence, and both are contemptuous of both legal and moral constraints. Israel has committed
crimes proportionately as horrific as any Nazi Germany committed up to the outbreak of total
war in 1941, and I'm all too confident that if total war did come to the Middle East, Israel
would take advantage of the opportunity to engage in some very genocidal treatment of her
Palestinian subjects.
The primary differences are really that while Nazism was defeated over seventy years ago,
Israel is still very much in being, and that while we here in the US opposed Nazism, we
support Israel.
"Anti-semitism" is merely the enforcement wing of Zionism.
Anywhere Zionists uses injustice,
pointing that out becomes anti-Semitic.
The Zionists, unlike the dullard goyim, understand the power of the moral force, despite the
fact they work fully against it's dictates.
Multiculturalism is a recipe for national suicide. Culture, including religious belief, is
the unifying factor that allows strangers to work with one another, by ensuring that they
share the same assumptions about morality and about correct behavior in general.
Jews have been a problem for European societies for hundreds of years. The recent mass
migration of people of multiple races and religions to Europe and its settler outposts in the
America's and the Pacific is creating cultural chaos.
Immigrants who will not assimilate to the Christian culture of the West have no place in
the West. For Africans, Asians, Hispanics and Middle-Easterners the message must be:
assimilate or leave. The same for Jews who now, fortunately, have a place to go where they
can live by the precepts of their ancient religion, however bizarre some of those precepts
may seem to others.
That then leaves only the problem of the Palestinians. A solution can surely be found in a
deal with Egypt. The Sinai is twice the size of Palestine, yet has only a half a million
inhabitants. The US could easily organize a purchase, funded by itself, Britain, the country
primarily responsible for the dispossession of the Palestinians, the EU, Russia and some
other countries, and of course Israel, which would have to pay for the land and houses of the
departing Palestinians.
At say $10,000 per hectare, a ridiculous price for a desert sand and rocky hillsides, the
whole of Sinai could be purchased for $60 billion, a trivial amount in relation to the US
trillion-dollar defense budget. In addition, there might be a need for something like half a
trillion dollars for construction of the the cities and high-tech desert agricultural system
of the new Palestinian state. But again, that is a rather trivial amount over, say ten
years.
Only Leftists can defeat Leftists, only progressives can defeat progressives –
conserving the old cannot win. Ideas of stability, homeostasis, and the like, cannot
win.
You sure?
Don't know.
Franco, for example. Then, more recently, Nationalists winning over Communists in Eastern
Europe after the fall of The Wall. We could agree, I guess, that Nationalism is a bit older
than Communism.
And there is no organized opposition because there is no Platonic Idea around which they
can rally – while the Left has one. The Right seems to just be a headless chicken-
all body, no head.
In the West. In the East not so sure about that. Do a (mental) test: imagine that US
(military) power can't get delivered in Balkans anymore. Or Russian (military) power can't
get delivered in Donbass. Or some other places.
That's a good point about nationalism – but I think what we are seeing in places
like Russia and Poland is a resurgence of religious nationalism – pure nationalism,
without a Platonic Idea, just materialism, seems to have no long term success anywhere. I
don't think the attempt to revive it among materialist western right wingers will work. I
think they fundamentally misunderstand this.
In the context of a failed Communism, religious nationalism appears as progressive –
as an exciting step in the direction of progress towards a higher state.
Its not that old traditional ideas can't be revived – its that I think conservatives
basically misunderstand traditional ideas. In their time, traditional ideas were meant to
facilitate the self-perfection of man – not provide stability, safety, or homeostasis.
Christianity was a program for the perfection of man – not social stability.
Traditional ideas were based on a Platonic Idea – never materialism. The attempt to
revive traditional ideas on a materialist basis, because they provide stability, seems a
misunderstanding. In fact, traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as
part of the plan of self-perfection. That's why they secured consent – i.e became the
basis of a stable society. People accept a social organization that they believe will assist
in self-perfection, and that is the source of social stability.
As for military power projection, once local power balances alter its hard to predict what
will come to seem "progressive". And short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions
don't necessarily translate into long term social organization.
.traditional ideas were meant to facilitate the self-perfection of man – not
provide stability, safety, or homeostasis. Christianity was a program for the perfection of
man – not social stability.
..traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as part of the plan of
self-perfection.
I am not quite sure I get this.
Feels as a deep topic. Not well versed in that I am afraid.
A couple of things: the concept of "self-perfection" in, say, traditional
Catholic/Orthodox Christianity, with accepting that a man is a sinner and only though Jesus
he/she can find salvation.
Then, I can get that top thinkers of those nations maybe thought along those lines; common
folk, though, based their nationalism on simple living with people who shared the same values
in life. Sometimes even just the same customs. The sense of belonging. The perception of "us"
and "them" as the bottom line.
You want a problem to ponder about?
Here it is, then:
Why such ..animosity .. then, between Catholics and Orthodox in Balkans and Ukraine? The
same, now dormant, between Protestant and Catholics in N.I.?
I guess that your approach to nationalism is, say, what ..metaphysical?
Mine is way, way below. Just blood and soil, in that order. "Us" vs "them".
West is doomed re nationalism. Maybe. Not quite sure.
All those wars of Catholics vs Protestants ..and we are talking about people of the same
race.
Now, that "we" vs "them" is much more visible.
.short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions don't necessarily translate
into long term social organization.
Agree.
Again, so what? If it works during my lifetime fine (say, if I were a young man). After me,
their problem. Something like that.
That's a good point about nationalism – but I think what we are seeing in places
like Russia and Poland is a resurgence of religious nationalism – pure nationalism,
without a Platonic Idea, just materialism, seems to have no long term success anywhere. I
don't think the attempt to revive it among materialist western right wingers will work. I
think they fundamentally misunderstand this.
In the context of a failed Communism, religious nationalism appears as progressive –
as an exciting step in the direction of progress towards a higher state.
Its not that old traditional ideas can't be revived – its that I think conservatives
basically misunderstand traditional ideas. In their time, traditional ideas were meant to
facilitate the self-perfection of man – not provide stability, safety, or homeostasis.
Christianity was a program for the perfection of man – not social stability.
Traditional ideas were based on a Platonic Idea – never materialism. The attempt to
revive traditional ideas on a materialist basis, because they provide stability, seems a
misunderstanding. In fact, traditional ideas provide stability because they were accepted as
part of the plan of self-perfection. That's why they secured consent – i.e became the
basis of a stable society. People accept a social organization that they believe will assist
in self-perfection, and that is the source of social stability.
As for military power projection, once local power balances alter its hard to predict what
will come to seem "progressive". And short term social expedients taken in chaotic cobditions
don't necessarily translate into long term social organization.
"As this is the reason, there are twice as many Jews above some range, like 151, than
non-Jewish whites, which is what Terman found. "
Jew IQ is largely a myth established by marketing and media control, starting with the
Einstein brand. The myth is necessary to justify and conceal Jewish tribal nepotism as the
main factor establishing dominance of a hostile elite in host nations. The question has been
examined in numerous locations easily found with a search engine.
There are approximately six times as many white Americans with IQ above 140, as there are
Jews with IQ above 140. No, Jewish intelligence does not account for their dominance in
academia, media, and government. It must be Jew priviledge, not Jew IQ that justifies their
right to rule the goyim.
ParadiseNow Giraldi always says
what needs to be said. Excellent article.
Speaking of the news that evaporates--"The story was covered in Israel and Europe but insofar as I could determine did not appear
in any detail in the U.S. mainstream media"--and of the stories that disappear an hour or so after they are posted...
I've never come across anyone in the US who had seen or heard of the story that popped up on my monitor one day while working
in a newsroom in Los Angeles, a headline piece by the BBC stating that the California legislature in Sacramento had just passed a
resolution apologizing to Mel Gibson for the treatment he was subjected to after his drunken comments were illegally relayed to the
press. The article also reported that legislation was passed increasing fines and jail penalties in California for anyone who illegally
gave or sold arrest information to the media.
The story had some serious bearing on our immediate market as numerous celebrities' private medical information etc were being
illegally gathered and sold to news outlets. I brought it to the attention of my (Jewish) chief editor who read the article, thanked
me for the heads up, then completely ignored it.
Shortly after the piece just evaporated from the BBC site, and to this day I can find no trace of it in their archives.
On the subject of Jews celebrating the death of others, I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes' to celebrate
the death of the American student they brutally crushed to death with a tractor in occupied Palestine.
I have seen photos of them gaily cooking 'Rachel Corrie pancakes'
Here's my take as a (non-Jewish) American.
My sympathies are with the Palestinians with regards to trying somehow to estabilsh sustainable territorial boundaries. IMHO
Israel is clearly stealing land by building settlements in the West Bank. But given the ad-hoc nature of the current borders and
the intent of the various parties, , God/Allah knows how this can be reasonably adjudicated.
I am ambivalent with regards to the plight of those in Gaza, Egypt is certainly in a position to help. The southern border
is after all under their control.
Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part)
seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation.
Both parties seem to regard the other as filth, undeserving of human compassion. How we move forward from here is beyond my
ability to guess.
Arab neighbors seem to view refugees as pawns to be kept in squalor for their own political aims.
It seems like (and this is my own reading from afar) Hamas uses the "right of return" as an issue to turn gullible Palestinian
youth into canon fodder. It's been 75 years and Israel is stronger than ever. Time to wake up and smell the coffee
There is so damn much much fault on both sides .
Now, having said all that – Rachael Corrie pancakes? She was an idiot and I have not the slightest sympathy for her. I wish
I'd thought the joke up .
" Launching random missiles into southern Israel (assuming that's an actual thing rather than propaganda on the Israeli's part)
seems silly and unlikely to improve the situation. "
What do you suggest the inmates of the Gaza concentration camp can do to get attention to their plight ?
The only way seems to be to provoke Israel into some retaliatory action.
Netanyahu is as stupid as Hitler, who let himself be provoked by Poland.
And indeed, both sides see the other as dirt.
Jabotinski in 1923 saw it well 'just force will make Palestinians give up their lands'. But he did not foresee that they never
really would give up.
What he also did not foresee that the ethnic cleansing would cause a growth of the number of Palestinians. As far as I can
see Israel has no long time strategy for dealing with the Palestinian problem.
Trying to convince the great majority of the world's countries in the UN Assembly that they're all wrong, and Israel right,
lunacy.
Looks like that author mixes Zionism with neoliberalism. Critique of Zionism here is mixes with critique of
neoliberalism and that makes the whole piece unconvincing.
Some points made are interesting, though.
Notable quotes:
"... "Anti-Semitism." ..."
"... we are losing! ..."
"... " All the world suffers from the user of the Jews, their monopoly and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty especially working people and the very poor." ..."
"... "All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our [personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths." ..."
"... -the Kol Nidrei. ..."
"... "In violent opposition to all this sphere of [positive], Jewish efforts rise the schemes of the International Jews. Most, if not all, of them, have forsaken the faith of their forefathers and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new."- Winston Churchill. ..."
"... "His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people . It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in ..."
"... " For in Palestine, we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting with wishes of the [Palestinians]. And Zionism (is) of far profounder[sic] import than the desire and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who inhabit this ancient land." ..."
"... "Possession is 9/10ths of the law." ..."
"... " America is a Golden Calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left Why? This is what we do to countries that we hate. We destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves."- I sraeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu ..."
"... "Israel First" and "Corporations First." ..."
"... Consider the fate of former US Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel who, long ago during Obama's presidency had the audacity, just prior to leaving for Tel Aviv, to say that he was first and foremost an America and would put American interests before that of Israel, adding that, ""The political reality is that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." ..."
"... Once Hagel returned to the exceptional nation from Tel Aviv he was, due to his president being now under Zionist control, summarily fired. ..."
"... "suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left " ..."
"... without a request by either of the two moving parties. ..."
"... "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law". ..."
"... Federalist Society (FS). ..."
"... "Never has there been a collusion like the one between the U.S. and Israel. It suggests another word and that is "immunity." It has a moral immunity, a cultural immunity, a geopolitical immunity, a legal immunity, and certainly a media immunity. All the talk of Iran and nuclear weapons is without any reference to the biggest nuclear power in the Middle East. [Israel] " ..."
"... get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land " ..."
"... which further illustrated how endemic this doctrine of linking criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism has become. ..."
"... Did her example die with her? ..."
"... If you torture the numbers long enough, they will say whatever you want," ..."
"... Are they wrong? ..."
"... The House Committee on Foreign Affairs unanimously passed a measure on Thursday that ..."
"... it never gives back! ..."
"... Zionists are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of what remains of our world. ..."
"... then he is a Zionist. ..."
"... moral obligation ..."
"... then, she a Zionist. ..."
"... understood hypocrisy ..."
"... then, they are Zionists. ..."
"... knowingly prioritizes ..."
"... ignores the scriptures ..."
"... and their hearts- ..."
"... wilfully choose to do nothing ..."
"... clear conscience ..."
"... temptation to protest ..."
"... allow themselves ..."
"... "God, Forgive me." ..."
"... Too God Damned Late! ..."
"... Zionism cannot be understood outside the context of late 19th century European nationalism. The purpose of Zionism is to build a "normal" country of Jews in the Land of Israel, accepted by and at peace with it's Arab neighbors. The idea is to replace assimilation of individual Jews with the assimilation of the entire Jewish nation. ..."
"... Most Jews of course support Israel and they still practice mutual help, which causes the same problems as always: they were an endogamous and fast growing population trying to promote their group interests and seeing others as enemies. Jews in Israel face the problems of an occupation force: as they are confronted by asymmetric resistance, they are forced to do what they are doing, and that is the strategy of the resistance. ..."
"... Additionally there is Talmud with its different treatment of Jews and non-Jews, it makes things only worse. The actions Israel must make turn it into a pariah state. ..."
"... Zionism was, and is, a farcical and bloodthirsty imitation of the 19th-century German nationalism. ..."
There is much that the civilized world does not understand about modern Zionism. Today, the
definitions of being Jewish, Israeli or Zionist are, to most people, analogous. They are
not.
Indoctrinated into submitting to this incorrect, singular and collective definition, solely
due to Zionism's false claim of a direct religious link to Judaism, hence the objective,
critical world cowers at the similarly incorrect, but inevitable charge of
"Anti-Semitism." This false charge has too often caused the political and journalistic
demise of too many. Thus the world is scared away from exercising one's full mental faculties,
such faculties of conscience that would normally rise-up in collective reaction and
outrage.
The result, instead, has been worldwide apathy. This inaction towards the daily Zionist
violations of the fundamental laws of the conscience of man has become the designed result. In
the battle against the expansion of the many forms of worldwide Zionism, take note we are
losing!
For the outraged world to confidently and factually respond against the broad brush of the
charge of Anti-Semitism, one used continually and routinely to mask all discussion of Israeli
and Zionist crimes, it is essential to understand what today defines "modern" Zionism,
for here our fight for conscience begins. In reality, Zionism is an a-religious scourge that
uses a singular excuse to justify its existence and its collective actions, an excuse- a
hypocrisy- routinely missing in factual discussion and rarely understood by world Jewry as
well. Here is what can be accurately described as the root of Zionist thought.
This fundamental is a prayer. It has been debated, reviled, cast out and reborn in repeated
cycles by the most senior Jewish theologians over the past two thousand years. Most of the
growing horrors of our world- past and present- can be summed up and exemplified within this
single prayer, Jewish in creation, yet today exclusively Zionist in its modern use. Yes, one
single self-serving, rarely mentioned, prayer that, when considered correctly is today the
metaphor, if not the personification and the excuse, for all the moral ills that allow for the
suffering across the world today. This metaphoric prayer transcends all religions. It is the
propagation of a malignancy- now seemingly endemic- within a growing portion of humankind. Much
worse, this fundamental provides for the wilful individual rotting of one's mind, one's
conscience, and one's soul.
This unconscionable prayer's name? The Kol Nidrei.
Of, Zionism Past: Saying a Prayer for Zionism.
Zionism is not a recent ideology. The name is. In the 1890s, Theodor Herzl infused Zionism- the quest for
a nation of Israel- with an expanded ideology that lead to the First Zionist Congress at Basel in 1897, which created the World
Zionist Organization (WZO). Long ago cast-out from Judea since AD 70, by Roman emperor, Titus,
and in seeming finality by Hadrian- who renamed the whole region Syria Palestinia in 135 AD-
due to the Zionist Jew's growing dominance of that small piece of the Roman Empire. Sadly, this
happened repeatedly throughout history on multiple occasions by multiple other countries, and
for centuries Judaism was repeatedly without a host country.
Unfortunately for the whole of world Jewry, at many points throughout history, like in
Judea, their quest for a country was attempted via the ascension of powerful Jewish interests
progressively gaining control over established nations and afflicting societal crimes that
violated the conscience of the leaders of their host nations. As an example, in 1604 AD
Catholic Pope Clement VIII proclaimed:
" All the world suffers from the user of the Jews, their monopoly and deceit. They
have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty especially working people and
the very poor."
Here, Clement VIII- like many world leaders past and present- was inaccurate in his
statement, for he, too, did not understand Zionism nor have a separate definition for it, and
so made the oft-repeated mistake of associating all Jews together and therefore collectively
demonizing the entire religion and all its followers instead.
Then, as is the case today with modern Zionism, the vast majority of world Jewry had
committed no crime and deserved no charge, yet due to the actions of the few Jews who wilfully
worked towards hegemonic sedition from within their host country of the time, Clement VIII
cast-out all Jews in reaction. What Clement VIII failed to understand was that there was indeed
a difference within this one religion to be noted: a difference that was not Judaism; it was-
even back then- Zionism which excused its advocacy of the societal hypocrisy by citing within
the minds of certain Jews, the Kol Nidrei.
By extension, the unjustifiable horrors of the Holocaust inflicted on Jews were a similar
collective demonization by the German Third Reich of all Jews as their reaction to the
practices of the very few; those who had violated the boundaries of the societal conscience of
Germany and their own Torah.
However, the Germans who committed the resultant atrocities based solely on one's
affiliation with Judaism were unknowingly guilty of exactly the same failure of personal
conscience that ignored the fundamental tenets of their own religious Catholicism and their
bible. Together, these two subsets of religion within one society had one inherent amoral
similarity: a failure of personal conscience, one that deliberately ignored or excused away
their own religion's prohibition against their barbaric crimes against the norms of
society.
Known or not by name, theirs was each an individual use of an unjustifiable rationale; one
that allowed their afflicted minds to strangely turn Evil into Good, Devil into God, and Wrong
into Right. Today, this lapse of conscience is no longer peculiar to any one religion, but,
when considered correctly, is indeed purely Zionist. To understand worldwide Zionism is to
correctly understand the Kol Nidrei.
"All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are
likely to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let
them all be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our
[personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths."
-the Kol Nidrei.
The Kol Nidrei, ("All Vows") often misspelt Kol Nidre, was not originally a prayer, but a
declaration offered during Rosh Hashana, the start of the Jewish new year. In "modern" Judaism
it is now being delivered as a prayer and has so grown in prominence during the last sixty
years that it is now delivered at the commencement of Judaism's holiest yearly event of
Passover.
The internal philosophical Judaic controversy over whether the Kol Nidrei should be allowed
to be included in Jewish services has been argued, pro-or-con, for centuries by the most
pre-eminent Judaic scholars, most of whom vehemently opposed its inclusion and banned it
repeatedly. Their fundamental concern: How can the Jewish religion flourish if it violates the
most fundamental tenet of human conscience?: Adherence to Right vs. the temptation of
Wrong.
This question was succinctly answered over the centuries as the Kol Nidrei rightly fell from
grace or was subsequently reinstated by new Zionist elements of society. Historical examination
of the Kol Nidrei shows the polarity between the demand for the proper benevolence offered in
the original Judaism of the Torah verses the post-Torah books of the Talmud, which contain
rationales supported in part by this one single all-excusing prayer that is the fundamental
malady, if not the definition, of modern Zionism.
... ... ...
Thus viewed correctly, Zionism is not a religion, nor is it part of Judaism. It is a
political tool of expediency and far more comparable to the western created Daesh/ ISIS. Both
use a self-serving created form of an ostensibly beneficent religion, Muslim or Judaic, as an
alternate rendition of that religion that excuses away a person's obvious factual sins against
one's true religious dogma and one's own conscience.
In the ages-old religious argument of whether mankind is born good or evil, as is shown in
the daily newsreels of the continued and growing horrors against true humanity, Zionism, like
Saudi Wahhabism, has made an a-religious and hypocritical choice to honour the later.
Zionism First Defined: A Conquest of Country.
"In violent opposition to all this sphere of [positive], Jewish efforts rise the
schemes of the International Jews. Most, if not all, of them, have forsaken the faith of
their forefathers and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This
movement among the Jews is not new."- Winston Churchill.
When the Israeli Zionists, in 1948, achieved their goal of attaining the nation of Israel,
theirs was a victory that had already shown, over the previous thirty years, their methods and
goals of new world hegemony to come.
The Zionist inspired Balfour agreement was not, as claimed, merely the guarantee of carving
Israel out of existing Palestine: It was a bribe.
On Nov. 7, 1917, Lord Lionel Walter Rothchild, arguably the leading Zionist financial and
political asset in Britain and America, due to his families multi-national banking interests,
guaranteed UK foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour and the British Government -- then losing WW I
desperately- that he would bring American military might to their side in exchange for its
ceding Palestine. This led to the signing of the Balfour Agreement, the entry of American
troops under false premises and the agreed upon genocide and enforced relocation of the
Palestinians. Said Balfour publicly:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people . It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done
which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities inPalestine "[Emph. Added]
But, here, Balfour lied, having himself succumbed to Zionist influence within his own
failure of conscience and personal religious hypocrisy. This was clearly shown when he
privately, and far more truthfully, stated:
" For in Palestine, we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting with
wishes of the [Palestinians]. And Zionism (is) of far profounder[sic] import than the desire
and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who inhabit this ancient land."
This pro-Zionist and fully exclusionary mindset is continued in the horrors perpetrated
against Palestinians and other nations to this day. Consider the past three months of this
current year alone. Over 150 Palestinians have been slaughtered on their own land and almost
5,000 wounded because of related IDF approved genocidal target practice. Meanwhile, at the same
time, nearly 4,500 new illegal settlements have also been recently approved on the occupied
West Bank.
Soon, reportedly, the US will approve the Israeli seizure of the entire Golan Heights. For
within Zionism's mental adherence to the Kol Nidrei is a further incorrect Talmudic influenced
hegemonic adage which is used repeatedly as Israeli foreign policy, "Possession is 9/10ths
of the law."
Today, Palestine is a sliver of it's 1917 boundaries. Over ninety-five percent has been
purchased, coerced, annexed, destroyed or stolen by Israeli Zionists. Not satisfied yet, the
deplorable conditions imposed by Israel on the remaining Palestinians are deliberate attempts
at further genocide designed to finish their two thousand year project in their favour.
Expanding Zionism: From Palestine to America.
" America is a Golden Calf and we will suck it dry, chop it up, and sell it off piece
by piece until there is nothing left Why? This is what we do to countries that we hate. We
destroy them very slowly and make them suffer for refusing to be our slaves."- I sraeli Prime
Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu
Israel and its Zionist minions control America. Completely. American nationalism and
populism have been steadily changed since the establishment of Israel to an agenda today of
"Israel First" and "Corporations First." This is true for any aspiring US politician
as well as in the mind of the average American voter. Worse, this current national endemic
result is not limited only to America.
In the post-Palestine era after 1947, Zionists were not content with finally having their
own nation of Israel. Their new nation would not have resulted without the pressure exerted on
the United Nation's members by the American government which ultimately produced,
on Nov 27, 1947, UN resolution 181. As with the many previous host nations over the
previous centuries that provided sanctuary to the Jewish faith, the Zionist sub-set within
American politics began to further their power beyond the Israeli borders. Hence, Israel began
the strengthening of its political control of the US Congress and its individual politicians.
This, of course, is seen by the unapologetic decisions, platform and control exerted by
AIPAC ( the American Israeli Political Affairs
Committee) which is undeniably the foremost political action interest within the US
Congress. This is documented thoroughly in the 2006 academic work, "The Israel Lobby,"
by University of Chicago and Harvard University professors John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M.
Walt. Despite this carefully researched, referenced and footnoted study, and the fact that
Mearsheimer is a Jew, both were publicly excoriated as being anti-Semites.
It is well established that both houses of the US Congress care not for the concerns of
their voters once they have been placated every two or six years in order to be re-elected and
return to primarily pleasing Zionist interests. Looking at US foreign policy alone, today the
questionable moniker of, "Dual Loyalty," is used to justify growing Israeli involvement in US
military leadership and access by Israeli Zionists within the US government. In foreign policy,
America's military always marches to a Zionist tune that has little or no bearing on US
national security, yet it's politicians always avoid answering the question: "why?"
As shown repeatedly, from the 2015 Gaza war atrocities onto the granting of Jerusalem as the
US denoted Israeli capital, followed by the anticipated subsequent slaughter of the few
remaining indigenous Palestinians, if America is not invading on behalf of Israel or its
Zionist brethren, such as Saudi Arabia destroying Yemen, it is re-supplying Zionist vassals
with weapons or voting only for Zionist interests against UN resolutions and worldwide calls
for of peace and sanity. Are not "Neo-Conservatism" and "American Exceptionalism" really the
results of the inherent self-serving message of the Kol Nidrei applied to US nationalism and
re-branded as national security-not as Zionism- for the dulled American mind?
Consider the fate of former US Secretary of Defence, Chuck Hagel who, long ago during
Obama's presidency had the audacity, just prior to leaving for Tel Aviv, to say that he was
first and foremost an America and would put American interests before that of Israel, adding
that, ""The political reality is that the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here." Hagel later apologised for the use of the term "Jewish lobby", saying he should have said
"pro-Israel lobby", but Hagel did not back down over his comments. He also continued to
question the duplicity in US foreign and military policy that did not directly support American
interests first. Being a former US senator (1997- 2008) from Nebraska, Hagel was sincere in his
pro-American statements, so sincere in fact that he was hypocritically cast out by Obama, who
had, during his 2008 campaign, similarly opposed the, "unwavering pro-Likud approach to
Israel." Once Hagel returned to the exceptional nation from Tel Aviv he was, due to his
president being now under Zionist control, summarily fired.
Military control, however, is only one of the many facets of Zionist control within American
society and is certainly not necessarily Jewish. Here we see what the true goal of Zionism is
within American society and that it does indeed clearly intend to, "suck it dry, chop it
up, and sell it off piece by piece until there is nothing left "
From Health Care to Education, Social Services to Corporatization, life expectancy to
retirement, America is in decline and Americans are in denial, too scared at being charged with
anti-Semitism to take note of the obvious facts. Zionism is destroying their country, piece by
piece, but they, unlike Hagel, Thomas, Mearsheimer and Walt, have been indoctrinated that any
criticism will be denoted as anti-Semitic and/or disloyal to America. This only accelerates the
decline while emboldening the sociopaths who do run their country without any concern for
public well-being.
Gilens and Page tabulated more than 20 years of congressional voting data to answer the
question: Does the US government represent the people? They drew several conclusions,
particularly that, "The opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America has essentially
no impact at all because purchasing political influence is 100% legal." Those benefiting from
congressional votes in the House and the Senate were almost exclusively the interests of
corporate dominance, profit and greed, not the growing needs of the citizens. This is, and
always has been throughout history, a peculiar trait of Zionism, since it features a type of
greed so severe that it transcends human conscience and any obligation to society. In doing so,
this abrogation of duty by politicians is very much in keeping with the tenets and political
hypocrisy espoused by the Kol Nidrei.
Only in America are corporations legally treated as live human beings, but these newly
created humans, as expected, have no conscience at all. The Zionist mind of the corporation has
shown that it controls Congress as well as the US Supreme Court. Further, in the mind of the
Zionist, all social services including education need to be privatized and its finances under
their control, if not completely eliminated.
When the US Supreme Court made the case of Citizen's United v F.E.C. the law of the land,
few took the time to understand the real insidious nature of this historic and divisive Supreme
Court decision.
Thirty-five year Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, did.
In a
twenty-three page Dissenting Opinion and using strong words very rarely written within the
collegial confines of the court, Stevens railed against Citizen's United and its likely
results. As Stevens pointed out, the politically and corporately controlled court under brand
new Chief Justice, John Roberts, violated the time-honoured legal concept of Stare Decisis . This was an extremely
unusual move that saw the court take-up for its subsequent divisive decision a standing
appellate court decision, without a request by either of the two moving parties.
Stevens also argued that the Court addressed a question not raised by the litigants, and that
the majority "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the
law".
Further, incoming Chief Justice, John Roberts, who ordered the case brought before the court
anyway, threw the majority of his own written legal precedents on corporations in the rubbish
bin of time in order to strangely join the majority opinion. Those are only a few of the
problems with the creation of Citizen's United, but here, again, Roberts and the 5-4 majority
(Roberts, Kennedy, Alito, Thomas, Scalia) found a way to mentally and morally approve what was
their own understood violation of law, if not a violation of conscience. Of course, this was in
keeping with the mental hypocrisy of the Kol Nidrei. No, they did not likely know it by name,
but those in the majority knew that they were indeed sacrificing their legal acumen, the US
constitution and their moral obligation to the higher a authority of modern Zionism.
This cadre of Zionist thought within the Supreme Court is fully admitted by these modern day
Pharisees of American jurisprudence who willingly brandish their personal attachment to the
Federalist Society (FS). Current
card carrying members members include Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Anthony
Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. This organization supports rolling back civil
liberties, imperial wars, free-wheeling laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism, along with
ending New Deal/Great Society social programs. It's also against reproductive choice,
government regulations, labour rights, environmental protections, and justice for unwanted
aliens.
This accusation that Federalist doctrine is controlling and creating the laws of the land
was further confirmed this past week as this Supreme Court certified bigotry against one
religion (Muslim) by allowing Trump's pro-Israel travel ban. On the same day, the same court
gutted what little remains of the American unions and the political influence of working voters
via collective bargaining. As shown by the Page and Gilens study, Unions are also anathema to
corporate interests and this week national Unions joined the Muslim world in being prohibited
from helping social change against Zionist influence.
This was a big win for Zionism which abhors the nations of the Muslim world that it cannot
control and was clearly shown in the list of countries that were banned. The countries which do
not support American expansionism nor Zionism were all banned, while one of the most barbaric
Muslim nations, Saudi Arabia, was exempt because their country's leadership has been willing to
suck on America's and Israel's teat.
US healthcare, despite being the most expensive per capita in the world, is measured, not by
success in prevention, but by the nation's operating table mortality rates, infant mortality
rates and rising insurance rates, all of which are some of the worst in the developed world.
Despite these foibles of American capitalist Zionism, HMO profits are also at historically high
levels as are its administrative fees which exceed 20% compared to just over 2% in the UK's
vaunted NHS.
Pharmaceutical companies wine and dine doctors and politicians with a manipulative budget of
over $1.2 billion per year. As a result, no longer is the FDA the ultimate arbiter of new drugs
being brought to market since it allows and accepts verbatim the self-serving clinical trials
of the drug companies that create these drugs. Many, as shown clearly on US television
advertising, have a laundry list of side effects. Despite this, these drugs are approved and
the doctor's, with few exceptions, happily prostitute their Hypocratic Oath and scientific fact
in order to serve up these tainted drugs to their unsuspecting and trusting patients.
These and many other prescription drugs, despite being offered in many other countries, are
always the most expensive in America. When many Americans who realized that Canada and Mexico
offered the same drugs at a far lesser price, they took their prescriptions over the border to
save money. However, once Big
Pharma realized it no longer had a captured market, it used its powerful and paid for lobby in
congress to effect legislation making it a felony criminal offence similar to smuggling for
anyone to save money on their prescriptions by traveling. Not a peep was heard from doctors
nationally, nor from congress who had, of course, also sold their professional souls already.
This week, the Financial Times reported
that Pfizer, the largest drug company in the US, has now further raised prices on 100 products.
These price hikes were announced just weeks after President Trump claimed that US drug
companies would soon announce
"massive" voluntary price cuts .
Yearly, American education teaches Americans to be ignorant and not to think, much less
develop an informed, fact-based opinion. Less and less federal funding goes to public education
and the poor test scores show
America in 38 th position of developed nations worldwide in mathematics and 17
th overall. This poor performance has led to the advent of private charter
schools.
As championed by US Education Secretary, Betsy De Voss, who is decidedly Zionist within her
stated public comments about fixing public education, already world geography and critical
thinking are rarely taught and history is so heavily skewed as to be revisionist. This is shown
by too many Americans still believing that modern day Russia and the long dismembered Soviet
Union remain unchanged and an identical threat as well as their failure to be able to find
their own nation on a globe. This myopic narrow-mindedness has left most Americans with no
interest in discerning the truth about the remaining world around them, but an illogical
enthusiasm for US
expansionism and "thermonuclear war."
Americans are not stupid, but they are indeed extraordinarily ignorant. An ignorant populace
increasingly has no desire for divining the truth of world events and so routinely turns to
their singular news source for the "facts" that they hold as indisputable. To this end, in
America most journalists prostitute their necessary role as the vanguards of society. This is
easily evidenced by the fact that over
90% of all traditional media sources ( TV, Radio, Newspaper) are owned and managed by just six
huge corporate interests that have an all too similar editorial slant that favours a
Zionist agenda. 20th-century American writer, Truman Capote, in a 1968 Playboy interview,
assailed "the Zionist mafia" of his time that has since only increased its monopolizing of the
news publishing industry today.
Reaffirming the current condition of journalism, this past week during a public speech in
support of Julian Assange, award-winning, career journalist and documentary film maker, John
Pilger commented on today's Zionist media editorial control, saying,
"Never has there been a collusion like the one between the U.S. and Israel. It
suggests another word and that is "immunity." It has a moral immunity, a cultural immunity, a
geopolitical immunity, a legal immunity, and certainly a media immunity. All the talk of Iran
and nuclear weapons is without any reference to the biggest nuclear power in the Middle East.
[Israel] "
Indeed. With critical thinking substantially suppressed in America, and the media proffering
virtually no criticism of Israel, nor Zionist crimes against society, the supposed journalists
of the 4th Estate and First Amendment are mostly willing propagandists.
Or else.
Scared into submission while offering only as one sided Zionist agenda, and bribed with
lucrative contracts and benefits, no US mainstream journalist will risk the likely connected
charge of anti-Semitism. Virtually none will stand-up, respect their conscience and do a proper
job of reporting on journalism's control, and societal connection to, Zionism. In the minds of
many, however, remains the sudden and tragic demise of the most senior White House
correspondent in press history, Helen Thomas. Her crime: Stating what every member of the press
already knew to be true, but did not have the guts to say themselves.
While chatting privately during of a Washington, DC cocktail party, Thomas said that Israel
should, "
get the hell out of Palestine. Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land
" Then, as today, this sent of howls of outrage that she or anyone would audaciously
state the truth, even in private. Hence, Thomas, her fifty-seven years as a White House
correspondent and her exemplary dedication to a high standard of news reporting were gone from
public view within 48 hours, when Hearst publications dutifully fired her in order to placate
the Zionist outrage against the truth of this matter. She was, of course, speaking about
Zionists, not Jews, yet she was charged with Anti-Semitism, a capital crime, and summarily
convicted.
Not one US journalist publicly came to Helen Thomas' defence which further illustrated
how endemic this doctrine of linking criticism of Israel to anti-Semitism has become.
Helen Thomas, like the facts, truth and example of courage she represented, died less than
two years later.
Did her example die with her?
Pre-Modern Zionism: Buying the Stairway to Heaven?
"New York is the city of privilege. Here is the seat of the Invisible Power represented by
the allied forces of finance and industry. This Invisible Government is reactionary,
sinister, unscrupulous, mercenary, and sordid. It is wanting in national ideals and devoid of
conscience . . . This kind of government must be scourged and destroyed."
Before modern Zionism took a hold on America there once was a religious mandate to wilfully
provide for the less fortunate. Because of the scriptures, if not an ultimate fear of God, many
of society's super-wealthy of that by-gone era did substantially contribute to serving the
societies around them. This was shown in the construction of libraries, museums, universities,
hospitals, endowments, social services and church social programs paid for by oligarchs such as
Carnegie, Roosevelt, Blair, Morgan, Getty, Mellon and Tufts. Some of these men, knowing the
capitalist crimes they had perpetrated on the path to their riches, were certainly buying their
own "Stairway to Heaven." Try as they might, none could deny in their minds the unavoidable
final decision that would befall them all come "Judgement Day."
Today, no such religious obligation exists. Any such religious requirements have long since
been replaced by the tenets of the Kol Nidrei that allows for, and excuses away, the pure
selfishness of Zionism's influence.
By comparison, as a positive example of these too long-ignored religious requirements of
societal ethics in business, take Charles William (C.W.) Post and Will Keith (W.K.) Kellogg
. These were the breakfast cereal barons of the late 19th century and became very wealthy men
indeed. Post was a Christian, Kellogg a Seventh Day Adventist. Both believed and practised the
concept that an employee was an asset to be propagated for the good of the company and the good
of the worker.
Both Post and Kellogg headquartered their growing empires in Battle Creek, MI. Here they
needed a massive workforce, while thousands in pre-industrial and post-depression America
needed jobs. Believing that both owner and worker could benefit from their collective
endeavours, Post and Kellogg built thousands of modest houses near the factories for the
workers, many of which exist today. These houses were sold to the workers at cost and the
owners provided credit terms so favourable that workers could pay them off to full ownership on
the 30 hour work week that both Post and Kellogg believed to be part of this mutual bargain.
Company stores bought their goods at wholesale prices and passed this discount along to the
worker. Retirement benefits were guaranteed to all long-standing employees, the majority of
whom stayed that long.
As a result, the community of Battle Creek- until the advent of NAFTA and monopoly-
flourished, as did both the companies and their profits. At the onset of the 1929 Great
Depression, Battle Creek became a sought-after final destination for the many unemployed
"two-tankers"- those with just enough money remaining for, not one, but two tanks of gas for
their cars- who came up from the southern states seeking work.
With both the owners and the workers prospering, neither Kellogg nor Post had the need to
buy their own stairway to heaven, nor prostitute their conscience. They did not know it, but
they had not succumbed to the mindset of the Kol Nidrei and did not care to become Zionists,
for they chose to honour what their conscience and their religion told them was right and,
thus, ignore what they knew to be wrong.
Contrast this socially correct example of religious discipline with a quite different memory
from the same time period, one that still wafts in the air across the hills and surrounding
green valleys of Merthyr Tydfil in Southern Wales, UK. Here, in what was, for more than a
century, iron and coal country, the name and the odour of the infamous steelworks owner,
Robert
Thompson Crawshay, remains to this day in the minds and on the lips of the local Welsh.
Crawshay typified the many all-powerful industrialist owners of America and Britain in the
times when the value of a workhorse far exceeded the value of the human worker. Employees were
expendable as was evidenced by the horrible living and working conditions and the massive
amount of workplace injuries and fatalities to which the owners, like Crawshay, could not have
cared less. Despite being a routine church-goer himself, the list of the societal horrors
inflicted on the workers and their families by Crawshay was a long one indeed.
He was born rich, lived that way and died in luxury, and he wanted to let the impoverished
community outside his walled estate know it. When Crawshay had a new mansion built in Merthyr
he also built a tall four-sided clock tower, but the side facing the workers and the ironworks
was left blank. When one year the workers organized a strike, rather than negotiating a
settlement with them he closed the entire ironworks and every other business in the town, thus
putting everyone, including support trades and other manufacturing in nearby towns, out of
work. This fomented dissent in the already starving community and the breaking of the strike.
Crawshay also built homes and company stores for his workers, but the homes were on loan at his
pleasure and he charged exorbitant rents as he did inflated prices at his stores. This kept the
workers forever in debt and indentured to him and his factories.
To further show his personal power over all who lived in his domain, on the eve of a
worker's wedding day Crawshay would often have the driver of his two-horse black carriage
deliver him to the doorstep of the groom. He would then provide him with an ultimatum: allow
him to be the first to deflower the man's betrothed that very night, or lose his job and be
blackballed from working in all other nearby locations on the very day of his wedding. To cross
Crawshay then, or at any time, was to be "sacked," with the local Crawshay foreman knocking
unannounced on one's door of an evening, holding a single used burlap sack for the victim to
carry out everything and what little he and his family owned, forthwith, while two Crawshay
goons attended to the sacking.
As a staunch Protestant Crawshay knew that his actions were not supported by his bible, his
God, nor his conscience, yet he carried on, relishing in his unchecked power and the hatred
towards him by the whole town. No, Crawshay did not know the correct definition of his crimes,
but he, too, was inherently a Zionist within his own mind. So conscious was Crawshay of his
demonstrative and deliberate earthly violations that when he died in 1879 he commissioned a
massive horizontal gravestone made of one piece of 16-inch thick granite to cover over his
entire grave so that no one would dig up his remains and scatter his God-forsaken corpse to
winds or to the hogs.
Yes, Crawshay was, in practice, a Zionist. Today, the capitalist malady exhibited by
Crawshay has returned to the factories, sweatshops, and service sector jobs that offer no
benefits, retirement or future for workers or families worldwide. The return of the mindset of
Crawshay has infected the many corporate religious hypocrites of the today's new industrial
age, regardless of religion. Humanity has been cast out. Zionism has returned beginning in
America.
The state of America today is already deplorably Zionist in its lack of societal or moral
concern. While the US government uses the Zionist economic mantra," If you torture the
numbers long enough, they will say whatever you want," in order to brandish its touted
lies of purported success, the reported 3.8% unemployment rate does not bare scrutiny with real
unemployment actually at 21.4% according to Shadowstats economist John Williams.
The Trump regime and GOP-controlled Congress- like the Federalists on the Supreme Court-
want New Deal/Great Society programs eliminated altogether via de-funding or privatization,
giving Wall Street and other corporate predators new profit centers to pillage at the expense
of the grievously harmed working people, particularly the nation's most vulnerable.
Most US workers are underemployed in future-less part-time or temp jobs because millions of
full-time ones that include benefits and retirement no longer exist – lost by offshoring
to low-wage countries by corporate Zionist who do not care about their own society that spawned
their own business successes. They only care about continued profit. As a further example, this
past Tuesday, June 19,
Republican House members introduced an FY 2019 budget proposal, calling for $5.4 trillion in
mandatory social service spending cuts over the next decade yet they strangely demanded
even more defence spending and further tax cuts for the rich and not a penny more for the poor
and the indigent. Major cuts to Medicare and Medicaid are prioritized over the next decade
– $537 billion and $1.5 trillion respectively- and another $5 billion per year from
Social Security and additional cuts from other social programs.
Such is the mind of the corporate and political Zionist in America, today. Robert Thompson
Crawshay would have been most supportive of seeing thie return to the amoral conscience of the
corporate Zionist. For in his mind, as in the minds of today's corporate Zionists, admission
beyond the Pearly Gates is just a matter of buying the Stairway to Heaven.
Are they wrong?
Modernizing Zionism: A Claim to One's Mind and Soul.
Like Crawshay, who failed to heed his bible's teachings in favour of a Zionist-like
selfishness and quest for power and more money, seemingly all the major religions today are
also similarly affected by a wilful ignorance of conscience.
This week it was reported that, for the first time ever, at the exclusively pro-Zionist
gathering of the Bilderberg Group summit
the Secretary of State of the Catholic church, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, will be attending from
Rome. It is not likely that he will be tutoring this Zionist coven on any of his own
religion's twelve commandments, but more likely he will tutored by them on the need for
reviewing the spirit of the Kol Nidrei for inclusion as Catholicism's new thirteenth.
By extension, over the last twenty-plus years the advent of the religious duplicity known as
the " Christian
Zionist" has also manifested itself behind too many American pulpits that spout a
deliberately pro- Israel mantra to their parishioners. This hypocrisy was by design of the
Israeli Zionists that these supposed Christian ministers now actually serve. Virtually all of
them have accepted all-expense-paid junkets to Israel and Jerusalem and thus been indoctrinated
with a pro-Zionist / anti- Muslim philosophy that they have been convinced is integral to
Judaism and Christianity. This has served Israel well, with the Christian Zionist being blinded
into the actual giving of his mind and his religion over to Zionism while parishioners attempt
to appease their chosen God in favour of a very different God.
Modern Zionism has even managed to take over a religion that is specifically anti-war,
anti-greed, anti-poverty and pro-peace and love. Is it not Zionism further personified when we,
the civilized world, behold the daily television spectacle of religious hypocrisy which shows,
before our very eyes, the crimson and saffron-colored velvet robes, shaved-heads and
be-sandaled Buddhist monks who, incredibly, are now brandishing AK-47 rifles and shooting, when
not burning, innocent Rohingha? Yes. They too are not correctly serving their God. They have
replaced their true religion with their own bastardized version, one that favours the mantra of
the Kol Nidrei over that of non-violence and peace. Thus, they are not Buddhists. They, too,
have become .Zionists.
However, what took place in America during the past seventy years since the Kol Nidrei
returned is the working model and example of Zionist hegemony as seen across the globe in most
countries today. This modern goal is not just a hegemony that attempts to control new country,
it is one that seeks to, and results in, forcing, not merely a change in national allegiance in
favour of Israel, but worse, it demands a change within one's mind, as personified by the Kol
Nedrei, that is beyond Judaism, yet penetrates all religions and morals.
War, selfishness, greed, and avarice are now seemingly endemic in the conscience of society
worldwide. This is the great crime of the Zionists: creating a world that now subliminally and
unknowingly abrogates its conscience to the religiously hypocritical agenda of the Kol Nidrei.
For those of proper religious and/or moral virtue, the concept of the Kol Nidrei, whether
defined or not, is naturally abhorrent. For those with a pro-Zionist predisposition,
justification of their personal crimes of conscience are too easily excused. Personal success
at any cost is the modern mantra. Once sprinkled with the cerebral Zionist pixie-dust of the
Kol Nidrei's pervasive influence, any primary concern towards proper humanity becomes tertiary
at best.
The crimes of Zionism, via this deliberate cross-societal indoctrination of the Kol Nidrei,
go far beyond the bartered religion of Judaism. Many of the required societal elements, such as
nationalism, political parties, military defence, education, journalism, medicine, banking,
industry, manufacturing and respect for knowledge are similarly degraded by this immoral plague
against conscience and society.
The Zionist is wrong in thinking that the whole world beyond America is similarly and
completely afflicted with this terminal lapse of conscience. Increased opposition to Israel and
Zionism in cities across the globes show that those of true conscience understand their
adversary very well. But not necessarily by name.
Zionism's answer to this growing opposition uses the creation of ignorance and apathy as it
weapon in forcing the false accusation of anti-Semitism on all who dare to correctly attack its
philosophy, its goals and results. But for those who do rarely stand up and state what is
obvious, their resistance, free will and minds have now been made illegal.
Take the recent Israeli efforts to make photographing and reporting on any IDF crime against
humanity a mandatory prison sentence of 5-10 years. Aside from attempting to further hide their
crimes, the Zionist mind wishes to force a new choice of prison vs. conscience on those who
would rise to a normal societal standard.
Floating through the US House is another legal challenge to one's free will and thoughts
that seeks to challenge any opposition on college campuses in America that would criticize, via
peaceful protest, the crimes of the Zionist Israelis. This bill, if successful, would require a
full administrative investigation- paid for at public expense- of any campus protest against
Israel and of those involved in the new crime of free will and conscious thought. Of course,
any similar protests by Zionists are not to be investigated, only those that would attempt to
blaspheme against their demonstrative examples of moral turpitude.
Faced with this legalized Zionism, the far greater crime is that the once rational minds of
the vast majority of the world are now willing to prostitute their own minds into apathy, or
worse, accept this societal influenza in exchange for buying-in to a decidedly personal agenda
that ignores the needs of all others. Hence, more than ever before rational humans of all
religions- as we see with the Christian Zionists, Industrialists, Buddhists and world leaders
across almost all ethnicities, are volunteering to sell their souls merely for the desire a few
more shekels. For these rewards, they ignore all else and have, too often, sold their
souls.
For Zionism takes it never gives back!
Zionism Today: America's No.1 Export.
As modern Zionism has methodically taken over Palestine and America, so it has done to a
vast portion of the world. Today, there are almost no world leaders who put their allegiance to
their own countrymen before that of their Zionist masters. The game plan of Zionist hegemony
towards political leaders, country, mind and opposition are just as complete in Australia,
Canada, the European Union, Britain, Japan, South Korea, etc.,al. For those who have not bitten
from their immoral fruit, the Zionist offers only one other choice: financial degradation and
internal civil war! This is shown in the few countries that resist a Zionist agenda such as
Syria, Iraq, Iran, Libya, China, Brazil, Venezuela, Russia and others. These countries have
been the targets of Zionist propaganda- via American foreign policy- which demands regime
change and war.
Take Britain for example and its upstart parliamentary leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy
Corbyn. Despite being Jewish himself, the unabashed "Friends of Israel" coalition within the UK
parliament, knowing which side their own bread is buttered on, have attacked Corbyn as being an
anti-Semite. On face value this is claimed to be the result of his public and well-articulated
support of Palestine and his condemnation in the press of IDF war crimes. But this is not
Corbyn's true threat to the Zionists who are buried in parliaments around the world and are
rarely exposed by the Zionist controlled world press. No. His true crime is that he offers hope
to the many Brits who have suffered years of unjustified austerity at the hands of the Zionist
European Union that has, like their American brethren, imposed years of increased funding for
hypothetical war at the expense of any social obligations.
Corbyn is possibly the only true socialist leader in the world- one with a track record of
standing up for his voters and not surrendering his leadership nor his conscience to the
influence of the Zionists. Corbyn not only speaks for a growing majority in the UK, he speaks
for the much more powerful interests in Britain that would like to see a return to the policies
of True Labour, not the New Labour that was bastardized into existence by the Zionist former
Prime Minister, Tony Blair, an indoctrination that seemed almost complete until the rise to
power of Corbyn as a true populist Champion. What most fail to observe within Corbyn's rise is
that he has successfully weathered not one but two attempts by the Zionist controlled traitors
within his own party to oust him as leader. Despite these attempts, Corbyn has emerged
unscathed and more popular than ever, and this strongly indicates the power base behind the
scenes that wants to see him bring a return to a socialist Britain.
He is also the sole example to a world desperately looking for a leader to follow in their
own fight for a return to proper society in their own nations.
This, of course, is anathema to everything the Zionists stand for and for what control they
have gained since Maggie Thatcher morphed into John Major, who hatched into Gordon Brown, who
then spawned Tony Blair who allowed for the rise of David Cameron and Theresa May, but whose
chrysalis has now been crushed under the boot of this rising populism lead by Corbyn.
At the seat of European Zionist control, Brussels, the EU is too busy crushing Zionist
opposition in Greece, Italy, Spain/ Catalonia and Brexit to devote their full attention, yet,
to Corbyn. Few realize that creation of the EU, from its inception to its current form of
unelected economic and social control over 27 once-sovereign nations was,in reality, spawned,
propagated, institutionalized and brought to power by the American Zionists looking to
further their centralized national control using the pre-existing American model.
The American model of "United" states or nations had, far before 1999, become a tool to
prioritize a Zionist agenda over that of the public. Once the Zionist banking interests had
succeeded in adding central monetary control to the EU via its emulation of the US Federal
Reserve Bank, the interests of the twenty-eight nations were reduced to the interests of the
corporation, never more the voter.
Then, there is the IMF. As the foremost tool for turning sovereign nations into Zionist debt
slaves, the IMF has used its coercion to force nations across the globe into accepting massive
loan packages of US dollars that are more than fully secured by the pledging of national assets
that the Zionist business interests covet. The results of this tactical plunder is shown by the
fact that the IMF currently holds the third largest gold reserves in the world, all of which
was provided as ransom from the countries it afflicted. It has also inflicted massive economic
and environmental disasters of staggering proportions on its host nations whose Zionist
inspired leadership sought to do a deal with the devil, one that helped their pockets, but not
their nation, their people, nor their long term future.
In his book, "Confessions of an Economic
Hit Man," John Perkins details the way the IMF forces countries to take on these unpayable
loan packages and how the IMF uses this as a wedge to seed its hegemony, austerity, misery and
political upheaval- in the name of "progress"- on so much of the unsuspecting world. Greece, is
of course, the poster child for these results where a treasonous Alexis Tsipras, as Prime
Minister, has now sold off most of the public assets to private corporate interests, has
destroyed the national social obligations to his countrymen, and has made Greece a vassal state
of the EU, yet he still has made barely a dent in the massive debt obligations to the Troika;
the EU, IMF and World Bank.
Still, they want more.
The societal results today, as predicted by the previous results of the American model, have
been almost worldwide in its austerity imposed on the poor, massive increases in military
armaments purchases, elimination of democracy and democratic results, restrictions of existing
civil rights and social services, an ever growing refugee crisis and the autocratic political
control of Europe and most of the world by a selected or unelected coven of Zionists who have
already sold their own souls for personal power and riches.
In destroying the nation of Greece, theirs is not just a message to the Greeks from the
Zionists who run the EU and the Troika. It was a message to all the other nations and peoples
of the world: Resistance is futile!
Or, is it?!
Zionism's "Final Solution" Are You a Zionist?!
Yes, when considered in its many worldwide manifestations the true definition of Zionism is
much broader and seemingly all encompassing. Once its incorrect attachment to Judaism is
accurately debunked, Zionism's degradations of the cornerstones of civilization and its goal
towards a subliminal personal adherence to selfishness, greed, and the immoral can be correctly
defined in summation by the single all-serving excuse offered by the Kol Nidrei.
But the "Final solution" of Zionism is much worse.For the final goal of Zionism is to take
away your human desire to resist.
Truly, Zionism's greatest success has been in indoctrinating the opposition conscience of
the remaining world into acquiescence, apathy and failure. Zionism would not have achieved its
world threatening level of power had the morals of society already risen up en mass
against the crimes of Israeli and Zionist expansion. So far, our world has allowed this to be
our current societal condition. Hence we are losing!
As clearly shown, the world is awash in the mindset of the Zionist. Virtually all aspects of
civilization are now steeped in the subtle manipulative and hypocritical tenets of the Zionist-
not Jewish- Kol Nidrei. This infection of the conscience is certainly spreading worldwide and,
whether one knows it by name, this infection has become increasingly systemically endemic. As
done so many times through history, Zionism and Zionists must be cast out again from world
society.
Across the world, as shown, examples of the horrors of Zionism are not at all limited to the
barbarism that is ongoing in Palestine. As suggested in a previous article, "The
Good Friday Massacre : World, We Are All Palestinians Now," we, the remaining civilized
world, must quickly awaken to the knowledge that we are apathetically existing in an
ever-growing cage of Zionist control while to cage door is quickly closing. It is time to
understand Zionists are winning the battle for the hearts and minds of what remains of our
world.
When the politician ignores his conscience , the will of the voters, his duty to
country, and his oath of office in favour of supporting a foreign interest then he is a
Zionist.
When the journalist casts aside her moral obligation and wilfully crafts preposterous
pro- Israeli articles that distort and belie the truth, while deliberately leaving out the
horrors of Israeli war crimes and worldwide influence- thus prostituting the true tenets of
objective reporting then, she a Zionist.
When doctors, lawyers and teachers, use understood hypocrisy to justify allowing
personal interests and money to come before their obligation to their charges within the
society they serve then, they are Zionists.
When the professional athlete knowingly prioritizes continued riches and fame
before his obligation to the people whose accolades made him wealthy and fails to use his media
power to stand-up against or take a knee in opposition to the injustices he or she sees
then, those athletes are Zionists.
When the Preacher, Rabbi, Imam, Priest, Monk or Holy Father ignores the scriptures
of their particular religion and does not thunder a call from the pulpit for the immoral
factions within their religion to be ejected then, that man of God is a Zionist.
But, the most critical manifestations that defines modern Zionism are those within society
who know in their own minds and conscience- and their hearts- that their own world,
and that of human kind, is being destroyed, yet they wilfully choose to do nothing in
opposition. Those of the moral world who do see the social hegemony of Zionism before
very eyes, yet fail to be disgusted to the point of action. Men and women of clear
conscience whomerely pass quiet comment rather than shaking their fists in proper outrage.
People whose temptation to protest is too easily calmed by the next media
distraction
when those of the civilized world allow themselves to become too scared and
apathetic to disconnect Zionism from Judaism and scream at, throw back and laugh-off the
erroneous accusation of Ant-Semitism and, then, demand that modern Zionism be removed
completely from our world's society for the good, for the future, for the very existence of
mankind then, sadly, they too have been, thus, similarly afflicted. And so, yes
they, too, have become Zionist.
Epitaph For Zionism- The Day of Judgement.
On a warm summer's day in mid-Wales, while wandering the hills of the old iron town of
Merthyr, a hiker might suddenly be almost overcome by the unmistakable stench of human
urine.
It is the grave of Robert Thompson Crawshay.
Long since dead, the memory of this scourge, a man who ignored his religion, his society and
his conscience, is still, and will forever be, firmly in the minds of the Welsh. The grave is
surrounded by a picketed wrought iron fence, made in his iron works and designed to keep the
actions of those of outrage and conscience at bay. So sits his massive flat gravestone, a
single, one-line epitaph inscribed at the top. His grave, today, remains as an unintended
testament to this man, and all men, who hypocritically defiled their own religious
obligations..
Yes, here on this slowly decaying plot, during the many decades past and many more to come,
a fence will not be enough to restrict those who respect the true value of mankind and are not
so easily put off. Acting on their own continued outrage against what this man once did, and
still does, stand for, here they climb that fence. Here, they consciously stand in defiance on
his gravestone, a marker that seeks to cover-over the crimes of one man against mankind.
Here. they stare down at the final words of a man so foul that those of conscience, true
morals and memory, to this day, have only one possible choice to make.
So, every summer's day they do not forget, deliberately climbing that spiked fence to stand
atop of this oligarch and wilfully emptying their bladders all over this villain of humanity.
Thus, they leave their mark, their opinion and their personal statement here to waft through
the air as the smell of ongoing resistance all over Crawshay's one line epitaph.
Far too many in our world today, like Crawshay, assume that they will somehow, despite their
crimes, purchase their own stairway to heaven. For all of his money, his mansions and his final
one line, desperate epitaph- carved forever at the head of the massive granite slab- these
words could not, would not, and forever will not, sanctify or turn all the Wrongs into
Right.
Yes, Crawshay was indeed a Zionist. Like all Zionists, he assumed that atonement for his
crimes– such as others pray for using the the Kol Nidrei- could be easily absolved by
scrawling his own final prayer to God.
On that gravestone, in 12-inch chiselled letters, is a simple one line epitaph his own final
prayer, his desperate demand, for ultimate absolution. "God, Forgive me." cries out Crawshay, in the finality of his life on hard,
unforgiving stone.
For an unconscionable man like Crawshay, it was, then Too God Damned Late!
About the Author: Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the
past eight years for news agencies worldwide. Many have been translated. On-scene reporting
from important current events has been an emphasis that has led to his many multi-part exposes
on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL
Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan's Turkey and many
more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his
archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk
Zionism cannot be understood outside the context of late 19th century European nationalism.
The purpose of Zionism is to build a "normal" country of Jews in the Land of Israel,
accepted by and at peace with it's Arab neighbors. The idea is to replace assimilation of
individual Jews with the assimilation of the entire Jewish nation.
Clearly this ideology violates the Torah. The Torah commands us to physically destroy
the Arabs and anyone else who challenges us and four us to expand our borders from the Nile
to the Euphrates. The Temple must be rebuilt, sacrifices must be resumed and Israel must
return to being a theocratic monarchy led by somebody from King David's line.
Peace with the Palestinians, Lebanese, Syrians and Iranians? Impossible because we are
clearly commanded to annihilate those nations. What about the Iraqis, Egyptians and Saudis
then? No, because they also currently occupy land that rightfully belongs to us.
As for the rest of the Arab/Islamic world, when they pay reparations to us and agree to
send us an annual tribute in perpetuity and then recognize us as G-d's chosen people and
the rightful rulers of the entirety of the Land, then we shall grant them peace. These
terms, however, are in final form and non negotiable.
When the politician ignores his conscience, the will of the voters, his duty to
country, and his oath of office in favour of supporting a foreign interest then he is a Zionist .
FIFY
When the politician ignores his conscience, the will of the voters, his duty to
country, and his oath of office in favour of supporting a foreign interest then he is a traitor .
I will comment this as I have for the last ten years tried to get to the bottom of this
"conspiracy".
About the conspiracy:
The New World was an idea of the Enlightenment, replacement of the Old Regime by democracy
and capitalism, later by socialism and communism. This idea was promoted by a secret
society, Freemasons, later by Communists and other secret societies which did not want
communism. Jews were not yet active in this movement, they had a niche as kings people, a
separate class. They did not fit into the new world, so they either had to assimilate or to
move to some place. As they did not want to assimilate, and they had the tendency of mutual
help, proto-Zionists started preparing the transfer of Jews to Palestine already 1840ies.
Those proto-Zionists included Freemasons, some bankers and so on, and it is this group that
become to rule the world in a short time, and it is the new form of this group that are the
globalists wanting to unify the world and get immigrants and all that. They do not include
Masons anymore, but one can identify some organizations working for these goals. To get the
non-assimilating Jews out of the new world, they needed Zionism.
Herzl's Zionism and modern
Anti-Semitism were created by this group about the same time for this exact purpose. Israel
was their creation. The logic behind the new world is to create one world, free market, no
religion,.. (just like Imagine of John Lennon or the Masonry dream) But there has to be a
ruling class, maybe secret.
In Communism it was the party, UK/US Freemasons possibly saw it
as WASPs, maybe it is an ethnic group here. I do not know, these models change and such
groups can be infiltrated unless they are closed and endogamous.
About the Jews:
Most Jews of course support Israel and they still practice mutual help, which causes the
same problems as always: they were an endogamous and fast growing population trying to
promote their group interests and seeing others as enemies. Jews in Israel face the
problems of an occupation force: as they are confronted by asymmetric resistance, they are
forced to do what they are doing, and that is the strategy of the resistance.
Additionally
there is Talmud with its different treatment of Jews and non-Jews, it makes things only
worse. The actions Israel must make turn it into a pariah state. The strategy of the
resistance may or may not lead to a success.
American Jews support Israel, which is natural
as Jews should support Jews. Christian Zionists support Israel, as they read the Bible in
that way, the Jews as God's nation. Yet, neither of these groups are the globalists who run
the world. Jews, including Zionists, are a cover for the ruling group: resistance is posed
as antisemitism. It is the same as was with Freemasonry. Most Freemasons did not make
revolutions, it was Memphis and Mizraim, but they acted as a cover: any opposition to the
revolutionary Masonry was ridiculed as conspiracy theories and normal Masons insisted that
they are innocent, as they were, but they just covered up those lodges which were not at
all innocent. Jews have the same role: opposition to those who do all this that must be
opposed is presented as opposition to the Jews and Israel and dubbed antisemitism.
Maybe I am wrong in this view that there are two different groups, but historically
taken, it was not the Jews who started this development to the new world. Jews are called
the lesser cousins in the Protocols and in Joly's Dialogues Machiavelli is a group of evil
men, who have taken the ways of the Jews, that is, it was not ethnic Jews at that time
(Mizraim members were mostly Catholic, though some were crypto: Frankists and so on).
'Committed no crime'. If anyone knows the definition of crime in international politics, I'd like to hear it. Lewis Mumford, 'The city in history, Its origins, its transformations and its prospects',
London, 1991, 1961 writes that the judaic rules were meant to cause separation from non
jews, and maximum growth of population, in itself no crimes. I'm reading on the European fourth and fifth centuries, cannot say that judaism's efforts
for power were worse than those described.
Anyhow, Rome in the first century CE twice sent powerful armies to Palestine to
subjugate jewry, in how far these armies were sent because jews were suspected of being
implicated in the murder of the Roman emperor, I'm not sure.
If christianity indeed was created by Paul as secret agent of the Roman emperor, to
underrmine judaism, an interesting theory.
The copper Dead Sea scroll describes where the jewish treasure was hidden, I'm inclined to
think that what is described was real, the Jerusalem temple was very rich.
Michael Grant, 'The Jews in the Roman World', 1973, New York
After the west, in any case on the surface, became christian, with the pope as highest
authority, jews became a nuisance: they made clear that the pope was not almighty, kings
liked to use the jews for tax gathering etc., the pope could not interfere.
As jews were excluded from many professions, often also forbidden to own land of houses, it
is not suprising that some of them lent themselves to shady practices of kings etc.
What went wrong, in my view, is that jews, not all of them, of course, assimilated
insufficiently after the got equal rights in the 19th century.
Katz writes 'the expectation that jews would disappear through assimilation was not
fullfilled, on the contrary, jews became more visible'. 'From prejudice to destruction', Jacob Katz, 1980, Cambridge MA.
One of the factors Katz mentioned for success was 'close economic cooperation'.
And so, after 1870 in the unified Germany, antisemitism emerged.
Antisemitism is not antijudaism, as the anti sentiment after 1870 was also against non
religious jews.
Zionism, in my view, no more than a reaction to antisemitism.
The creation of Israel, the most stupid thing jews ever did, my idea.
Zionism is seen by many as the same as judaism, Israel advertises the worst aspects of
jewish culture.
Israel can only exist through jewish power in the USA, and wars by the USA.
Israel may be the third military power in the world, as the British said 'one can do a lot
with bayonets, except sit on them'.
A very stream-of-consciousness & confusing text. As for myself, I'm all for Zionism
with consequences, similar to Arthur Koestler. Let's see..
1. Jews are religious-cultural-historical people. Wherever they settled, they remained
an isolated group.
2. Europe, if you wish, is a state of mind: first during Greco-Roman cultural sphere
& then during long centuries of Christianity. Jews remained the only tolerated Middle
Eastern group in Europe, a group that, mostly, did not assimilate (Muslims and others were
booted).
3. in Muslim & Eastern cultural spheres (Iran, Ottomans, Arabs,..) Jews were just
one among co-existing cultural groups because Islamic world did not developed as Europe:
the nations & nation-states (language, territory, customs, law, culture, history,..)
became in past 500-800 years primal foci of loyalty of European peoples. Jews did not fit
in.
4. during 19th-20th C Theodor Herzl was a shrewd observer. He clearly saw that most Jews
were Europeanized, but still alien Middle-Eastern historical people living among various,
different European peoples. Zionist idea was a realist admission that Jews in Europe
remained a separate nation, whether they lived in Italy, Germany, France or Russia. Of
course, this does not apply to assimilated, not just acculturated Jews: Jews simply cease
to be Jews when they lose their ethnic religious identity & fully embrace different
cultural-identity matrix. Was Karl Marx a Jew? No, he was a German of Jewish descent.
5. after establishment of Israel, Jews got their nation-state. But, many diaspora Jews
continued with their anti-national culture war against western nations, while extolling
Israel as a Jewish nation. Sorry guys, you can't have it both ways. It can't be
multiculturalism & anti-nationalism for thee (US, France, Poland, Italy,..) &
nationalism for me (Israel).
6. contemporary BDS crowd is mostly composed of home-grown far leftists, ideological
progeny of the 1960s counter-culture & New Left, and various anti-Jewish racial &
religious groups (Muslims, Africans..-who historically don't belong to Europe).
Pro-Palestinian, pro-Muslim & pro-3rd world rhetoric is absurdity for most sane whites
(Europeans & North Americans). They're not worried about fully integrated co-nationals
of Jewish origin; they're annoyed by Zionist Jews who behave like accepted, but still alien
& sometimes hostile group; and they're extremely inimical toward unassimilable racial
& cultural aliens (blacks, Muslims, Asians, )
For most Europeans & Europe-derived peoples (at least the mentally sane majority)-
they want to get rid of all- Asians, blacks, self-conscious Middle Easterners these guys
don't belong here. It is not a continuation of some Jewish obsession, but a simple
admission: sorry guys, you're not my people. You got your home somewhere in the East &
go there. We may trade with all you Israelis, Turks, Moroccans, Pakistanis, Nigerians, .but
good fences make good neighbors.
In sum, Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and its army is the most moral army
in the world. Indeed, Israel was founded to be a shining light onto humanity, illuminating
how a state should function vis a vis its citizens and its neighbors. Both learned and
unlearned know that to be so. To elaborate is no avail, and unquestionably anti-semitic.
A very good article on Zionism that addresses the JQ straight on. Unfortunately, I think it
is off target by trying to equate the greed and madness for power of Crayshaw, and jews in
general, with Zionism. He never really links Crawshays' actions to Kol Nidrei, it is more
of a association through a high correlation of depravity and greed.
By confining his definition of Jewish Power be to a subset of Zionism, he provides "good
jews" far too much wiggle room to disassociate themselves from their people actions, often
when they themselves are citizens of Israel.
"Long ago cast-out from Judea since AD 70, by Roman emperor, Titus ..": but that's simply
untrue, a yarn invented centuries after 70AD. They were banned from living in Jerusalem,
sure, but that was after the second revolt, not the first. Nor were they ever expelled from
Palestine. Plain didn't happen.
Being on the losing side of a revolt against Rome must be grim but expulsion was not one
of the punishments. For a start, why would the Romans expel those Jews who took no part in
the revolt? When else did Rome expel a whole population as a punishment? Why is there no
record of this punishment of the Jews? Even Josephus makes no mention of this purported
exile. Pah! It's baloney.
Why the maximalism, bro? You make a great case against Zionism, and then conflate it with
the Federalist Society's support of "rolling back civil liberties, imperial wars,
free-wheeling laissez-faire capitalism and corporatism, along with ending New Deal/Great
Society social programs", and their stance "against reproductive choice, government
regulations, labour rights, environmental protections, and justice for unwanted aliens."
I happen to love laissez-faire capitalism, and the thought of ending New Deal/Great
Society social programs tickles me pink.
Does that make me a Zionist catspaw?
Some of us think the term "reproductive rights" is a euphemism for "child murder", and
"government regulations, labour rights, environmental protections, and justice for unwanted
(illegal) aliens" are subjectively defined terms, to say the least.
I would have read the whole thing, but after that you devolved into Counterpunchian
logorrhea, and I just aint got the time.
After the fake quote supposedly from Netanyahu (lol at least spell his name correctly next
time) I kept pressing page down and it kept going. Amazing. Why does Unz publish these
idiotic schizoid rants?
"He(Jeremy Corbyn) is also the sole example to a world desperately looking for a leader to
follow in their own fight for a return to proper society in their own nations."
Not a very good example IMHO. Better example is the former PM of Malaysia and again PM
of Malaysia recently elected at the young age of 92. Mahathir Mohamad is a well known
"anti-semite" which of course means is an enemy of the "Zionist international mafia."
Jeremy Corbyn, if elected, will be the new Alexis Tsipras. Why ? Because as everyone
knows, if the "Zionist international mafia" have complete control of the USA, it is obvious
that they also have complete control of GB. Corbyn like Tsipras, will do as told.
More: As a leader of opposition, Jeremy Corbyn never had the courage to call a cat a
cat. He has never called the former PM and a well known zionist-Tony Bair- a war
criminal.
Most British people and Labour members believe that TB is a war criminal.
Even today, the blairites (Zionists) still control the Labour Party. How credible that someone that doesn't control his own party, will control Britain's
deep state ?
"Thus viewed correctly, Zionism is not a religion, nor is it part of Judaism".
This seems to be, according to Gilad Atzmon wishful thinking from the writer and "Rabbi
Yaakov Shapiro, probably the most eloquent Torah Jew spokesperson".
"Zionism cannot be understood outside the context of late 19th century European
nationalism." – Sure. "National Socialism, more commonly known as Nazism, subscribed to theories of racial
hierarchy and Social Darwinism The Nazis aimed to unite all Germans living in historically
German territory, as well as gain additional lands for German expansion under the doctrine
of Lebensraum and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or "inferior"
races." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism Replace Nazism with Zionism: " Zionism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and
Social Darwinism The Zionism aimed to unite all Jews living in historically Jewish
territory, as well as gain additional lands for Jewish expansion under the doctrine of
Lebensraum and exclude those who they deemed either community aliens or "inferior"
races."
– Close your holocaust museums already. The worst among the Jews have plagiarized the
German nationalism' ideas to create the monstrosity of indecent, dishonorable, inhuman,
immoral, and obnoxious imitation (forgery), Zionism. The forgery has been flourishing
thanks to the deeply-dishonest talmudic traditions married to tribal solidarity.
The talmudic lunatics have been destroying each and very safe haven throughout Europe and
now in the US. Your Polish bastard Bibi and the Moldovan thug Avi can try on taking all
possible poses and mannerism of "distinguished" men -- this will not help. They are
thugs. Zionism is a dangerous cancerous growth on western civilization. Would not it be great if
your lot collectively disappear from the cultural centers of the EU and the US?
Your problem is, the Zionists cannot coexist with the Zionists. The article explains,
why.
Same sex is the only choice the Jewish Rabbi Jezus allows in
Jewheaven.
"When Jewgod raises people to life, they won't marry. They will be like the Jewangels in
Jewheaven." (((Matthew 22:30)))
That perversion alone is reason enough to refuse any offer of a Jew to save you to his
Jewish utopia. Yet you fall for this degenerate storytelling hook, line, and sinker!
"Zionism, in my view, no more than a reaction to antisemitism."
– The above paper's focus is on a specific prayer:
"All [personal] vows we are likely to make, all [personal] oaths and pledges we are likely
to take between this Yom Kippur and the next Yom Kippur, we publicly renounce. Let them all
be relinquished and abandoned, null and void, neither firm nor established. Let our
[personal] vows, pledges and oaths are considered neither vows nor pledges nor oaths." -the Kol Nidrei.
The Kol Nidrei, ("All Vows") often misspelt Kol Nidre, was not originally a prayer, but a
declaration offered during Rosh Hashana, the start of the Jewish new year. In "modern"
Judaism it is now being delivered as a prayer and has so grown in prominence during the
last sixty years that it is now delivered at the commencement of Judaism's holiest yearly
event of Passover."
– It was not "antisemitism" but the anti-talmudism reaction towards the indecency and
treachery of a certain segment of the Jewish populace. Zionism was, and is, a farcical and bloodthirsty imitation of the 19th-century German
nationalism.
I should like to cite several passages from Yuval Harari's excellent book, "
Sapiens ":
p.210: " all social orders and hierarchies are imagined, they are all fragile, and
the larger the society, the more fragile it is. The crucial historical role of religion has
been to give superhuman legitimacy to these fragile structures.
two distinct criteria: 1. Religions hold that there is a superhuman order, which is not the product of human
whims or agreements.
2. Based on this superhuman order, religion establishes norms and values that it considers
binding. "
p. 195 It's for your own good : " Evolution has made Homo sapiens. like other
social mammals, a xenophobic creature. Sapiens instinctively divide humanity into two
parts, 'we' and 'they'. We are people like you and me, who share our language, religion and
customs. We are all responsible for each other, but not responsible for them. We were
always distinct from them, we owe them nothing. We don't want to see any of them in our
territory, and we don't care an iota what happens in their territory. They are barely even
human. "
p. 228 The Worship of Man : " if we take into consideration natural-law
religions, then modernity turns out to be an age of intense religious fervour, unparalleled
missionary efforts, and the bloodiest wars of religion in history. The modern age has
witnessed the rise of new natural-law religions, such as liberalism, Communism, capitalism,
nationalism, and Nazism. These creeds do not like to be called religions, and refer to
themselves as ideologies. But this is just a semantic exercise. If a religion is a system
of human norms and values that is founded on belief in a superhuman order, then Soviet
Communism was no less a religion than Islam. "
p. 242 Blind Clio : " Ever more scholars see cultures as a kind of mental
infection or parasite, with humans as its unwitting host. Organic parasites, such as
viruses, live inside the body of their host. They multiply and spread from one host to the
other, feeding off their hosts, weakening them, and sometimes killing them. As long as the
hosts live long enough to pass along the parasite, it cares little about the condition of
its host. In just this fashion, cultural ideas live inside the minds of humans. They
multiply and spread from one host to another, occasionally weakening the host and sometimes
even killing them. – can compel a human to dedicate his or her life to spreading that
idea, even at the price of death. The human dies, but the idea spreads. . Successful
cultures are those that excel in reproducing their memes, irrespective of the costs and
benefits to their human hosts. Similar arguments are common in the social sciences, under
the aegis of game theory. Game theory explains how in multi-player systems, views and
behaviour patterns that harm all players nevertheless manage to take root and spread.
"
Corporate Media's About-Face on Ukraine's Neo-Nazis July 5, 2018 •
59 Comments
U.S. corporate media spent years dismissing the role of neo-Nazis in Ukraine's 2014 coup but
it is suddenly going through a conversion, as Daniel Lazare reports.
By Daniel Lazare Special to Consortium News
Last month a freelance journalist named Joshua
Cohen published an
article in The Washington Post about the Ukraine's growing neo-Nazi threat.
Despite a gratuitous swipe at Russia for allegedly exaggerating the problem (which it hasn't),
the piece was fairly accurate.
Entitled "Ukraine's ultra-right militias are challenging the government to a showdown," it
said that fascists have gone on a rampage while the ruling clique in Kiev closes its eyes for
the most part and prays that the problem somehow goes away on its own.
Thus, a group calling itself C14 (for the fourteen-word ultra-right motto, "We must secure
the existence of our people and a future for white children") not only beat up a socialist
politician and celebrated Hitler's birthday by stabbing an antiwar activist, but bragged about
it on its website. Other ultra-nationalists, Cohen says, have stormed the Lvov and Kiev city
councils and "assaulted or disrupted" art exhibits, anti-fascist demos, peace and gay-rights
events, and a Victory Day parade commemorating the victory over Hitler in 1945.
Yet nothing has happened to stop this. President Petro Poroshenko could order a crackdown,
but hasn't for reasons that should be obvious. The U.S.-backed "Euromaidan" uprising not only
drove out former president Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, who had won an OSCE-certified
election, but tore the country in two, precisely because ultra-rightists like C14 were in the
lead.
When resistance to the U.S.-backed coup
broke out in Crimea and parts of the country's largely Russian-speaking east, the base of
Yanukovych voters, civil war ensued. But because the Ukrainian army had all but collapsed, the
new, coup government had no one to rely on other than the neo-fascists who had helped propel it
to power.
So an alliance was hatched between pro-western oligarchs at the top – Forbesputs
Poroshenko's net worth at a cool $1 billion – and neo-Nazi enforcers at the bottom.
Fascists may not be popular. Indeed, Dmytro Yarosh, the fire-breathing leader of a white-power
coalition known as Right Sector, received less than one percent of the vote when he
ran for president in May 2014.
But the state is so weak and riddled with so many ultra-rightists in key positions –
Andriy Parubiy, founder of the neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine, is speaker of the
parliament, while ultra-rightist Arsen Avakov is minister of the interior – that the path
before them is clear and unobstructed. As Cohen points out, the result is government passivity
on one hand and a rising tide of ultra-right violence on the other. In the earlier stages of
the civil war, for instance, the rightwing extremists burned more than 40 people alive in a
labor union building in Odessa, a horrific incident downplayed by Western media.
Cohen's article may have Washington Post readers scratching their heads for the
simple reason that the paper has long said the opposite. Since Euromaidan, the Post
has toed the official Washington line
that Vladimir Putin has exaggerated the role of the radical right in order to discredit the
anti-Yanukovych revolt and legitimize his own alleged interference.
Sure, anti-Yanukovych forces had festooned the Kiev town hall with a white supremacist
banner, a Confederate flag , and a giant image of Stepan Bandera , a Nazi
collaborator whose forces killed thousands of Jews during the German occupation and as many as
100,000 Poles. And yes, they staged a 15,000-strong torchlight parade in Bandera's honor and
scrawled an SS symbol on a toppled
statue of Lenin. They also destroyed a memorial to Ukrainians who
had fought on what Bandera supporters regard as the wrong side of World War II, that is, with
the Soviets and against the Axis.
But so-called responsible, mainstream journalists are supposed to avert their eyes to avoid
being tarred as a "
useful idiot " whom Putin supposedly employs to advance his "anti-American agenda." Ten
days after Yanukovych's departure, the Post dutifully
assured its readers that Russian reports of "hooligans and fascists" had "no basis in
reality."
A week or so later, it
said "the new government, though peppered with right-wing politicians, is led primarily by
moderate, pro-European politicians." A few weeks after that, it
described Bandera as no more than "controversial" and quoted a Kiev businessman as saying:
"The Russians want to call him a fascist, but I feel he was a hero for our country. Putin is
using him to try to divide us."
Thus, the Post and other corporate media continued to do its duty by
attacking Putin for plainly saying "the forces backing Ukraine's government in Kiev are
fascists and neo-Nazis." But who was wrong ?
The New York Times was no better. It
assailed Russia for hurling "harsh epithets" like "neo-Nazi," and
blamed the Russian leader for "scaremongering" by attributing Yanukovych's ouster to
"nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes, and anti-Semites." The Guardian 's Luke Harding
–
a leading Putin basher –
said of the far-right Svoboda Party:
"Over the past decade the party appears to have mellowed, eschewing xenophobia, academic
commentators suggest. On Monday, the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, said he had
been 'positively impressed' by Svoboda's evolution in opposition and by its behavior in the
Rada, Ukraine's parliament. 'They have demonstrated their democratic bona fides,' the
ambassador asserted."
This is the party whose founder, Oleh Tyahnybok,
said in a 2004 speech that "a Moscow-Jewish mafia" was running the Ukraine and that
Bandera's followers "fought against the Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other enemies who wanted
to take away our Ukrainian state." Had the leopard really changed its spots, according to
Pyatt? Or was it simply a matter of America not giving a damn as long as Svoboda joined the
fight to encircle Russia and advance NATO's drive to the east?
As someone named Marx once observed , "Who you gonna believe, me or your
own two eyes?" As far as Ukraine was concerned, the answer for the corporate press came from
the U.S. State Department. If Foggy Bottom said that Ukrainian neo-Nazism was a figment of
Russia's imagination, then that's what it was, regardless of evidence to the contrary.
Someday, historians will look back on Euromaidan Ukraine as one of the looniest periods in
western journalism – except, of course, for all the ones that have followed. But if one
had to choose the looniest story of all, one that best reflects the abject toadyism of the
reporting classes, it would have to be "Why Jews and Ukrainians Have Become Unlikely Allies," a
1,400-word article
that ran on the Post -owned Foreign Policy website in May 2014. Four years
later, it stands as a model of how not to write about an all-important political crisis.
Cohen's Conversion
Tyahnybok: 'Moscow-Jewish mafia' is running Ukraine.
The piece begins with the usual hand-wringing about Svoboda and Right Sector and expresses
remorse that the latter still venerates the "controversial" Bandera, whose followers "fought on
the side of the Nazis from 1944 until the end of World War II." (Actually, they welcomed the
Germans from the start and, despite rocky relations with the Slav-hating Nazis, continued to
work with them throughout the occupation.)
But then it gets down to business by asserting that as bad as Ukrainian nationalists may be,
Russia is doubly worse. "Despite the substantial presence of right wing nationalists on the
Maidan during the revolution," it says, "many in Ukraine's Jewish community resent being used
by Putin in his propaganda war." The proof is an open letter signed by 21 Ukrainian Jewish
leaders asserting that the real danger was Moscow.
"We know that the political opposition consists of various groups, including some that are
nationalistic," the letter declared. "But even the most marginal of them do not demonstrate
anti-Semitism or other forms of xenophobia. And we certainly know that our very few
nationalists are well-controlled by civil society and the new Ukrainian government –
which is more than can be said for the Russian neo-Nazis, who are encouraged by your security
services."
This was music to Washington's ears. But if neo-Nazis are free of "anti-Semitism or other
forms of xenophobia," how does one explain the white-power symbols in the Kiev town hall? If
nationalists were "very few" in number, why did journalists need to explain them away? If
Russian security forces really encouraged neo-Nazis, where were the torchlight parades and
portraits of Bandera-like collaborators hanging from public buildings in Moscow?
The article might have noted that Josef Zissels, the Jewish community leader who organized
the letter, is a provocative figure who has long maintained close relations with Ukraine's far
right. A self-styled
Zhydobanderivets – a word that roughly translates as "Kike follower of Bandera"
– he has since infuriated other Jewish leaders by criticizing California Congressman Ro
Khanna for sending a letter to the State Department asking that pressure be brought on the
governments of Poland and Ukraine to combat Holocaust revisionism in their countries.
Forty-one Jewish leaders were so angry, in fact, that they sent out
a letter of their own thanking Khannna for his efforts, expressing "deep concern at the
rise of anti-Semitic incidents and expressions of xenophobia and intolerance, including attacks
on Roma communities," and "strongly proclaim[ing] that Mr. Iosif Zissels and the organization
VAAD do not represent the Jews of Ukraine." A Jewish community leader in Russia was so outraged
by the pro-Bandera apologetics of Zissels and a Ukrainian-Jewish oligarch named Igor Kolomoisky
that he
said he wanted to hang both men "in Dnepropetrovsk in front of the Golden Rose Synagogue
until they stop breathing."
So Foreign Policy used a highly dubious source to whitewash Ukraine's growing
neo-Nazi presence and absolve it of anti-Semitism. As crimes against the truth go, this is
surely one of the worst. But now that the problem has gotten too big for even the corporate
media to ignore, overnight muckrakers like Joshua Cohen are seeing to it that getting away with
such offenses will no longer be so easy. Before his abrupt about-face, the author of that
misleading Foreign Policy piece was Joshua Cohen.
Daniel Lazare is the author ofThe Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is
Paralyzing Democracy(Harcourt Brace, 1996) and other books about American
politics. He has written for a wide variety of publications fromThe NationtoLe Monde Diplomatique, and his articles about the Middle East,
terrorism, Eastern Europe, and other topics appear regularly on such websites asJacobinand The American Conservative .
If you enjoyed this original article please consider
making a donation to Consortium News so we can bring you more stories like this
one.
mike k , July 6, 2018 at 4:49 pm
The leaders of Israel who sell weapons to the Nazis in Ukraine, are no better than those
Nazis.
Susan Sunflower , July 6, 2018 at 1:37 pm
for those having Alice In Wonderland whiplash, yes the USA was funding the Ukranian
neonazis Azov Brigade before Congress banned the funding in March 2018.
same old "syrian playbook" wrt to enemy-of-my-memory bull .
rosemerry , July 6, 2018 at 10:12 am
The two-hour documentary "Putin" shows in an interview Pres. Putin explaining his
government's cooperating with the Western- supported Ukrainian government for four years
(because they were neighbors and had many links) which he considered normal behavior.
However, once the 2014 election brought in a more "Moscow-friendly" team to govern Ukraine,
the USA began its plans to overthrow it and we see all the consequences shown in this
article.
The tacit support given by the centre-left to the installation of the regime in Kiev
should give them cause for concern writes Frank.
Politics in the Ukraine can only be understood by reference to its history and ethnic and
cultural make-up – a make-up criss-crossed by lasting and entrenched ethnic, cultural
and political differences. The country has long been split into the northern and western
Ukraine, where Ukrainian is the official and everyday lingua franca, and the more
industrialised regions of the east and south where a mixture of Russian speaking Ukrainians
and ethnic Russians reside. Additionally, there has long been Hungarian and Romanian
settlement in the west of the country, and a particularly important Polish presence, whose
unofficial capital, Lviv, was once the Polish city of Lwow. The Russian Orthodox Church is
the predominant form of Christianity in the East, whilst in the west the Christian tradition
tends towards Roman Catholicism.
Politically the Eastern and Southern Oblasts (Regions) which includes the cities and
centres of heavy industry, Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Zaporozhe, Nikolayev, Kherson,
Simferopol and Odessa, have tended to tilt towards Russia whilst the western regions have had
a more western orientation. This has traditionally been reflected in the electoral division
of the country. There is no party which can be considered 'national' in this respect, except
ironically, the old Communist party, which of course is now banned. The major regional
parties have been the Fatherland party of Yulia Tymoshenko (since renamed) and the former
head of government, Arseniy Yatsenyuk as well as the ultra-nationalists predominantly in the
west of the country, and the deposed Victor Yanukovich's Party of the Regions in the East
(now defunct) along with its junior partner in the coalition, the Ukrainian Communist
Party.
However, what is new since the coup in February 2014 there has been the emergence from the
shadows of ultra-nationalist (fascist) parties and movements, with both parliamentary and
extra-parliamentary (i.e.,military) wings. In the main 'Svoboda' or Freedom Party, and the
paramilitaries of 'Right Sector' (Fuhrer: Dimitry Yarosh) who spearheaded the coup in Kiev;
these have been joined or changed their names to inter alia the Radical Party, and Patriots
of the Ukraine; this in addition to the punitive right-wing militias, such as the Azov
Regiment responsible for numerous atrocities in the Don Bas.
Suffice it to say, however, that these political movements and parties did not emerge from
nowhere.
This far-right tradition has been historically very strong in the western Ukraine. The
Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) was first established in 1929 and brought
together, war veterans, student fraternities, far-right groups and various other disoriented
socially and political flotsam and jetsam under its banner. The OUN took its ideological
position from the writings of one, Dymtro Dontsov, who, like Mussolini had been a socialist,
and who was instrumental in creating an indigenous Ukrainian fascism based upon the usual
mish-mash of writings and theories including Friedrich Nietzsche, Georges Sorel, and Charles
Maurras. Dontsov also translated the works of Hitler and Mussolini into Ukrainian.
The OUN was committed to ethnic purity, and relied on violence, assassination and
terrorism, not least against other Ukrainians, to achieve its goal of a totalitarian and
homogeneous nation-state. Assorted enemies and impediments to this goal were Communists,
Russians, Poles, and of course – Jews. Strongly oriented toward the Axis powers OUN
founder Evhen Konovalets (1891-1938) stated that his movement was ''waging war against mixed
marriages'', with Poles, Russians and Jews, the latter which he described as ''foes of our
national rebirth''. Indeed, rabid anti-Semitism has been a leitmotif in the history of
Ukrainian fascism, which we will return to below.
Konovelts himself was assassinated by a KGB hit-man in 1938 after which the movement split
into two wings: (OUN-m) under Andrii Melnyk and, more importantly for our purposes (OUN-b)
under Stepan Bandera. Both wings committed to a new fascist Europe. Upon the German invasion
in June 1941, the OUN-b attempted to establish a Ukrainian satellite state loyal to Nazi
Germany. Stepan Lenkavs'kyi the then chief propagandist of the OUN-b 'government' advocated
the physical destruction of Ukrainian Jewry. OUN-b's 'Prime Minister' Yaroslav Stets'ko, and
deputy to Bandera supported, ''the destruction of the Jews and the expedience of bringing
German methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine, barring their assimilation and the
like.''
During the early days of the rapid German advance into the Soviet Union there were some
140 pogroms in the western Ukraine claiming the lives of between 13000-35000 people
(Untermensch, in fascist terminology). In 1943-1944 OUN-b and its armed wing the Ukrainian
Insurgent Army (Ukrainska povstanska armia – UPA) carried out large scale ethnic
cleansing resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands; this was a particularly gruesome
affair in Volhynia where some 90000 Poles and thousands of Jews were murdered. The campaign
of the UPA continued well into the 1950s until it was virtually wiped out by the Soviet
forces.
It should be said that during this early period Bandera himself had been incarcerated by
the German authorities up until his release in 1944, since unlike Bandera they were not
enamoured of an independent Ukrainian state but wanted total control. Bandera was only
released at this late date since the German high command was endeavouring to build up a
pro-German Ukrainian quisling military force to hold up the remorseless advance of the Red
Army. Also pursuant to this it is also worth noting that during this period the 14th Galizian
Waffen SS Division, a military Ukrainian collaborationist formation established by Heinrich
Himmler, was formed to fight the Soviet forces, and yet another being the Nachtingal brigade;
(1) this unit was integrated into the 14th Galizian in due course. It is also interesting to
note, that every year, and up to 2014 commemoration ceremony including veterans of this unit
takes place with a march through Lviv in an evening torchlight parade – genuine Nazi
pastiche. The flag of this unit is not dissimilar to the Peugeot logo, the standing lion, and
can be seen at ultra-nationalist rallies as well as football matches involving Lviv Karparti
FC. There are also numerous statues of Bandera across Ukraine, and since the 2014 coup even
street names bearing the same name. Significantly the UPA have now received political
rehabilitation from the Kiev Junta, with Bandera declared a hero of the Ukraine and the UPA
rebranded as 'freedom fighters.' One particularly splendid statue of Bandera stands proudly
in Lviv and is usually adorned with flowers.
Other novel attractions the capital of Banderestan include 'Jewish themed restaurants' one
such is Kryivka (Hideout or Lurking Hole) where guests have a choice of dishes and whose
dinning walls are decorated with larger than life portraits of Bandera, the toilet with
Russian and Jewish anecdotes. At another Jewish themed restaurant guests are offered black
hats of the sort worn by Hasidim. The menu lists no prices for the dishes; instead, one is
required to haggle over highly inflated prices ''in the Jewish fashion''. Yes, it's all good
clean fun in Lviv. Anti-Semitism also sells. Out of 19 book vendors on the streets of central
Lviv, 16 were openly selling anti-Semitic literature. About 70% of the anti-Semitic
publications in Ukraine are being published by and educational institution called MUAP (The
Inter-Regional Academy of Personnel Management). MAUP is a large, well-connected and
increasingly powerful organization funded from outside anti-Semite sources, and also
connected to White Supremacist groups in the USA and to the David Duke, former Grand Wizard
of the Ku Klux Klan.
(It is one of the ironies of history that if the Zionists in AIPAC and the Washington
neo-con think tanks, and the Labour Party Friends of Israel, were so concerned about
anti-Semitism, they might try looking for it in Lviv. They wouldn't have to search very
far.)
Present day neo-Nazi groupings in Ukraine – Svoboda (Freedom) party and Right Sector
– have been the direct descendants from the prior ideological cesspool. Heading Svoboda
is Oleh Tyahnybok. Although these are separate organizations Tyahnybok's deputy Yuriy
Mykhalchyshyn is the main link between Svoboda's official wing and neo-Nazi militias like
Right Sector. The Social-Nationalist party as it was formerly known chose as its logo an
amended version of the Wolfsangel, a symbol used by many SS divisions on the Eastern front
during the war who in 2004 a celebration of the OUN-UPA, stated in 2004, that ''they fought
against the Muscovite, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian
state.'' And further that ''Ukraine was ruled by a Muscovite-Jewish mafia.'' Tyahnybok came
under pressure from the then President, Yuschenko, to retract his inflammatory statements,
which he did, but he then retracted the retraction!
Given the fact that Svoboda was, apart from its stamping grounds in the west, making
little national electoral headway, it was essential to clean up its image and deny its Nazi
past. But this was always going to be difficult since the members of such groups cannot help
the unscripted outbursts and faux pas which they tend to make and which reveals their true
colours. For example, following the conviction and sentencing of John Demjanjuk to five years
in jail for his role as an accessory to the murder of 27,900 people at the Sobibor death
camp, Tyahnybok travelled to Germany and met up with Demjanjuk's lawyer, presenting the death
camp guard as a hero, a victim of persecution ''who is fighting for truth''.
And so it goes on. We can therefore infer that this organization is inveterate fascist. More
disturbing Svoboda has links with the so-called Alliance of National European Movements,
which includes: Nationaldemokraterna of Sweden, Front Nationale of France, Fiamma Tricolore
in Italy, the Hungarian Jobbik and the Belgian National Front. More importantly Svoboda held
several ministerial portfolios in the Kiev administration, and Right Sector swaggers around
Kiev streets with impunity, and/or are being drafted into a National Guard to deal with the
separatist movements in the east, or to beat down anyone who doesn't conform to their Ayran
racial and political ideals.
One would have thought that this mutating revolution in the Ukraine would have drawn
attention of the centre-left to the fact that fascism had gained a vital beachhead in Europe,
and that the danger signals should be flashing. But not a bit of it; a perusal of the
Guardian newspaper quickly reveals that their chief concern has been with a non-existent
'Russian threat'. One of their reporters – or old friend, Luke Harding -described Right
Sector as an ''eccentric group of people with unpleasant right-wing views.'' Priceless! This
must rank as the political understatement of the century. In fact, the Guardian was simply
reiterating the US-imposed neo-conservative foreign policy. But naturally, this is par for
the course.
(1) The Nachtingal brigade, which was later incorporated into the SS Galizien, took part
in a three-day massacre of the Jewish population of Lvov (now Lviv) from 30 June 1941. Roman
Shukhevych was the commander of the Nachtingal and later, in 1943, became commander of the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army (the "Banderivtsy", or UPA/UIA[5] ), armed henchmen of the fascist
Stepan Bandera, who after the war pretended that they had fought both Nazis and Communists.
Members of the division are also accused of having murdered some 800 residents of the Polish
village of Huta Pieniacka and 44 civilians in the village of Ch?aniów.
Paolo , July 6, 2018 at 7:11 am
Just for the record: the Ukrainians hailed the Nazis as liberators after the Soviets had
let millions of Ukrainians die of hunger in the thirties, a sort of "genocide" that goes
under the name of Holodomor and has officially been recognized by western Parlaments only a
few decades ago. In eastern Ukraine there were no more inhabitants after the Holodomor, and
the Russians imported hundreds of thousand peasants from Russia to get agriculture working
again.
The problems of Ukraine are so deep that fomenting regime change there was a most idiotic
thing to do. Sooner or later the problems will explode, and it will be tough shit. Whoever
helped this regime change should be locked up in some high security jail as far as
possible.
Garrett Connelly , July 6, 2018 at 9:52 am
The big lie is 180° opposite of reality repeated over and over using free corporate
propaganda.
vinnieoh , July 5, 2018 at 3:15 pm
Still scratching my head at the electric last line of Mr. Lazare's piece. I'm mean, I'm
used to "official" organs like WaPo and NYT publishing whatever narrative is most helpful to
whatever pieces are being moved on the chessboard, but for the same "freelance journalist" to
have written both the earlier Foreign Policy piece and the recent WaPo piece is a puzzle to
me.
Does Joshua Cohen just write stuff that goes with the flow (at any particular moment) and
has a good chance of being published (and consequently of himself being paid)?
Or did this
person really have an epiphany, and the scales fell from his eyes? I suspect a third
explanation though what that may be eludes me. One thing is for sure, as a Trump/Putin
meeting gets closer, expect more false "official" narratives concerning both Ukraine and
Syria.
'The U.S.-backed "Euromaidan" uprising not only drove out former president Viktor
Yanukovych in February 2014, who had won an OSCE-certified election, but tore the country in
two, precisely because ultra-rightists like C14 were in the lead But if one had to choose the
looniest story of all, one that best reflects the abject toadyism of the reporting classes,
it would have to be "Why Jews and Ukrainians Have Become Unlikely Allies," a 1,400-word
article that ran on the Post-owned Foreign Policy website in May 2014.'
Here's the thing though: however weird it may sound, there actually DOES seem to exist
some sort of tacit alliance between (some, not all) Jews and Ukrainian Nazis. Even if their
ultimate goals are completely at odds–the Nazis hate the EU, but the Jews mostly want
to join it–they nearly always seem to work together against Russia. It has even been
maintained that the Azov Battalion (one of the all-volunteer Neo-Nazi militias fighting
against the Donbass rebels) was entirely financed for a time by Jewish oligarch Ihor
Kholomoisky, at least until he did something to piss Poroshenko off and got sacked from his
post as governor of Dniepropetrovsk. And in the beginning, Jews who tried to point out that
Neo-Nazi groups were involved in overthrowing Yanukovych, like Dr. Stephen Cohen, were
roundly denounced a 'Russia apologists' just for stating facts.
But now that Washington's whole Ukraine project has gone south, I guess the Nazis, having
outlived their usefulness, are, as usual, to be the fall-guys and take all the blame.
Anna , July 5, 2018 at 2:39 pm
yeh, the Kaganat of Nuland has many veils.
The most stunning aspect of the banderite putsch in Kiev was the dead silence of nazi-hunters
from Wiesenthal Center, the always oh-so-sensitive ADL, the main 52 (fifty-two!) American
Jewish organizations, and the overall docility and compliance of the "righteous" Israel with
the banderite-neo-Nazi ideology by Kagans-selected power structures in Ukraine.
Mr. Kolomojsky, a financier of neo-nazi battalion Azov, is still an Israeli citizen.
Mrs. Nuland-Kagan, the main machinator of the regime change in Kiev, has not been ostracized
by the Jewish Community at large.
The deeply amoral and bloodthirsty Carl Gerschman from NED, who has been the main cheerleader
for the putsch and for the installing the banderite-friendly government in Kiev, has not been
ostracized by the Jewish Community at large either. What a stench!
https://medium.com/@gmochannel/us-staged-a-coup-in-ukraine-brief-history-and-facts-898c6d0007d6
Pft , July 5, 2018 at 9:07 pm
Yeah. The prime minister and many of the top oligarchs are Jewish. Relations between
Ukraine and Israel seem quite good despite the UNSC vote that the US abstained on regarding
Israeli settlements in the West Bank, perhaps reminded by Stalin doing the same to them in
the 1920's.
As for relations with the neo nazis I remember before WWII that Zionists in Palestine
cooperated with Nazis who sent German Jews to Palestine in return for the purchase of German
goods which were being boycotted by Jews in the west
I suspect most Americans don't know Ukrainian history. The early years of Bolshevik rule
were quite brutal and over 10 million rural Christians lost their lives in Ukraine over their
policies .Solzhenitsyn 200 years can shed some light on the roots of the anti-Semitism among
the peasants that developed in the 20's-30's and no doubt has been passed on.
Robert , July 6, 2018 at 4:24 pm
I've thought about this myself and have concluded that a fair number of Jewish
organizations and institutions in the Ukraine were receiving a small portion of the US State
Department funding allocated to the Ukraine each year of $200-250 million, totaling $5
billion since 1992. In return for this rather small (by US standards) outlay to a broad
spectrum of NGOs, private educational and religious institutions, and political groups, the
US purchased an enormous amount of influence. Most of the members of these groups were
unaware of this US support, as the funds were funneled through individual leaders who were
tasked to influence opinion, organize demonstrations and petitions, and write letters to the
press and government members. Scholarships to the US and Canada were offered to promising
youth to ensure continuity of support. For this reason, most Jewish and other groups
operating in Ukraine have, until recently and only with reluctance, been willing to deviate
from the official US "story". Thus, they knowingly (at least as far as their leadership was
concerned) supported an overtly US-led neo-Nazi coup.
mike , July 5, 2018 at 1:24 pm
Makes sense that Josh Cohen is a former U.S. Agency for International Development project
officer involved in managing economic reform projects in the former Soviet Union. Isn't that
really what this is all about? Putin gets elected and takes charge of the economy, jailing
corrupt oligarchs and putting the kibosh on said reform projects sponsored by us in care of
Jeffrey Sachs et al. As Russia tries to reassert its sovereignty the US gets miffed and
retaliates.
The Electronic Intifada has just posted an article by Asa Winstanley detailing how Israel,
among others, has been supplying the Ukrainian Azov Battalion with military arms. It's well
worth reading.
The next time you hear a pro-Israel mouthpiece sounding off about purported antisemitism
in the British Labour Party, or in pro-Palestinine activist circles in the U.S., invite them
to consider Israel's policy -- and that of the U.S. as well as friendly European states -- of
direct military sponsorship of textbook Nazism in Ukraine. Jews are being menaced and beaten
in the streets of Kiev by armed bands who celebrate their historical persecution, while thugs
like Avigdor Lieberman sit cordially with officials representing that regime. But then, such
warm relations between Zionists and anti-Semites is an old story.
Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm
Interesting. Anyone with two brains to rub together knows that the US, to the best of it's
ability, has been surrounding Russia with compliant right wing governments, usually
dictators, but we've gotten better at manipulating elections to get reliable puppet
government. The bad news is that it is a full time job to stay on top of that.
It used to be that the only things one could depend on were "death & taxes." Now of
course we must add to that list the very dependable presence of CIA / State Dept lies
parroted by MSM all over the West. Lies which are endlessly repeated in defiance of all
physical reality and often in direct opposition to actual events in the actual world we live
in. From the Ukraine coup, to Russia-gate, to the "Assad's gassing his own people" regime
change propaganda, to the totally surreal Alice in Wonderland Skripnal poisoning nonsense in
the U.K, the Western MSM have been as dependable as the rising sun. They can and do provide
fact-free, evidence-free reporting directly from the bowels of the deep state in support of
the neocolonial West, including unending support for the never ending resort to mass violence
the West relies upon to keep the rest of the planet subjugated – just as it has for the
last 500+ years.
irina , July 5, 2018 at 2:06 pm
It's not just the media. The late night talk show hosts are doing their bit too, as I
heard
last night on a Jimmy Kimmel rerun (of a recent show). Can't remember the context as
I was doing the dishes, but did hear him say the usual "Russian illegally annexed Crimea"
standard phrase, immediately followed by "and then invaded Ukraine". The latter just
casually tossed off as a given. People hear these memes constantly repeated and,
regardless of their veracity (suspect to say the least) it becomes part of their
worldview.
Who is behind the political preaching of hosts like Jimmy Kimmel ?
Inquiring minds want to know !
Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:43 pm
You know what irina, seeing these late night talk shows go all crazy over Putin makes me
think of the Zio-Media executives, and where their allegiance to power resides. Joe
Devil's Advocate , July 5, 2018 at 2:48 pm
I would assume you'd have to look at who owns the media source in question. Kimmel's show
is on ABC, which is partly owned by Disney. Follow the money chain of those 2 parent
companies, and you have your answer.
irina – I quite agree. The same is true of the former Daily Show crew members who
now have their own shows. Several have shown themselves to be quite the little imperialist
war mongers when it comes to gleefully repeating the CIA sponsored Syrian regime change and
Russiagate propaganda. Samantha Bee & John Oliver kept triggering my gag reflex with
their propaganda lines until I found a simple but effective solution and stopped watching
them altogether. We have an amazingly seamless propaganda system here in the U.S. One can
chose to either get one's "pro-war regime change propaganda" delivered with barely concealed
racism and misogyny from Fox News, or instead opt for hearing the same nonsense delivered
with pretentious blather and catchy jazz interludes at PBS. American democracy is all about
having "choices."
Jeff Harrison , July 5, 2018 at 7:57 pm
I quite agree. I knew the minute that they started calling RT a propaganda outlet that, in
fact, the USG was running a full scale propaganda operation. I don't know if I simply wasn't
paying enough attention or if they have, in fact ramped the operation up, but I can hardly
read any MSM outlet's output without calling bullshit on it.
irina , July 6, 2018 at 2:55 am
Jimmy Kimmel actually used to be funny and there is a really good clip
(somewhere on youtube no doubt) of him reading a 'doctored' Dr. Seuss
book to The Donald (a live guest) during his primary candidacy.
But since The Donald's election Kimmel has opened almost every show
with 'ten minutes hate' segment on The Donald. I still watch (or at least
listen) occasionally because I want to know what is being fed to The Public.
You are absolutely right though, "we have an amazingly seamless propaganda
system here in the US". The average person maybe has 30 minutes to
devote to the news, between getting home and having dinner; they watch
some sort of news show and think they are 'informed'. But it actually takes
MANY hours and a knowledge of alternative websites to even begin to piece
together an approximation of what might, in reality, be going on.
The Russians used to say that, at least they knew they were being propagandized.
Unfortunately, probably due to 'American Exceptionalism', most Americans think
the MSM is bringing them 'the truth'. But nothing could be further from The Truth.
Peter H , July 6, 2018 at 10:41 am
I can't count the number of times I've had to turn off Colbert's Late Show for his
Russian/Putin bashing BS. So disappointing. That's a rule in my house now. The first mention
of Russia and off it goes.
Drew Hunkins , July 5, 2018 at 12:52 pm
Likewise, the corporate militarist-Zio media should eventually have to concede someday
that the current Syrian "rebels" are little more than ruthless sociopathic
Saudi-Zio-Washington intel agency supported mercenary terrorists.
Folks in the know knew very early on that much of the Kiev putschists and violent invaders
of Eastern Ukraine were neo-Nazi types bent on eradicating the last vestiges of Russian
social and ethnic solidarity.
It's really truly remarkable when one steps back to think about it all. These are the
depraved groups the crypto-fascists, the Wall Street militarist imperialists, and Zionists
have embedded themselves with: bloodthirsty Takfiri mercenary terrorists and neo-Nazis.
Bob Van Noy , July 5, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Each time I see an article like this I'm reminded of the videos of Zbigniew Brzezinski's
early meetings with the Mujahideen and his manipulation of cultures on The Grand Chessboard
or "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" a totally absurd assumption and the natural outcome
of that absurdity, is blowback which this article again addresses. Our "boots on the ground"
end up paying the price of this kind of supposed intellectualism. Shameful. Thank you Drew
Hunkins.
Joe Tedesky , July 5, 2018 at 2:39 pm
Bob the old saying if I got right is the company you keep is what you become. We have
truly loss our way, and Zbigniew Brzezinski is one of the biggest reasons we have become the
predators of this dying green earth. All this for the profit, as all mankind must yield to
the power of the dollar. Sad. Joe
MBeaver , July 6, 2018 at 5:03 am
One would think we had learned from Vietnam. Instead the "peace loving" liberals do
everything to destabilize whole region for nothing and then send soldiers in who die for
their messed up agenda.
JWalters , July 5, 2018 at 7:16 pm
It is truly remarkable. A lot of the behind-the-scenes magic is explained in "War
Profiteers and Israel's Bank" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
.
What is happening in Germany? Is "open borders" that Merkel has championed on its last
legs? It seems that the CSU is worried about the coming elections in Bavaria where AfD might
do much better than expected. Just as the outcome of the Italian elections was for a
government coalition opposed to illegal economic immigration under the guise of asylum for
political persecution.
Hungarian foreign minister in an interview with a snowflake BBC reporter. It seems that
the political trend in central Europe is away from multi-culturalism. Hungary wants to
maintain its culture.
The Red Tory thing is interesting. I can see what "anon" (comment No. 5) is driving at,
though the use of the word fascism is freighted with the eventual barbaric outcome of the
Nazi project, as well as the outgrowths of western guilt for allowing it to proceed which in
many instances such as political correctness and toleration of Nazi-like tactics by
descendents of Nazi victims, have resulted in a new version of fascism.
It is interesting to note that the anti-system parties of Europe, such as those in control
in Hungary and Austria, seem to take more leftwing positions on issues other than immigration
than sell-out former Socialist parties which have degenerated into the politically correct
portion of the anti-russian neo-liberal centre. Even the term "anti-system" is associated
with the Nazi movement during Weimar but fits with the situation in the western world today.
Thus, Le Pen, Orban and the Austrian government are more reliable at protecting workers'
rights than the sell-out centre, and the cinque stelle (I hope I'm not that far off in
spelling) can coalesce with the Lega, which also takes positions to the left of the corrupt
centre in areas other than immigration. On immigration itself, here in Canada or in the US
where everybody is eventually an immigrant other than the first nation remnant, it is hard to
be totally anti-immigrant, but it is understandable in Europe where historic ethnicities are
in some danger and where the results of the destabilisation of Africa and the Middle East by
the yankee imperium and the Israelis is the root cause of the immigration problem.
As a final statement, I agree with the writer and say mea culpa mea maxima culpa as far as
his anti or really pro- Putin-Nazi viewpoint is expressed.
The term "national neoliberalism" should probably be adopted as the most succinct term for Trump economic policy
Notable quotes:
"... To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education and deregulate finance. ..."
"... But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans. ..."
"... In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to one, said Bonaparte. The neoliberal world order according the Bretton Woods and Washington cannot raise and apply enough material [bombings, drones, aircraft carrier intimidation THAAD in Korea are the ante] without destroying itself and in its throes the world. ..."
"... The U.S. trade deficit in goods, without services, was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods. It imported $2.361 trillion. The USA imports more than they export to: China, Japan, Canada, Germany and Mexico. USA top 5 Trade deficits: China $375 billion, Mexico $71, Japan $69, Germany $65, and Canada 18 billion. ..."
Trump behavior at Canadian G7 meeting was boorish, but it is logical and is consistent which his previous stance on globalization:
he rejects neoliberal globalization.
Sasha Breger Bush proposed the term "national neoliberalism" to depict the transition from "classic neoliberalism" which has
been started with the election of Trump.
I think the term really catches the essence of the election of Trump. and should probably be adopted as a succinct description
of Trump economic policy.
The nationalism, xenophobia, isolationism, and paranoia of Donald Trump are about to replace the significantly more cosmopolitan
outlook of his post-WWII predecessors. While Trump is decidedly pro-business and pro-market, he most certainly does not see
himself as a global citizen.
Nor does he intend to maintain the United States' extensive global footprint or its relatively open trading network. In
other words, while neoliberalism is not dead, it is being transformed into a geographically more fragmented and localized system
(this is not only about the US election, but also about rising levels of global protectionism and Brexit, among other anti-globalization
trends around the world).
I expect that the geographic extent of the US economy in the coming years will coincide with the new landscape of U.S. allies
and enemies, as defined by Donald Trump and his administration.
But if we take seriously the idea that Trump is a consequence of the disintegration of American democracy rather than the
cause of it, this "blame game" becomes especially problematic.
Partisan bickering, with one party constantly pointing to the other as responsible for the country's ills, covers up the
fact that Democrats and Republicans alike have presided over the consolidation of corporate power in the United States.
To paraphrase Ralph Nader, the U.S. corporate state is a two-headed beast. Sure, President Trump and the Republican
Party are currently handing over public lands to oil and gas companies, eliminating net neutrality, introducing pro-corporate
tax legislation, kowtowing to the military industrial complex, defunding the welfare state, and attempting to privatize education
and deregulate finance.
But let's not forget our recent Democratic presidents, for example, who are also guilty of empowering and enriching
big business and disempowering and impoverishing ordinary Americans.
JackD, June 10, 2018 9:58 am
@Likbez: "Sure, President Trump, etc" is your important sentence. It is the immediate need. First things, first.
ilsm, June 10, 2018 3:12 pm
In war the moral is to the material as 3 is to one, said Bonaparte. The neoliberal world order according the Bretton Woods
and Washington cannot raise and apply enough material [bombings, drones, aircraft carrier intimidation THAAD in Korea are the
ante] without destroying itself and in its throes the world.
Trump is not tearing apart NATO anyone not earning money is a PNAC think tanks knows NATO has become an aggression against
Russia with similar intent as Hitler.
Grabbing Sevastopol and aiding Russians in territory occupied by Kyiv are [bold] defensive moves. The threat of Chinese islands
in the South China Sea is the US Navy super carriers intimidations has no career raiding Hainan.
rps, June 10, 2018 7:42 pm
I was curious if Yglesias is a Canadian since his editorial sided with the G7 leaders stance against Trump's fair-trade often
labelled as 'protectionism' of USA industries. He's a New Yorker as I pondered what's his stake in this political tirade against
Trump's pro-America versus anti-globalist policies?
It appears that the media has glided over the fact Trump had suggested to the other G7 leaders that all trade barriers, including
tariffs and subsidies, be eliminated, ""You go tariff-free, you go barrier-free, you go subsidy free." Protectionist Canadian
PM Trudeau howled at a press conference after Trump had left on his way to Singapore. Why? Is it because Trudeau is committed
to the welfare of Canadians and their industries? How dare the president of the USA- in turn, advocate for citizenry and country
as does his G7 counterparts for their countries.
The U.S. trade deficit in goods, without services, was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods.
It imported $2.361 trillion. The USA imports more than they export to: China, Japan, Canada, Germany and Mexico. USA top 5 Trade
deficits: China $375 billion, Mexico $71, Japan $69, Germany $65, and Canada 18 billion.
US citizens and their jobs were swindled with cheaper foreign goods flooding American businesses and stores as good manufacturing
jobs headed overseas. Jobs that created the middle class and all their earned benefits and standard of living decreased/disappeared
quickly with NAFTA and the WTO.
Concisely, trade deficits destroyed the middle class, the working class, blue collar, and in turn, increased poverty and homelessness.
Destroyed small town anywhere in the USA with manufacturing and jobs fleeing overseas in search of cheap labor. Go travel across
the USA and see the boarded up towns, walk the streets of Flint Michigan, Detroit, Martinsville Virginia, Gary Indiana, Freeport
Il, etc. Throw a dart at a USA map and you'll hit a town devastated by 'free' to lose your job trade. In 2014, 2.3 million job
losses due to trade with China. Job losses in the millions have been slowly replaced with 'service' jobs and/or $8.00 an hour
part-time no benefits workers as the new norm.
Remember when Walmart's original slogan was "Buy American"? Sam Walton before he died, was big on "Buy American," and it appeared
in signs in the stores and on TV ads. His heirs quickly changed it to "Buy Chinese" destroying the american dream and small town
USA.
Yet Yglesias' preference is all for the unbalanced trade with our G7 frenemies and punishing a president who chooses fair trade
practices to ensure US jobs for American citizens. Makes me wonder who or what Yglesias truly advocates for, the NWO or the country
of origin on his passport?
"What we must do is this: revise our tariff on the basis of a reciprocal exchange of goods, allowing other Nations to buy and
to pay for our goods by sending us such of their goods as will not seriously throw any of our industries out of balance Such objectives
as these three, restoring farmers' buying power, relief to the small banks and home-owners and a reconstructed tariff policy,
are only a part of ten or a dozen vital factors. But they seem to be beyond the concern of a national administration which can
think in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the top down rather than
permanent relief from the bottom up. It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way. It has waited until something
has cracked and then at the last moment has sought to prevent total collapse.
It is high time to get back to fundamentals. It is high time to admit with courage that we are in the midst of an emergency
at least equal to that of war. Let us mobilize to meet it." "The Forgotten Man" speech, 1937. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Since Clinton signed NAFTA in 1994 and the WTO, American jobs and industry left our shores seeking the lowest common denominator-
cheap slave labor. To paraphrase FDR into the late 20th and early 21st century, "Clinton and his successors concern of their national
administrations thought in terms only of the top of the social and economic structure. It has sought temporary relief from the
top down rather than permanent relief from the bottom up.It has totally failed to plan ahead in a comprehensive way."
Bruce Webb, June 10, 2018 9:16 pm
Nothing personally Rps, but you do not get Triffin Dilemma and global reserve currency. Please no more NAFTA obsession when
no jobs left with that deal and exports excelerated. The global reserve currency and booming financial markets create a surplus
in services over goods. It also creates the need for a goods deficit to stabilize the financial system. You cannot wave a wand
and cure something that cannot be cured. You need a major depression to rebalance and drive capital from america.
Bruce Webb, June 10, 2018 9:19 pm
Likbez, Neoliberalism IS American. Trump is pro-East Asia
"... By the way, the US provides 22% of NATO funding, a formula which is based on population. Thus, if the European members increased their contributions to NATO, the US contribution would also rise! ..."
"... Donald Trump will remain exasperated because he is fighting the good fight but not really understanding who his adversary's are. ..."
"... Foreign countries aren't taking advantage of the USA. American industrialists are taking advantage of the USA. Why does Apple make its iPhones in China? Why does Ford build so many of its SUVs in Mexico? Not because of the decisions those countries have made. It's because of the decisions American industrial leaders have made. ..."
"... The USA has a trade surplus with Canada. Trump lied about that. ..."
At the G-7 summit in Canada, President Donald Trump described America as "the piggy bank
that everybody is robbing."
After he left Quebec, his director of Trade and Industrial Policy, Peter Navarro, added a
few parting words for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau: "There's a special place in hell for any
foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then
tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door. And that's what weak, dishonest Justin
Trudeau did. And that comes right from Air Force One."
In Singapore, Trump tweeted more about that piggy bank: "Why should I, as President of the
United States, allow countries to continue to make Massive Trade Surpluses, as they have for
decades [while] the U.S. pays close to the entire cost of NATO-protecting many of these same
countries that rip us off on Trade?"
To understand what drives Trump, and explains his exasperation and anger, these remarks are
a good place to begin.
Our elites see America as an "indispensable nation," the premiere world power whose ordained
duty it is to defend democracy, stand up to dictators and aggressors, and uphold a liberal
world order.
They see U.S. wealth and power as splendid tools that fate has given them to shape the
future of the planet.
Trump sees America as a nation being milked by allies who free-ride on our defense efforts
as they engage in trade practices that enrich their own peoples at America's expense.
Where our elites live to play masters of the universe, Trump sees a world laughing behind
America's back, while allies exploit our magnanimity and idealism for their own national
ends.
The numbers are impossible to refute and hard to explain.
Last year, the EU had a $151 billion trade surplus with the U.S. China ran a $376 billion
trade surplus with the U.S., the largest in history. The world sold us $796 billion more in
goods than we sold to the world.
A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world's
goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way
down.
We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century.
Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable. His strength is that the people
are still with him on putting America first.
Yet he faces some serious obstacles.
What is his strategy for turning a $796 billion trade deficit into a surplus? Is he prepared
to impose the tariffs and import restrictions that would be required to turn America from the
greatest trade-deficit nation in history to a trade-surplus nation, as we were up until the
mid-1970s?
Americans are indeed carrying the lion's share of the load of the defense of the West, and
of fighting the terrorists and radical Islamists of the Middle East, and of protecting South
Korea and Japan.
But if our NATO and Asian allies refuse to make the increases in defense he demands, is
Trump really willing to cancel our treaty commitments, walk away from our war guarantees, and
let these nations face Russia and China on their own? Could he cut that umbilical cord?
Ike's secretary of state John Foster Dulles spoke of conducting an "agonizing reappraisal"
of U.S. commitments to defend NATO allies if they did not contribute more money and troops.
Dulles died in 1959, and that reappraisal, threatened 60 years ago, never happened. Indeed,
when the Cold War ended, our NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still
subsidizing NATO in Europe and have taken on even more allies since the Soviet Empire fell.
If Europe refuses to invest the money in defense that Trump demands, or accept the tariffs
America needs to reduce and erase its trade deficits, what does he do? Is he prepared to shut
U.S. bases and pull U.S. troops out of the Baltic republics, Poland, and Germany, and let the
Europeans face Vladimir Putin and Russia themselves?
This is not an academic question. For the crunch that was inevitable when Trump was elected
seems at hand.
Trump promised to negotiate with Putin and improve relations with Russia. He promised to
force our NATO allies to undertake more of their own defense. He pledged to get out and stay
out of Mideast wars and begin to slash the trade deficits that we have run with the world.
That's what America voted for.
Now, after 500 days, he faces formidable opposition to these defining goals of his campaign,
even within his own party.
Putin remains a pariah on Capitol Hill. Our allies are rejecting the tariffs Trump has
imposed and threatening retaliation. Free-trade Republicans reject tariffs that might raise the
cost of the items U.S. companies make abroad and then ships back to the United States.
The decisive battles between Trumpian nationalism and globalism remain ahead of us. Trump's
critical tests have yet to come.
And our exasperated president senses this.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles
That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever. To find out more about Patrick
Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators
website at www.creators.com.
America spends 3 times as much on defense as its allies because it is addicted to military
spending. The solution is not to pressure other countries to acquire the same addiction. The
solution is for America cut its own military spending.
This is just another example of America trying to "export" its domestic issues. Quit
blaming foreigners and deal with your issues.
"A nation that spends more than it takes in from taxes, and consumes more of the world's
goods than it produces itself for export, year in and year out, is a nation on the way down.
We are emulating our British cousins of the 19th century." never imagined I'd say this, but
you are absolutely correct. of course you neglect to acknowledge, Trump himself is an "elite"
and a "globalist". the fact his "game" is real estate, as opposed to governance is more of a
semantic distinction than ideological. debt-fueled consumerism drives real estate just as it
drives globalism. this is nothing new. add to this the pathological narcissism and the
ability to leverage moral bankruptcy as he has the tax codes and bankruptcy laws, and voila,
just another globalist in populist clothing. as I have maintained all along, he is not so
much anti-establishment as he is an establishment of one – he simply thrives in a
different type of swamp and favors a smaller oligarchy/plutocracy. and of course, there is
the big news out of Singapore/Korea, but again, much of the 'spin' or upside cited in a
denuclearized Korean peninsula involves the opportunity for North Korea to join the
globalists at the globalists' table. one can only wonder if there will be Ivanka's handbags
will be made in Panmunjom, and if Kim Jong Un will stay at the Trump hotel in DC? either way,
you are correct he is the candidate the American people, and the globalists "elected".
One problem with Trump's rant: the US enjoys a small trade surplus with Canada.
Would someone please get this president some hard facts and drill him on them for however
long it takes top get them fixed in his mind before he goes off half-cocked with any more
nonsense?
As always, Mr Buchanan sets out his personal agenda and then claims that Trump promised to
implement it if elected. The more Trump backs away from globalised free trade (if that's what
he's really doing), the more that suits the EU. The "core value" of the EU is a large
internal market protected by a high tariff wall. Globalization was rammed down an unwilling
EU's throat by the US in the Reagan years and only the British elite ever really believed in
it. As for NATO, nobody now believes that the US will honor its commitments, no matter how
much Europe pays, so logically, the European members are concentrating their additional
expenditure on an independent European defense system, which, needless to say, the US is
trying to obstruct.
By the way, the US provides 22% of NATO funding, a formula which is based
on population. Thus, if the European members increased their contributions to NATO, the US
contribution would also rise!
Donald Trump will remain exasperated because he is fighting the good fight but not really
understanding who his adversary's are.
Foreign countries aren't taking advantage of the USA. American industrialists are taking
advantage of the USA. Why does Apple make its iPhones in China? Why does Ford build so many
of its SUVs in Mexico? Not because of the decisions those countries have made. It's because
of the decisions American industrial leaders have made.
Secondly, there is absolutely no threat to NATO from Russia or Putin. Europe could slash
its already meager defense budget with only beneficial consequences. The same with Japan and
S. Korea. None of these countries need US military help. There are no real military threats
to these countries. US military spending has never been about defending other countries. It
is about enriching the shareholders of American military contractors.
So here is the real world: The United States has established a "liberal rules-based global
order" that allows wealthy American and European commercial interests to benefit mightily
from trade, and property and resource control in foreign countries. And this order is
maintained by US military power. That is why the US is "the one indispensable nation". We are
the nation that is allowed to break the order, to be the bully, in order for the rules-based
order to even exist. That's why we are beating up on countries that try to live outside of
this order like Iran, NK, Venezuela, Russia and everyone else who don't fall in line.
So Donald Trump is fighting against the power elite of the United States, he just doesn't
understand that. He is fighting against the most powerful people in the world, people who are
well represented by both political parties. He can win this fight if he lets the average
American on to this reality. And then leads them properly to a better, more balanced world.
But I suspect that he would be assassinated if he tried.
In re NATO and other oversea DOD spending, the old saying "who pays, says" has a corollary.
Who wants to say has to pay. The US, since WWII, has wanted, insisted, on being in charge of
everything we touch. This costs a lot, not to mention it often doesn't work the way we want.
It would be easy enough to stop spending all this money. The Pentagon and the
military-industrial complex would have a conniption and those whose defense bills we've been
paying would complain to high heaven, but Trump seems intent on trashing all those alliances
anyway and also on spending more money on defense than even the Pentagon thinks they need.
Trade deficits don't work the way you think they work. In todays economy the traditional
measures of deficits don't actually tell us much about what is going on.
Do you know what China does with that $350b trade surplus? A huge percentage of it is
rolled back immediately into US Treasury bonds because we are the only issuer of credit in
sufficient amounts and of suitable stability for them to buy. All of that deficit spending
Trump and the Republicans in congress passed last year is being financed by the very trade
imbalance that Trump is trying to eliminate.
But trade imbalances really don't tell us much about the flow of money. Most of the
imbalance is created by US companies that have built factories in China to sell goods back to
the US, then repatriate money back to the US in the form of dividends or stock buy backs
(which are not counted in the trade balance at all).
At best trade balances tell us very little meaningful about what is really going on, but
can be wildly deceptive. At worst they are an easy tool, for demogogs who have zero
understanding of what is going on, to inflame other uninformed people to justify trade
wars.
Interesting the things that Buchanan ignores (on purpose?). The USA has a trade surplus with
Canada. Trump lied about that. There's nothing wrong with the USA spending less money to defend other countries. Trump
doesn't have to insult our allies to do that.
"Trump understands that this situation is not sustainable."
You give him more credit than he deserves. What he does understand is that while we're
being the world's piggy bank, the American taxpayer is being the Military-Industrial
Complex's piggy-bank and that's just fine with him. As it is with most members of
Congress.
" our NATO allies cut defense spending again. Yet we are still subsidizing NATO in Europe "
Mr. Buchanan, like Trump, does not understand how NATO is funded. All NATO members have
been paying their dues. In fact, many pay a greater proportion relative to GDP per capita
than the U.S. does. Defense budgets are a different matter entirely.
This entire article seems to reduce complex issues into simple arithmetic. Economics and job
creation is about much more than balance of payments both the author and the US president
don't seem to realise this. Very shallow article.
America has a trade surplus with Canada, but seems determined to rub it in.
Some background. As the glaciers retreated south at the end of the ice age, they scraped
away Canada's topsoil and deposited it in America. Rural Canada has little arable areas; it's
beef and dairy by necessity. Costs are high and there are ten Americans to every Canadian
hence the subsidy. America subsidizes it's agriculture $55 billion annually.
Great, if we're upset about having to protect our allies in the Pacific, let's change the
Japanese constitution to allow them to have a real military again to defend themselves and
give the South Koreans nukes to balance out the power situation between them and the Norks/
Chinese. (Why is it so little is ever said about China being a nuclear power?) This whole
fantasy of denuclearization of the Korean peninsula is so naive it's laughable. If nukes
exist, there will never be any permanent guarantee of anything, and other countries will just
keep getting the bomb without our permission, like Pakistan and China. The genie is out of
the bottle, so time to be brutally realistic about what we face and what can be done. We can
whine all we want to about how it's not our responsibility, but then we expect other
countries to be hobbled and still somehow face enemy powers.
Lets take a look at the growing list of nations shifting to the right (nationalism and
populism)
-The Czech, Slovak and Slovenia Republics Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, the US.
Nations shifting this year to the right (nationalism and populism)
-Austria, Bavaria and Italy
Nations leaning to the right and leaning toward joining the VISEGRAD
-Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Greece
AS YOU CAN SEE THE PILLARS OF MARXIST / SOCIALIST / COMMUNIST OPEN BORDERS EUROPE/EU ARE
BEING TAKEN DOWN. THE FIGHT WILL BE WITH FRANCE, GERMANY, BELGIUM, NETHERLANDS, BRITAIN,
SWEDEN AND THE UNELECTED EU SUPERSTATE. RIGHT NOW THE FIGHT IS WITH THE POOR SOUTHERN AND
EASTERN EUROPEAN INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS BUT EVENTUALLY IT WILL REACH A TIPPING POINT WHERE IT
BECOMES AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT BUT ITS ONLY AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT FOR THE LEFT AS THE EU
REACHES THE TIPPING POINT AND THE POWER SHIFTS TO THE RIGHT.
There is no universal, global brotherhood of "nationalist, right-wing, anti-SJW" values as
you seem to be trying to imply. The western far-right/alt-right is entirely self-serving and
their appeals to some kind of global nationalistic ideology is basically just a thin facade
that they promote in order to help generate support for their own self-serving agenda. The
only reason that the western far-right wants to reach out for allies right now is because
they are on the ropes and in a position of weakness; if the western far-right was instead in
a position of strength then they would not hesitate to put their boot on your neck. You are
quite naive if you don't think otherwise.
As an long time observer of the western far-right; its very clear that at the end of the
day, it is not principles that they care about, it is only themselves. That in itself would
be fine if they were upfront about it, however the problem is that they insist on being very
deceptive about their true motives. As I have said in this post, and so many others; why is
it that the far-right wants to postulate about "rights" and "fairness" when it comes to the
preservation of the white race, but then when it comes to any other ethnic group on earth
that has been negatively impacted by western colonialism the far-right just tells them to go
fuck themselves? This tells you all you need to know about how the far-right really feels
about its so called vaunted principles regarding racial/cultural preservation. They believe
in it for themselves yes, but will be more than willing to compromise this belief when it
comes to any others. You are missing the forest for the trees if you insist on adhering to
notions of abstract jointly-held values at the expense of basic strategic interests; this is
something I guarantee you is not lost on the western far-right.
You also assume that SJWism is going to spread to east asia and negatively affect the
culture there in the same way that it has in the west. Is this or is this not the primary
motivation why you seek an alliance with the western far-right? Have I understood your motive
correctly? Going on the assumption that this is actually your motive; then why haven't you
taken into account the fact that culturally and genetically speaking, east asians simply
think differently than whites do? There is no reason to believe that SJWism is going to run
as rampantly in east asia as it has in the west. It will gain a foothold that is for sure,
but it won't gain the same kind of traction that it has in the west. Ideologies cannot
completely change the essential natures of people, if this was the case then the alt-right
(based on racial determinism) would not exist in the first place. Anyways this is a moot
point; if the west fully declines then it would be unable to export its leftist ideals
anyways, so I don't see what you're mad about.
Once again, to reiterate my original point. It is absurd for POC to assume that the
western far-right in any way, shape or form represents their interests or at the very least
is a neutral entity towards them. It is true that POC is a clumsy, extremely general term,
but in this context it functions perfectly. The western far-right worldview is basically
encapsulated as "whites vs all others"; therefore within this context, a pan non-white
concept like POC is useful for working within such a stark, extremist ideological framework.
What is playing out in the west right now is basically the west struggling with its own past
actions; highly conscientious POC need to sit on the sidelines, shutup and let this play out
on its own. There is no need to take sides here, the west made its own bed, let it sleep in
it, this has nothing to do with POC.
Most of us are against both 'invite the world' and 'invade the world'.
Im an old hand on the internet far-right/alt-right scene; what you said is generally true
except with a major caveat. The alt-right is against invading the world only when it doesn't
result in any net gain for the west. The alt-right doesn't actually have a principled stance
against colonization/invading other countries; rather they are only against invading other
countries when it inconveniences them, but when it happens to benefit them, they are fully
supportive of all kinds of invasions. This is probably one of the things that disgusts me
most about the alt-right is how they lack any kind of true, consistent moral foundation but
like to act as if they do.
Its not really a useful argument to ask if something is really a grassroots thing or not.
You could apply that same line of reasoning to anything to the extent where it could obscure
the true reality of an event. Is globalization due to the actions of a jewish ruling class?
Perhaps. But many on the alt-right still blame jews in general because they understand that
there is something in jewish culture that is sympathetic to the globalization project
overall. The same thing applies to western colonization as well. Regardless of what the
western ruling class chose to do, there was an eager, sympathetic and compliant population
which enabled western colonization to happen. If the population was not enthusiastic about
the colonization project then the broad and thorough scale of european colonization would
have been impossible otherwise.
The very act of colonizing and expansion is something that speaks to the very soul of
western man. Most on the far-right fully agree with this sentiment btw and this is something
that you see them say over and over. Simply trying to deflect all the blame on the ruling
class and absolve the people actually carrying out actions is pretty disingenuous. The
reality is, both the ruling class and its subjects are both equally culpable for european
colonization. More importantly, I want to add that while colonialism may not have originated
as a grassroots movement, it certainly had (and continues to have) grassroots support
(especially among the far-right). Which is something that is equally important to consider
(and equally damning as well)
You have a weird obsession with colonialism. Everyone's self-serving; the form changes but
at the end of the day, that's nature.
You're just as self-serving, except that you've apparently have a global image of "POC"
being united for some reason. And evidently the West, which for whatever foibles it has,
shouldn't at least make an effort to survive?
Lol, you couldn't address any of my points, that's why you just throw everything out and
take potshots at me.
The modern world, and nearly everything that unz.com is about ultimately goes back to
colonialism. You could equally say that the writers on unz.com have a weird obsession with
immigration/globalization. Likewise, I could equally say that you have some weird obsession
with leftism. You see how flawed your logic is?
No, im not being self-serving here. I know that my usage of the term POC triggered your
anti-left/anti-SJW sensibilities, but you're reading too much into the usage of a word. The
term POC was used because it was appropriate for the context (as I explained in my reply to
you and you conveniently ignored), not because I have an extreme left political
orientation.
Once again, to reiterate my original point. It is absurd for POC to assume that the
western far-right in any way, shape or form represents their interests or at the very least
is a neutral entity towards them. It is true that POC is a clumsy, extremely general
term, but in this context it functions perfectly. The western far-right worldview is
basically encapsulated as "whites vs all others"; therefore within this context, a pan
non-white concept like POC is useful for working within such a stark, extremist ideological
framework. What is playing out in the west right now is basically the west struggling
with its own past actions; highly conscientious POC need to sit on the sidelines, shutup
and let this play out on its own. There is no need to take sides here, the west made its
own bed, let it sleep in it, this has nothing to do with POC.
As for the west trying to make some effort to survive; I had never claimed that it should
not. In fact I never made any argument to that effect in any of my comments on this article.
In fact, I want you to prove me wrong . Since you seem so sure of your position, quote
and paste where I clearly made an argument to the effect of the west should just give up and
stop trying to survive. I'll be waiting.
You need to work on your reading comprehension. Clearly I have been making the argument
that POC (I hope you get triggered by this) need to stop trying to prop up the west by
rubbing shoulders with the alt-right and should instead sit back and watch things play out.
This is not their fight. Making this argument is completely different than what you were
trying to imply I was saying.
As I've said before, I give as much effort to a reply as I think a person deserves.
Obviously you're not one of them, in no small part because of your insane fetish with
"colonialism" – which I barely could care for.
Indeed, colonialism can be plenty helpful for improving the condition of a population
objectively, which is surprising given that its goal is traditionally extractive but when the
native elite is so incompetent or even more extractive of their population, then it is a net
benefit to the population.
Not that I really care; I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with conquest. At the end
of the day, competition is the means to determine which values and memes of humanity survive
and by removing violence completely as a method, it leads to warping of the population.
I'm descended from mandarins; I have a pretty clear line of family history as far back as
the Yuan. We've done beautiful things – marvelous terraced farms, canals that remain to
this day, and a slew of impressive artwork. We've done terrible things – kept
generations of illiterate serfs and bondsmen. "European colonialism" may hurt us, but the
Cultural Revolution did a lot more damage and almost wiped us out. And we've invaded Vietnam,
and I don't regret it: Annam, the peaceful south. Had the Ming held it, had it remained
Chinese, its hard to argue that it would not be wealthier and more beautiful than it is
now.
So no, I don't feel anything in common with your so-called POC. And your rants about
colonialism only irritate me further. There are many terrible things in life and the world.
And often, they are also beautiful and glorious things.
LOL. This is hilarious, keep backtracking. You obviously care because you bothered to
reply in the first place. Tellingly, you were unable to address the most cogent points in the
argument that I brought up against you in my previous replies and instead prefer to dissemble
about something that has nothing to do with the original point of discussion. Don't think I
didn't notice the (clumsy) sleight of hand. You try to act as if you're above replying to me
but really the problem is that you're unable to argue against the points that I made. Its
really that simple. If you were able to disprove my arguments then you would already be doing
that instead of talking in circles about it.
Ethically speaking, colonialism is wrong. Doesnt matter who does it, white black or
yellow. That being said, I understand the dark parts of human nature and why colonialism
happens. Time and time again, I have clearly stated how the crux of my argument is the
hypocrisy of the far-right when it comes to the topic of colonialism, not so much the act of
colonialism itself. That's it. And I couldn't make my point any clearer. The onus falls on
you, and not on I to correctly perceive this point. My problem is not that the west colonized
the world (shit happens), my problem is that the far right wants to celebrate and condone
colonialism (hence celebrate the historical destruction of other races and cultures) while
simultaneously wanting to complain about their own racial displacement and cultural
destruction (ironically brought about by globalization which in turn was brought about
through western colonialism in the first place). The far-right has a major ideological
consistency here which it is either blind to, or willfully ignores. I'm sorry but the western
far-right can't have its cake and eat it too. It needs to clearly decide how they feel about
the ethics of colonization and then take a principled and consistent stance on it.
Regardless, both in the comments for this post, and for the entirety of my posting
history, my stance regarding colonization has been the same. It is you that has misunderstood
it due to your faulty reading comprehension, and anybody who doubts my words is perfectly
free to read my prior comments in this thread as well as look through my comment history as
well. Therefore, the thrust of your reply completely misses the mark. I suspect however that
your misunderstanding was intentional considering how clearly I made my point regarding
colonialism in all of my posts. Regardless, why should anyone take what you have to say
seriously when you have already demonstrated a clear tendency for poor reading comprehension
or willful misperception? Don't forget about this:
You're just as self-serving, except that you've apparently have a global image of
"POC" being united for some reason. And evidently the West, which for whatever foibles
it has, shouldn't at least make an effort to survive?
God, that's stupid.
As for the west trying to make some effort to survive; I had never claimed that it
should not. In fact I never made any argument to that effect in any of my comments on this
article. In fact, I want you to prove me wrong . Since you seem so sure of your
position, quote and paste where I clearly made an argument to the effect of the west should
just give up and stop trying to survive. I'll be waiting.
I'm still waiting for you to clearly provide proof of your assertion that I implied the
west should just give up; which in fact I never wrote anything to the effect of that, but in
your rush to debunk me, you obviously missed that. The alt-right always prides itself on
relying strictly on the facts, so please live up to this ethos. Everything I wrote is an open
book, either prove your assertions or admit that you can't.
So no, I don't feel anything in common with your so-called POC. And your rants about
colonialism only irritate me further. There are many terrible things in life and the world.
And often, they are also beautiful and glorious things.
Nor do you have to feel anything in common with so-called POC. Do you think I care what
you feel? You vastly overestimate your own importance. Remember, it was you who went out
of you way to start up this dialogue with me, not I . I'm glad that my "rants" regarding
colonialism irritate you. That being said, if they irritate you so much, instead of
responding to them, please ignore them from now on. You are aware that you are not obligated
to reply to anything I write, right?
True! There are many terrible things in life and the world, and also there are many
glorious and beautiful things as well. I think it is beautiful that the west has lived at the
expense of others for so long, and now we are reaching a point where everything that the west
has done is now catching up with it in unexpected ways. It turns out the the universe has a
sense of humor afterall. What goes up, must come down. This applies to all races and all
civilizations. As humans, we must seek to live in harmony with each other, and not simply
exploit and kill one another. There is beauty in seeking to rise above such primitive
impulses, and if possible acting with understanding and compassion towards our fellow man.
That is truly the meaning of "being civilized".
Truly I do not harbor ill-will against the west because it is western, rather I harbor
ill-will towards the west because of its past actions and present attitudes. This is why I
specifically target the far-right (because of their present attitudes about the west's past
actions), as opposed to attacking all western people. I especially have a soft-spot for
westerners that are able to genuinely feel remorse about the past. I strongly believe in the
concept of forgiveness and letting things go, provided that the sentiment is genuine and
mutual. Actually on that topic; even indifference is an acceptable emotion. I think its
stupid to morally hold westerners to past events when even they are indifferent about their
own racial/cultural future. I only stick it to the far-right because they automatically incur
higher moral/ethical standards for themselves to meet when they want to start talking about
the importance of having moral rights for racial/cultural survival.
That being said, the west has a tremendous amount of momentum from its past actions
gathered against it; so it doesn't really matter how I feel, the west will still have to deal
with everything that is happening to it and what is going to happen to it in the future.
Nothing you say or do will impact this in any way, so you might as well enjoy the ride
instead of complaining that I am pointing out inconvenient truths which harm your delicate
sensibilities. Ironically those who complain most about fragile SJW snowflakes are those who
get triggered the easiest themselves
In fact, looking at your history, you are a rare breed: you are a genuine, unironic
anti-white crusader. You actually think there is something uniquely evil about "white
people" and talk without any sense of contradiction that you have "extensive experience of
white people."
The mind boggles.
It was a mistake to give you any time at all.
This is actually a lie what you have written. For your convenience, and for the
convenience of anybody reading, I have provided the quote of what I had originally written
which you are referring to:
GammaRay says:
April 29, 2018 at 7:04 pm GMT • 200 Words
@Wizard of Oz
This is an interesting question and definitely worth looking into. That being said, I do
not buy into the reasoning that an exploding british population is the only or even major
reason behind colonization. From learning about european culture, and understanding the
general weltanschauung of white people, as well as from having extensive social experience
with them; it is clearly evident to me that there is a strong extraversive, expansive
component that exists in the white collective consciousness which under certain
circumstances strongly compels them to colonize, displace and replace much more so than
other races would do so under similar circumstances. What alt-righters/WN would call
"ambition" and "drive", others might prefer to recognize it as "greed". Regardless of the
semantic trivialities; it is clear that there is a strong internal drive within westerners
that causes them to vigorously pursue both the physical and cultural colonization of "the
other". This is not a negative or positive judgment though; it is merely intended to be
understood as an objective observation.
What I had written clearly strives to be dispassionate and objective as opposed to the
maniacal and frothing at the mouth anti-white diatribe that you are attempting to make it out
to be.
Im sorry but the truth of the matter is that HBD is probably real; racial differences
probably exist on a genetic level which influence the behavior and temperaments of different
races and ethnic groups. The fact that whites are more likely to be domineering and have a
tendency for colonizing "the other" does not make them evil; it is an impulse that can be
channeled in both positive and negative ways. That being said, just because I bring up this
inconvenient fact doesn't automatically make me racist or "anti-white". I am merely trying to
work within a framework of reality, we have both multiple centuries of history to draw
inferences from, as well as interpersonal anecdotal observations of white behavior both in
real life as well as on the internet in spaces such as these. I don't think its very
controversial that I am making observations based on noticing patterns. I mean, is noticing
patterns illegal or something undesirable?
"... One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very rare. ..."
"... What can be done to counter such brainwashing? Not much. ..."
"... First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine (even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders "who is right?" ..."
"... The power of the truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time, truth will prevail. It needs courage. ..."
It's
frightening. Unprincipled psychologists, in the service of a malignant regime, use
sophisticated techniques in order to control the mind of a person from afar.
The term "brainwashing" was born in 1950. It is a Chinese word ("xinao", literally wash
brain). Originally it served to describe a technique used – so it was claimed – by
Chinese masterminds to manipulate the minds of American prisoners in the Korean War. They
changed their unconscious mental processes and turned them into agents of sinister forces.
Many books and movies purported to show how this works. For example, the classic film "The
Manchurian Candidate" shows how the communists take an American prisoner-of-war in the Korean
war, an officer, manipulate his mind and give him an order to kill the US presidential
candidate. The American officer does not know that he has been turned unconsciously into a
communist agent. He does not remember the order given him under hypnosis and does not know that
he acts accordingly.
This pilot is ridiculous, like most of the pseudo-scientific descriptions. In practice, it
is much easier to manipulate the minds of people, individuals and collectives.
For example, the Nazi "propaganda". It was invented by Adolf Hitler himself. In his book,
Mein Kampf , he describes how, as a soldier on the Western front in WWI, he witnessed
the extremely successful British propaganda. The British dropped leaflets over the German
trenches and shattered the soldiers' confidence in their leadership.
When Hitler came to power in Germany, he entrusted one of his faithful henchmen, Joseph
Goebbels, with the creation of a Ministry of Propaganda. Goebbels turned propaganda into an art
form. Among other means he turned all the German media – newspapers and the radio –
into government agencies. In German that was called "Gleichschaltung" – connecting all
components to one electric line. Thanks to this, Nazi Germany continued fighting long after it
was clear that it had lost WWII.
One of the means was the disconnection of the German public from any other source of
information. The official propaganda was blared from every medium. Listening to a foreign
broadcast was a major crime, punished severely.
Thus it happened that the Germans still believed in their final victory – the Endsieg
– even after the Soviets in the East and the Anglo-Saxons in the West had already crossed
the borders into Germany.
Does it take a dictatorial regime – Nazi or Communist – to turn the media into a
brainwashing machine? Common sense says that this is impossible in a democracy. Common sense is
wrong.
It will be remembered that Hitler attained power by democratic means. Even now, fanatical
nationalists are winning democratic elections in many countries. All their leaders are busy
destroying the courts, stuffing the parliaments with useful idiots and – especially
– turning the media into brainwashing instruments. In our country, too.
How is this done? It's quite simple, really: one has to suppress all other voices. One has
to make sure that the citizen hears only one voice. One that repeats a few messages over and
over, endlessly. This way the lie becomes truth.
In such a situation, the ordinary citizen becomes convinced that the official line is really
their own personal opinion. This is an unconscious process. When one tells a citizen that they
are brainwashed, they are deeply insulted.
This has been happening in Israel over the last few years. The citizen is not conscious that
it is happening. He or she absorbs diverse newspapers, TV programs and radio broadcasts, and
sees that all these media are freely arguing with each other and even quarreling with each
other. The citizen is not conscious of the fact that on the one critical subject of our life
– war and peace – all the media are "connected" to one singular line of
brainwashing.
During the last few weeks we have been seeing a perfect example of this mechanism. The
events on the Gaza Strip border have activated a mechanism of brainwashing that dictatorial
regimes in the world can only envy.
Let's examine ourselves: what have we heard over the radio? What have we seen on TV? What
did we read in the papers?
Within a few weeks more than a hundred human beings were shot dead, and many thousands were
wounded by live fire. Why?
"We were forced to fire at them because they were storming the border fence". And indeed,
did the Gazans themselves not proclaim their will to "return home" – meaning, to return
to Israeli territory?
But on May 14, "Black Monday", 63 unarmed demonstrators were shot dead and over 1500 wounded
by live fire. Every Israeli knows that this was necessary because the demonstrators stormed the
fence and were about to swarm into Israel. Nobody paid attention to the simple fact that there
was not a single photo showing such an occurrence. Not even one. In spite of the fact that on
both sides of the fence there were hundreds of photographers, including Israeli army
photographers, who filmed every single detail. Tens of thousands stormed, and not a single
picture?
One should notice the use of the word "terror". It has turned into an adjective attached to
everything. There are not just tunnels – they are all always "terror-tunnels". There are
"terror-activists". There is "the Hamas terror-regime" and there are "terror-bases". Now there
are "terror-kites".
Notice: not just "incendiary kites", or "destruction-kites", only "terror-kites". The same
every day in all media. Someone has made the terminology decision. Of course, everyone who has
the word "terror" attached to his name is "a son of death", as you say in biblical Hebrew.
Another proud term of the brainwashing.
The inhabitants of the Gaza Strip are "terrorists". (In Hebrew, a special term has been
invented: "Mekhablim"). All of them? Of course, no question. Especially Hamas members. But
Hamas is a political party, which has won democratic elections in all of Palestine. A civilian
party which has indeed a military wing. But in our media all party members and supporters are
"terrorists", sons of death. Of course.
The use of these terms, hundreds of times every day, clearly constitute brainwashing,
without the citizens noticing it. They are getting used to the fact that all Gazans are
terrorists, mekhablim. This is a process of dehumanization, the creation of Untermenschen in
the Nazi lexicon. Their killing is allowed, even desirable.
In such an atmosphere, even abominable sentences pass unnoticed. For example, this week I
heard on one of the TV news programs this sentence from the mouth of a military correspondent,
speaking about the coming Gaza demonstration: "Iran wants dead demonstrators, and it seems that
they will get them." One has to read this sentence twice to realize what it says: that the
Israeli sharpshooters serve Iranian interests.
Or a sentence that is repeated again and again, even by respected commentators: "Iran wants
to destroy the State of Israel". I don't know what 80 million Iranians want, nor does the
writer. But the sentence itself is ridiculous. Israel is a nuclear power. How does one
annihilate a nuclear power (with submarines that can launch nuclear devices in the hour of
need). Are the Iranians ready to turn their country – one of the cradles of human
civilization – into a graveyard and a desert?
Or a forecast "Friday another violent demonstration will take place". "Violent"? "Another"?
There is no argument about the fact that all the demonstrations along the Gaza fence were
completely nonviolent. The demonstrators did not shoot one single shot, when thousands of them
were wounded by live fire, and more than a hundred killed. Yet the lie passes without
comment.
Not a single one of the hundreds of TV news program presenters ever corrects such statements
by correspondents. Because the directors, presenters, commentators and correspondents are
themselves thoroughly brainwashed. The army spokesman knows the truth, of course, but he is a
central cog in the brainwashing machine.
Events reached a climax with the murder of the 21-year-old female paramedic Razan Ashraf
al-Najjar, when she was trying to save the life of a wounded demonstrator. The sharpshooter who
shot her in the chest saw that she was a medic treating a wounded person. It was a clear war
crime.
Was there a public outcry? Did the media demand an investigation? Did the media report this
event in their page one headline? Did the Knesset observe a minute of silence? Nothing of the
sort. A minor news item in some papers (by no means all). An excellent
article by the admirable Amira Hass in Haaretz . And that's that.
A few days passed, and abroad there were outcries. The Argentine soccer team, with the
admired Messi, canceled a friendly game against the Israeli team in Jerusalem.
The brainwashers realized that it was impossible not to react. So the army spokesman
published a statement saying that an investigation had taken place. What did it discover? Ah,
well. It was clearly established that nobody had shot Razan. She was hit by the ricochet of a
bullet that had hit the ground far from her. That is such a blatant lie that even the army liar
should be ashamed of producing it. It was accepted by the brainwashed public.
One of the hallmarks of brainwashing is a phenomenon that everyone can notice: the total
absence of a second opinion. When a commentator voices the official line on an event, does
anyone express an alternative version? Is there a debate between the official spokesman and a
contrary commentator? In the democratic media, that would be commonplace. Here it is very, very
rare.
What can be done to counter such brainwashing? Not much.
First of all: there is a vital need for a second voice. Brainwashing can be efficient
only when the official voice enjoys a complete monopoly. That was one of the aims of Haolam
Hazeh, the weekly which I edited for 40 years. It met every untrue government version with a
contrary version. Although our voice was weak, compared to the powerful government machine
(even in those days), the very fact that there are two voices, however unequal, prevents a
total brainwashing. The citizen hears two versions and wonders "who is right?"
If all the peace and human rights groups in Israel set up a joint center for information,
which will be heard, perhaps the monopoly of official propaganda can be broken. Perhaps.
There is in the country a tiny band of commentators who are not afraid to tell the truth,
even when this is considered treason. Gideon Levy, Amira Hass, and a few others. We must ensure
that their voice is heard. They must be encouraged.
All the media must be pressured to present a variation of views on matters of war and peace,
to let the "internal enemy" be heard, so that the citizen is able to form an opinion of their
own.
The foreign media must be allowed free access to the sources of information, even when the
foreign media are critical, "hostile" and "anti-Semitic". Friends of Israeli-Palestinian peace
abroad must be encouraged to pressure the media in their homelands to publish the truth about
what is happening here.
I don't like the word "must". But in this context, no other will do. The power of the
truth against a brainwashing machine is always limited. But in the end, even if it takes time,
truth will prevail. It needs courage.
The movie The Manchurian Candidate has a surprise ending: in the last minute, instead
of killing the presidential candidate, the brainwashed man shoots the communist agent who was
supposed to take his place.
Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the Israeli
Knesset. Read other articles by Uri , or visit
Uri's website
.
We need a Nationalist government, which will automatically see itself as the mortal enemy of
the primary Internationalist (there used to be a song about that) force in the world today,
and which affects us greatly in terms of resource exploitation: Globalisation, or what we
used to call 'multi national corporations' or 'international capital'.
Nationalism is a decision-making tool as it always poses a question; what is good for
this country ?
When/if he mentions de-Globalisation, an Aus-Indonesian defence alliance, citizen
initiated referenda, and a Constitutional ban on donations and parties , then people
may listen, however he cannot be accused of being too imaginative or bright. He is
however advocating authoritarianism not fascism.
Fascism doesn't require a state sanctioned religion or suppression of religion
That said the Catholicism/fundamentalist Christian bent of the present cabinet and the
demonisation of any green beliefs is uncomfortably close to what you describe
And the nexus between big business and govern, the destruction of public institutions, the
reduction in the capacity of media to report truth and the vitriolic attacks on opponenents
are straws in an ill wind
You are right, it's not "fascismmmmmmmmmmmmmm".... it's Fascism. Which brings back to my
memory what Tom Elliott (the son of Liberal Party former president John Elliott) wrote in the
Herald Sun on 6 February 2015: "It's time we temporarily suspended the democratic process and
installed a benign dictatorship to make tough but necessary decisions."
Polack is, effectively, almost any Polish national who dances upon the official
fairy-telling narrative of Polish state puppeteers. In that Marvelous Universe, Poland is a
truly indispensable part of the West, for its glorious deeds of once Saving the Christendom
in Vienna, and containing the Bear all other time.
In reality, it is a loser entity that 'Cannot Into Space' on many historic occasions
– mostly from building multi-ethnic empire to invading Russia. Poles suffer from being
surrounded by equally capable neighbors, Russians and Germans. Chopin is good, but he is
neither Mozart nor Chaikovsky, and to have such genii, one has to build empire first, and
then enjoy imperial music and literature.
For the West, Poland is an 'useful idiot' or a dupe, never treated as equal partner. In
Western (Capitalist) division of nations labor Poles are The Exploited. They are 1) cannon
fodder from Vienna to Monte-Cassino 2) theater of war and destruction to prevent Russians
from entering and destroying True Europe 3) cheap labor or preferrable white slaves 4) one
who pays for everything. Today, option 3 is fullfilled, others are selected by the the West.
Poland is a still a resource, and will be consumed by the West on any pretext. To the East,
there is a Big Brother that has its own resources.
We Russians used to treat the Polish identity illness, by capturing Warsaw many times. The
prognosis is still grave. Dear Polish brethren, we have no other options for you. Stick with
the West, keep your Catholic dreams and continue to perish. When you go critical, we may
think of surgery again.
The US decided, by promulgating Act 447, that a Polish Jew has never been a citizen of
Poland; he was a member of Jewry, and his property should revert to Jewry, not to the
Goyish Polish state.
It is nice that the US issues laws that are supposed to have effect in other states; the
slightly tipsy Galactus of Democracy is in his Heaven, all is right with the World.
It means that they can seize property of recently deceased ones in the Homeland and
embiggen the Tribe, But how are they going to enforce it in Poland? Sanctions? Threats to
move NATO out of Poland? No F-35 for you?
(Also, did the Scriptures say anything about when the Monstrously Swollen Jewish Messiah
will meet Ultra-Confucius for a Battle at the End of Times?)
The West pushed the Poles to rise against Germans in 1944, hoping to re-establish
anti-Russian Poland once again, but did nothing when the rebels bled to death. (Well, not
exactly nothing: they complained why Russian soldiers do not want to die for them).
Please do not forget the extraordinary role of the RAF and SAAF aircrews who flew supplies
to the Home Army in Warsaw from bases in southern Italy. Many of them lost their lives and
are buried in a Commonwealth cemetery in Krakow.
Magnificent article . Pole troops even invaded Spain with Napoleon , those " catholic " Poles
did not seem to feel bad for joining antichristian French revolutionary armies invading
Catholic Spain .
Polish Pope John Paul II , Woytila , joined forces with Reagan and Thatcher , with the
most wild anglosaxon imperialism , against the rest of the world . John Paul II , with his 27
year pontificate , left the Catholic Church devastated , the Catholic churches empty , the
people faithless .
When Polacks , baltics , and other weirdo countries of eastern europe joined the EU I
realized that the EU had no future .
Poland is a very sinister country , a factor of endless conflicts .
To liken Jewry to a feudal order of obligations and ownership explains a lot about their
collective behavior.
I hope the Polish people tell the United States to go to hell.
Perhaps there is little that we as Americans can do right now to stop the control freaks
in our Zionist controlled government from behaving like ruthless feudal landlords, but I am
hoping that the rest of the Western world removes the American boot off its neck and tells
the US to -- - off.
"... The Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables including Adolf Hitler, and thought that his British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not gone far enough in appeasing Hitlerite Germany ..."
"... persona non grata ..."
"... Some Canadians harboured illusions about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the Liberal and Conservative parties ..."
"... Identity politics and Canadian multiculturalism are now invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets of Kiev with torchlight parades and fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and collaboration during World War II ..."
"... Any country sending representatives to Russia's celebration of the 70th anniversary of their victory against Adolf Hitler," ..."
"... in April 2015, "will be blacklisted by Ukraine." ..."
Canada has a reputation for being a relatively progressive state with universal,
single-payer health care, various other social benefits, and strict gun laws, similar to many
European countries but quite unlike the United States. It has managed to stay out of some
American wars, for example, Vietnam and Iraq, portrayed itself as a neutral "peace keeper",
pursuing a so-called policy of "multilateralism" and attempting from time to time to keep a
little independent distance from the United States.
Behind this veneer of respectability lies a not so attractive reality of elite inattention
to the defence of Canadian independence from the United States and intolerance toward the
political and syndicalist left. Police repression against communist and left-wing unionists and
other dissidents after World War I was widespread. Strong support for appeasement of Nazi
Germany, overt or covert sympathy for fascism, especially in Québec, and hatred of the
Soviet Union were widespread in Canada during the 1930s. The Liberal prime minister, William
Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables including Adolf Hitler, and thought that his
British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not gone far enough in appeasing Hitlerite Germany.
Mackenzie King and many others of the Canadian elite saw communism as a greater threat to
Canada than fascism. As in Europe, the Canadian elite -- Liberal or Conservative did not matter
-- was worried by the Spanish civil war (1936-1939). In Québec French public opinion
under the influence of the Catholic Church hoped for fascist victory and the eradication of
communism. In 1937 a Papal encyclical whipped up the Red Scare amongst French Canadian
Catholics.
Rejection of Soviet offers of collective security against Hitler was the obverse side of
appeasement. The fear of victory over Nazi Germany in alliance with the USSR was greater than
the fear of defeat against fascism. Such thoughts were either openly expressed over dinner at
the local gentleman's club or kept more discrete by people who did not want to reveal the
extent of their sympathy for fascism.
The Liberal prime minister, William Lyon Mackenzie King, hobnobbed with Nazi notables
including Adolf Hitler, and thought that his British counterpart Neville Chamberlain had not
gone far enough in appeasing Hitlerite Germany
Even after the Nazi invasion of the USSR in June 1941, and the formation of the Grand
Alliance against the Axis, there was strong reticence amongst the governing elite in Canada
toward the Soviet Union. It was a shotgun marriage, a momentary arrangement with an undesirable
partner, necessitated by the over-riding threat of the Nazi Wehrmacht. "If Hitler invaded
Hell," Winston Churchill famously remarked, "I would make at least a favourable reference to
the devil in the House of Commons." Once Hitler was beaten, however, it would be back to
business as usual. The Grand Alliance was a "truce", as some of my students have proposed to
me, in a longer cold war between the west and the USSR. This struggle began in November 1917
when the
Bolsheviks seized power in Petrograd; it resumed after 1945 when the "truce", or if you
like, the Grand Alliance, came to a sudden end.
This was no more evident than in Canada where elite hatred of communism was a homegrown
commodity and not simply an American imitation. So it should hardly be a surprise that after
1945 the Canadian government -- Mackenzie King was still prime minister -- should open its
doors to the immigration of approximately 34,000 "displaced persons", including thousands of
Ukrainian
fascists and Nazi collaborators , responsible for heinous war crimes in the Ukraine and
Poland. These were
veterans of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), the Waffen SS Galicia and the Organisation
of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), all collaborators of Nazi Germany during World War II.
The most notorious of the Nazi collaborators who immigrated to Canada was
Mykhailo Chomiak , a mid-level Nazi operative in Poland, who came under US protection at
the end of the war and eventually made his way to Canada where he settled in Alberta. Had he
been captured by the Red Army, he would quite likely have been hanged for collaboration with
the enemy. In Canada however he prospered as a farmer. His grand-daughter is the
"Ukrainian-Canadian" Chrystia Freeland, the present minister for external affairs. She is a
well-known Russophobe, persona non grata in the Russian Federation, who long claimed
her grandfather was a "victim" of World War II. Her claims to this effect have been
demonstrated to be
untrue by the Australian born journalist John Helmer , amongst many others.
In 1940 the Liberal government facilitated the creation of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress (UCC)
, one of many organisations used to fight or marginalise the left in Canada, in this case
amongst Canadian Ukrainians. The UCC is still around and appears to dominate the Ukrainian-Canadian
community . Approximately 1.4 million people living in Canada claim full or partial
Ukrainian descent though generally the latter. Most "Ukrainian-Canadians" were born in Canada;
well more than half live in the western provinces. The vast majority has certainly never set
foot in the Ukraine. It is this constituency on which the UCC depends to pursue its political
agenda in Ottawa.
In 1940 the Liberal government facilitated the creation of the Canadian Ukrainian Congress (UCC)
, one of many organisations used to fight or marginalise the left in Canada, in this case
amongst Canadian Ukrainians. The UCC is still around and appears to dominate the Ukrainian-Canadian
community . Approximately 1.4 million people living in Canada claim full or partial
Ukrainian descent though generally the latter. Most "Ukrainian-Canadians" were born in Canada;
well more than half live in the western provinces. The vast majority has certainly never set
foot in the Ukraine. It is this constituency on which the UCC depends to pursue its political
agenda in Ottawa.
The Harper
government allowed fund raising for Pravyi Sektor , a Ukrainian fascist
paramilitary group
There is no political opposition in the House of Commons to these policies. Even the New
Democratic Party (NDP), that burnt out shell of Canadian social democracy, supported the Harper
government, at the behest of Mr. Grod, a Ukrainian lobbyist who knows his way around Ottawa. In
2015 the UCC put a list of questions to party leaders, one of which was the following: "Does
your party support listing the Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic as
terrorist organizations?" The Lugansk and Donetsk republics are of course anti-fascist
resistance movements that emerged in reaction to the violent coup d'état in Kiev. They
are most certainly not "terrorist" organisations, although they are subjected to daily
bombardments against civilian areas by Kiev putschist forces. Nevertheless, the then NDP
leader, Thomas Mulcair, who would have agreed to almost anything to win power, answered in the
affirmative. This must have been a moment of dismay for Canadians who still harboured illusions
about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the Liberal and Conservative parties. How could
it support a US/EU installed putschist regime which governs by intimidation and violence? In
fact, it was a Conservative electoral strategy to obtain the votes of people of Ukrainian and
East European descent by backing putschist Kiev and denouncing Russia. Mulcair was trying to
outflank Harper on his right, but that did not work for he himself was outflanked on his
left.
Some Canadians harboured illusions about the NDP as a progressive alternative to the
Liberal and Conservative parties
In the 2015 federal elections the Liberals under Justin Trudeau, outwitted poor Mr. Mulcair
and won the elections. The NDP suffered heavy electoral losses. Mulcair looked like someone who
had made a Faustian bargain for nothing in return, and he lost a bid to remain as party leader.
The Liberals campaigned on re-establishing better relations with the Russian Federation, but
that promise did not hold up. The minister for external affairs, Stéphane Dion, tried to
move forward on that line, but appears to have been stabbed in the back by Mr. Trudeau, with
Ms. Freeland guiding his hand in the fatal blow. In early 2017
Dion was sacked and Freeland replaced him. That was the end of the Liberal promise to
improve relations with the Russian government. Since then, under Freeland, Russian-Canadian
relations have worsened.
The influential Mr. Grod appears to keep the Canadian government in his hip pocket. There
are photographs of him side by side with Mr. Harper and then with Mr. Trudeau, with Ms.
Freeland on his left. Mr. Grod has been a great success in backing putschist Kiev. Last summer
Mr. Trudeau even issued a traditional Ukrainian fascist salute, "SlavaUkraini!"
, to celebrate the anniversary of Ukrainian independence. The prime minister is a great
believer in identity politics.
The latest gesture of the Canadian government is to approve $1.4 million as a three year
grant to promote a "Holodomor National Awareness Tour". Ukrainian "nationalists" summon up the
memory of the "Holodomor", a famine in the Ukraine in 1932-1933, deliberately launched by
Stalin, they say, in order to emphasise their victimisation by Russia. According to the latest
Stalin biographer, Steven Kotkin, there was indeed a famine in the USSR that affected various
parts of the country, the Ukraine amongst other regions. Kazakhstan, not the Ukraine suffered
most. Between five and seven million people died. Ten millions starved. "Nonetheless, the
famine was not intentional. It resulted from Stalin's policies of forced collectivization
,"Kotkin writes, himself no advocate of the Soviet Union. Compulsion, peasant rebellion,
bungling, mismanagement, drought, locust infestations, not targeting ethnicities, led to the
catastrophe. "Similarly, there was no 'Ukrainian' famine," according to Kotkin, "the famine was
[a] Soviet[-wide disaster]" ( Stalin , 2017, vol. 2, pp. 127-29).
So the Liberal government is spending public funds to perpetuate a politically motivated myth
to drum up hatred of Russia and to support putschist Kiev.
Identity politics and Canadian multiculturalism are now invoked to defend Ukrainian
fascism celebrated in the streets of Kiev with torchlight parades and fascist symbols,
remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and collaboration during World War II
The Canadian government also recently renewed funding for a detachment of 200 "advisors" to
train Ukrainian militias, along with
twenty-three million dollars -- it is true a pittance by American
standards -- for "non-lethal" military aid, justified by Ms. Freeland to defend Ukrainian
"democracy". Truly, we live in a dystopian world where reality is turned on its head. Fascism
is democracy; resistance to fascism is terrorism. Identity politics and Canadian
multiculturalism are now invoked to defend Ukrainian fascism celebrated in the streets of Kiev
with torchlight parades and fascist symbols, remembering and celebrating Nazi collaborators and
collaboration during World War II. " Any country sending representatives to Russia's
celebration of the 70th anniversary of their victory against Adolf Hitler,"
warned putschist Kievin April 2015, "will be blacklisted by Ukraine."
"The further a society drifts from the truth," George Orwell once said, "the more it will
hate those that speak it." Well, here is one truth that Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Freeland will not
want to hear, hate it or not: 42,000 Canadian soldiers, not to mention 27 million Soviet
citizens, died during the war against the Axis. Memories must be fading, for now we have come
to this pass, where our government is supporting a violent, racist regime in Kiev directly
descended from that very enemy against which Canada and its allies fought during World War
II.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping started his second term as President
last month and delivered his speech with a nationalistic appeal stating China's desire to take
up its "due place in the world." Xi seems to be taking the long way to achieve Chinese
superiority all over the world. Xi began his new tenure in an ultra nationalistic manner rather
than with a communist internationalist plea.
Prior to Xi's re-election, the Chinese Communist Party put "democratic weakness" aside as
the Chinese parliament endorsed a new law including removing the restriction that had limited
the presidency to two consecutive five-year terms. The Parliament justified the change as a
necessity to line up the presidency with Xi's two other, more powerful, posts -- head of the
party and of the military since they have no term limits.
The move was not unexpected; after his accession to power in 2012, Xi has chosen a rough,
hard but consolidated long road to walk. His way has differed from the way of his last two
predecessors. Xi's two precursors Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao strictly followed the rule of
collective leadership which was introduced by Deng Xiaoping to dilute the one man autocracy of
the Mao Zedong era by including a restriction limiting the presidency to two consecutive
five-year terms. Following the ending of Deng era, the power transforming processes were kept
free from disturbance.
After his ascent in power, Xi Jinping turned away from the path of his two predecessors and
wanted to be a Chinese thinker, pathfinder and philosopher like Mao Zedong.
In 2013, Chinese President Xi Jinping adopted the concept of OBOR as one of the greatest
investment projects in the history of the planet. Similarly, the USA launched the Marshall Plan
for reconstruction of Western Europe after the end of Second World War; the USA invested US$ 13
billion dollars which is roughly equivalent to US$ 130 billion in today's money. According to
news media China has already invested $ 1 trillion in OBOR and several trillion is due to be
invested over the next decade.
Chinese OBOR has the basic objective to gain both political and economic supremacy over
western countries. Following the Chinese revolution China's leadership strongly denounced
western capitalism and vowed to fight against US led "imperialism" & "expansionism". Mao
Zedong, founder of modern China emerged as a great competitor to US led capitalistic
leadership. He introduced and developed the three world theory. According to his theory, the
first world comprises USA led western countries, second world consisting of Soviet Union and
its allies and all countries of Asia except Japan, all countries of Africa & Latin America
are in third world. Mao Zedong intended to be the pathfinder for the third world countries to
struggle against western exploitation. Since the foundation of new China, the Chinese
leadership feels comfortable working with "third world" countries against western dominance.
China played a vital role in the Korean War and also in the Vietnam War against US
expansionism. China also wanted to export revolution to all third world countries but they were
not successful due to the lack of Chinese financial capacity or to avoid direct conflict with
other countries. Therefore, China's effort to export revolution was aired on propaganda
machinery rather than practically. As an example the Indian Maoist faction only got moral
support from China in the mid 60s, when they campaigned for an armed struggle to grow a
communist regime.
It seemed, the Chinese leadership was waiting for favorable circumstance and opportunity to
establish a proletarian third world.
After the death of Mao Zedong the Chinese leadership has gradually shifted from the policy
of exporting revolution towards exporting Chinese industrial products to third world countries.
China also shifted from a controlled economy to a free market economy. Under the communist
party leadership China turned into a capitalist country. China has the world's fastest-growing
economy with average growth rates of 10% over 30 years. The economic success of China has
developed a geopolitical ambition like Mao's to be a world player.
Now China is at its most prosperous in its history and present President Xi Jinping is the
most powerful leader after Mao Zedong. Under Xi's leadership, China has promoted vigorous
growth of military might and geopolitical influence. President Xi's aspiration is boosting
China to gain the prime role on the stage of the global power game and to subdue US dominance.
The rivalry between the USA and China is on a range of different issues such as the South China
Sea, cyber security, trade disputes, human rights and intellectual property rights.
After attaining power, Shifting from the previous policy of peaceful coexistence with its
neighbors, Xi has introduced a nationalistic and aggressive stance in foreign policy regarding
dealings with his counterparts. He is looking for geographical expansion of Chinese territory
and increasing the Chinese influence all over the world. China already has claims over almost
the entire South China Sea and its islands and reefs. The South China Sea is also claimed in
part by the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Taiwan and Brunei. China has constructed three
artificial islands in the South China Sea ignoring cries from its neighbors. Xi also took a
very strong stance on the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands issue with Japan and declared an Air defense
identification Zone in the area. Along with Japan, the US has opposed the Chinese actions in
the South China Sea.
Responding to US criticism, China was critical of the presence of the U.S. in Asia Pacific
Ocean waters and the US "strategic pivot" to Asia.
"Matters in Asia ultimately must be taken care of by Asians. Asia's problems ultimately must
be resolved by Asians and Asia's security ultimately must be protected by Asians", Xi told a
regional conference in Shanghai on 21 May 2014. Indicating the USA's interference in Asia Xi
called on Asian countries to unite and forge a way together, rather than get involved with
third party powers. Subsequent to this, Xi announced his One Belt and One Road initiatives to
persuade the world.
The 'One Belt, One Road (OBOR) consists of two routes-one overland "Silk Road Economic
Belt", another "21 st -Century Maritime Silk Road" in an objective to link China
economically to Europe through countries across Eurasia, Africa and the Indian Ocean. The land
corridors are China-Mongolia-Russia; China-Central Asia-West Asia; the China-Indochina
peninsula; China-Pakistan; and Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar. The OBOR will integrate of the
region into an interconnected economic area through building infrastructure, increasing
cultural exchanges, and broadening trade. China is investing to build infrastructure such as
railways, roads, ports, energy systems and telecommunications networks to implement OBOR. On
the Maritime Silk Road, China will invest to improve efficiency and security of the major sea
ports along the routes.
China's banks are providing massive funds for Chinese enterprise to construct infrastructure
while the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) will provide loans for other countries.
AIIB has issued the first loans for Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Tajikistan. The Bank of
China has clarified that the Renminbi (Chinese currency) will be the main trading and
investment currency. Entering the Chinese Banks into new OBOR countries will promote the
globalization of the Chinese economy. China also called upon Chinese expatriates to invest in
OBOR projects.
The Chinese President has played his OBOR card when the USA, the prime competitor to China,
got an egotistic and unpredictable President like Donald Trump. XI's OBOR initiatives are
contending as the USA turns to isolationism and protectionism.
The USA and its allies are under threat of raising extreme nationalism and communalism.
Donald Trump likes to appear as a nationalistic President rather than an international player.
In the meantime, Donald trump decided to withdraw from the Paris climate treaty and ignore USA
global responsibility. On the contrary Chinese President Xi asserted his eagerness to implement
the Paris Climate treaty and intention to work with European leaders.
Emerging as European core ally, Xi also called for more Chinese responsibility for global
issues.
Xi's stance on global affairs impacted positively on his OBOR initiatives. Now the
relationship between China and Western Europe is at its highest level of cooperation since the
Chinese revolution. Therefore China got a very positive response from Western Europe regarding
OBOR initiatives.
So the conference on the Belt and Road Forum for International Cooperation, which was held
last May was participated in by representatives from all Western European countries including
Swiss President Doris Leuthard, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, and Italian Prime Minister
Paolo Gentiloni. Germany and France are not very enthusiastic about OBOR, but they look for
business opportunities which would come from OBOR. In a nutshell, every country of the planet,
even the USA private sector is keen to explore the cost and benefits of the enormously
ambitious project. It is not surprising that the OBOR initiative has belted a wide range of
countries from Asia and Africa to Europe and even South America.
Apart from heads of state, Executives of 61 international organizations attended the summit,
including UN secretary general António Guterres, president of the World Bank Jim Yong
Kim and managing director of the International Monetary Fund Christine Lagarde.
Leaders of ASEAN Countries including Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte, Malaysian Prime
Minister Najib Razak, Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang and Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen,
participated in the OBOR summit and not surprisingly that they moved aside from their dispute
with China on the South China Sea.
However, OBOR have been criticized for dominating tiny economies through long-term control
of infrastructures, natural resources and associated land assets. China may control the OBOR
countries market, labor and exports through transferring Chinese-own production units to those
countries. Some also doubt the efficiency of Chinese Banks. Another allegation is that in the
context of security measures the Chinese Liberation Army could dominate all the geographical
routes of OBOR area and could intervene in internal affairs.
On the other side of coin, the OBOR countries will benefit from Chinese investment much more
than from World Bank or IMF loans. So, the OBOR initiative is universally welcomed by both
developed and developing countries. The Developing countries (Mao's Third World) have huge
demands for infrastructure development and required funding, which they can easily obtain from
the OBOR fund. Therefore the developing countries are very positive when they analyze the
objectives of OBOR.
Historically, the Chinese Dragon used to shock the world when it woke up from hibernation.
It woke up in 1949 from opium addiction and the Chinese Revolution (the first Dragon of New
China) surprised the world. Again the Chinese Dragon hibernated in the 1960s following Mao
Zedong's cultural- revolution. During the Cultural Revolution Mao Zedong closed the Chinese
door for 10 years but surprisingly he initiated opening the door for imperialist 'puppet-tiger'
USA through 'ping-pong' diplomacy. His step was very significant for awaking the new
Chinese-Dragon.
The whole world was astonished again when the Chinese manufacturing dragon, the second
dragon occupied the global market in 1980s. Nowadays, nobody can ignore Chinese commodities for
even a single day.
The third dragon is Xi's OBOR initiatives, the world is waiting for the outcome of OBOR,
which has already commenced its journey and roams across all the continents and oceans of the
planet.
Sazzad Haider is a writer and filmmaker living in Bangladesh. He edits The Diplomatic
Journal.
"... Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, ..."
"... . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at www.creators.com. ..."
"Together," President Macron instructed President Trump, "we can resist the rise of aggressive nationalisms that deny our history
and divide the world."
In an address before Congress on Wednesday, France's Macron denounced "extreme nationalism," invoked the UN, NATO, WTO, and Paris
climate accord, and implored Trump's America to come home to the New World Order.
"The United States is the one who invented this multilateralism," Macron went on, "you are the one now who has to help preserve
and reinvent it."
His visit was hailed and his views cheered, but on reflection, the ideas of Emmanuel Macron seem to be less about tomorrow than
yesterday. For the world he celebrates is receding into history. The America of 2018 is coming to see NATO as having evolved into
an endless U.S. commitment to go to war with Russia on behalf of a rich Europe that resolutely refuses to provide for its own defense.
Since the WTO was created in the mid-90s, the U.S. has run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and among the organization's biggest
beneficiaries -- the EU. Under the Paris climate accord, environmental restrictions are put upon the United States from which China
is exempt. As for the UN, is that sinkhole of anti-Americanism, the General Assembly, really worth the scores of billions we have
plunged into it?
"Aggressive nationalism" is a term that might well fit Napoleon Bonaparte, whose Arc de Triomphe sits on the Champs-Elysees. But
does it really fit the Hungarians, Poles, Brits, Scots, Catalans, and other indigenous peoples of Europe who are now using democratic
methods and means to preserve their national homes?
And the United States would seem an odd place to go about venting on "aggressive nationalisms that deny our history." Did Macron
not learn at the Lycee Henri IV in Paris or the Ecole Nationale d'Administration how the Americans acquired all that land? General
Washington, at whose Mount Vernon home Macron dined, was a nationalist who fought for six years to sever America's ties to the nation
under which he was born. How does Macron think Andrew Jackson acquired Florida from Spain, Sam Houston acquired Texas from Mexico,
and Winfield Scott and Zachary Taylor acquired the Southwest? By bartering?
Aggressive nationalism is a good synonym for the Manifest Destiny of a republic that went about relieving Spain of Cuba, Puerto
Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. How does Macron think the "New World" was conquered and colonized if not by aggressive British,
French, and Spanish nationalists determined to impose their rule upon weaker indigenous tribes? Was it not nationalism that broke
up the USSR into 15 nations?
Was not the Zionist movement that resurrected Israel in 1948, and in 1967 captured the West Bank and then annexed East Jerusalem
and the Golan Heights, a manifestation of aggressive nationalism?
Macron is an echo of George H.W. Bush who in Kiev in 1991 warned Ukrainians against the "suicidal nationalism" of declaring independence
from the Russian Federation. "Aggressive nationalisms divide the world," warns Macron. Well, yes, they do, which is why we have now
194 members of the U.N., rather than the original 50. Is this a problem? "Together," said Macron, "we will build a new, strong multilateralism
that defends pluralism and democracy in the face of ill winds."
Macron belongs to a political class that sees open borders and free trade thickening and tightening the ties of dependency, and
eventually creating a One Europe whose destiny his crowd will forever control.
But if his idea of pluralism is multiracial, multiethnic, and multicultural nations, with a multilateral EU overlord, he is describing
a future that tens of millions of Europeans believe means the deaths of the nations that give meaning to their lives.
And they will not go gently into that good night.
In America, too, millions have come to recognize that there is a method to the seeming madness of open borders. Name of the game:
dispossessing the deplorables of the country they love.
With open borders and mass migration of over a million people a year into the USA, almost all of them from third-world countries
that vote 70 to 90 percent Democratic, the left is foreclosing the future. They're converting the greatest country of the West into
what Teddy Roosevelt called a "polyglot boarding house for the world." And in that boarding house the left will have a lock on the
presidency.
With the collaboration of co-conspirators in the media, progressives throw a cloak of altruism over the cynical seizure of permanent
power.
For, as the millions of immigrants here legally and illegally register, and the vote is extended to prison inmates, ex-cons, and
16-year-olds, the political complexion of America will come to resemble San Francisco.
End goal: ensure that what happened in 2016, when the nation rose up and threw out a despised establishment, never happens again.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President
and Divided America Forever . To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists,
visit the Creators website at www.creators.com.
Firs of all Mark Galeotti is very weak. That's incurable.
I want your money poor Pinocchio -- that the new slogan of May government. Kind of
compensation for Brexit losses at Russian oligarchs expense.
What Russophobe Galiotti does not understand is that this another nail in the coffin of neoliberalism. As soon as you
start to distriminate between oligarche neoliberalism stops and nationalism starts
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing Putin's work for him ..."
"... He has launched a " de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31 billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's $154 billion . ..."
"... The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to undermine the regime in Moscow. ..."
This is also a project in which further international cooperation would be crucial. Chasing
that money and the influence it buys out of London but seeing it find comfortable new homes in
Paris, Frankfurt, and New York is only half the job done and will do little to chasten Moscow.
Although it will be difficult to persuade others to turn away tempting business, the unexpected
support Britain is receiving from European Union partners in particular suggests this may be an
opportune moment to convince them that in its experience this money is too toxic to be safe and
that this is a Western, not just a British, problem.
Of course, the irony is that by driving out Russian money, London would in part be doing
Putin's work for him . Since 2014, the Russian economy has been in the doldrums.
Furthermore, Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to
see elites stash their money outside his grasp.
Putin is a man who understands power better than economics, and he is unhappy to see elites
stash their money outside his grasp.
He has launched a "
de-offshorization " campaign to try to persuade, cajole, and intimidate oligarchs and
minigarchs into bringing their money back home. Along with the stabilization of the economy as
a whole, this has had some limited success. While more than $31
billion flowed out of the country last year alone, this is a dramatic fall from 2014's
$154 billion .
The thought that Britain would actually be returning capital into Putin's grasp may be
an uncomfortable one. After all, a third possible policy goal would be actively to seek to
undermine the regime in Moscow. Overt efforts at regime change would be dangerous and
likely counterproductive, but London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to
weaken the Kremlin
London may feel that it should not pass up opportunities to weaken the Kremlin
, in the hope that this may tame its appetite for playing confrontational
geopolitics.
... ... ...
Mark Galeotti is a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Affairs Prague and a visiting fellow with
the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Robert Bartley, the late editorial page editor of The Wall Street Journal, was a free trade
zealot who for decades championed a five-word amendment to the Constitution: "There shall be
open borders."
Bartley accepted what the erasure of America's borders and an endless influx or foreign
peoples and goods would mean for his country.
Said Bartley, "I think the nation-state is finished."
His vision and ideology had a long pedigree.
This free trade, open borders cult first flowered in 18th-century Britain. The St. Paul of
this post-Christian faith was Richard Cobden, who mesmerized elites with the grandeur of his
vision and the power of his rhetoric.
In Free Trade Hall in Manchester, Jan. 15, 1846, the crowd was so immense the seats had to
be removed. There, Cobden thundered:
"I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world
as the principle of gravitation in the universe -- drawing men together, thrusting aside the
antagonisms of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal
peace."
Britain converted to this utopian faith and threw open her markets to the world. Across the
Atlantic, however, another system, that would be known as the "American System," had been
embraced.
The second bill signed by President Washington was the Tariff Act of 1789. Said the Founding
Father of his country in his first address to Congress: "A free people should promote such
manufactures as tend to make them independent on others for essential, particularly military
supplies."
In his 1791 "Report on Manufactures," Alexander Hamilton wrote, "Every nation ought to
endeavor to possess within itself all the essentials of national supply. These comprise the
means of subsistence, habitat, clothing and defence."
This was wisdom born of experience.
At Yorktown, Americans had to rely on French muskets and ships to win their independence.
They were determined to erect a system that would end our reliance on Europe for the
necessities of our national life, and establish new bonds of mutual dependency -- among
Americans.
Britain's folly became manifest in World War I, as a self-reliant America stayed out, while
selling to an import-dependent England the food, supplies and arms she needed to survive but
could not produce.
America's own first major steps toward free trade, open borders and globalism came with
JFK's Trade Expansion Act and LBJ's Immigration Act of 1965.
By the end of the Cold War, however, a reaction had set in, and a great awakening begun.
U.S. trade deficits in goods were surging into the hundreds of billions, and more than a
million legal and illegal immigrants were flooding in yearly, visibly altering the character of
the country.
Americans were coming to realize that free trade was gutting the nation's manufacturing base
and open borders meant losing the country in which they grew up. And on this earth there is no
greater loss.
The new resistance of Western man to the globalist agenda is now everywhere manifest.
We see it in Trump's hostility to NAFTA, his tariffs, his border wall.
We see it in England's declaration of independence from the EU in Brexit. We see it in the
political triumphs of Polish, Hungarian and Czech nationalists, in anti-EU parties rising
across Europe, in the secessionist movements in Scotland and Catalonia and Ukraine, and in the
admiration for Russian nationalist Vladimir Putin.
Europeans have begun to see themselves as indigenous peoples whose Old Continent is mortally
imperiled by the hundreds of millions of invaders wading across the Med and desperate come and
occupy their homelands.
Who owns the future? Who will decide the fate of the West?
The problem of the internationalists is that the vision they have on offer -- a world of
free trade, open borders and global government -- are constructs of the mind that do not engage
the heart.
Men will fight for family, faith and country. But how many will lay down their lives for
pluralism and diversity?
Who will fight and die for the Eurozone and EU?
On Aug. 4, 1914, the anti-militarist German Social Democrats, the oldest and greatest
socialist party in Europe, voted the credits needed for the Kaiser to wage war on France and
Russia. With the German army on the march, the German socialists were Germans first.
Patriotism trumps ideology.
In "Present at the Creation," Dean Acheson wrote of the postwar world and institutions born
in the years he served FDR and Truman in the Department of State: The U.N., IMF, World Bank,
Marshall Plan, and with the split between East and West, NATO.
We are present now at the end of all that.
And our transnational elites have a seemingly insoluble problem.
To rising millions in the West, the open borders and free trade globalism they cherish and
champion is not a glorious future, but an existential threat to the sovereignty, independence
and identity of the countries they love. And they will not go gentle into that good night.
"... Angleton embodied and shaped the CIA's operational ethos and its internal procedures, especially in the realm of counterintelligence. His theories of Soviet penetration dominated the thinking of Western intelligence agencies, and their legacy can even be seen in the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and allegations of collusion with Russia. I want to emphasize that I only use the term deep state as a colloquial shorthand term for the array of US national security agencies that operate under the shroud of official secrecy. ..."
"... Angleton, I'm going to put to you, was a founding father of what we call the deep state. ..."
"... With the passage of the National Security Act in July 1947, Angleton went to work at the CIA. The CIA came into existence and Angleton became the chief of the foreign intelligence staff with responsibility for intelligence collection operations worldwide. ..."
"... Angleton became the CIA's exclusive liaison with the Mossad in 1951. ..."
"... He was introduced to Amos Manor, chief of counterespionage for Israel's domestic security service known as Shabak or Shin Bet. ..."
"... "I didn't know exactly what to do, but I had the idea of giving them material we had gathered a year earlier about the efforts of the Eastern Bloc to use Israel to bypass an American trade embargo. We edited the material and informed them that they should never ask us to identify our sources." From such arrangements, the CIA-Mossad relationship began to grow. Manor would be friends with Angleton for the rest of his life. ..."
"... Asher Ben-Natan, Angleton's source dating back to the OSS days, was playing a key procurement role in the secret Israeli program to obtain nuclear weapons. Teddy Kollek, one of Angleton's closest contacts and friends in Washington, later became the mayor of Jerusalem. Angleton's Israeli friends in short were really the architects, some of the architects of the Zionist state. ..."
"... As I came to learn his story from talking to CIA veterans and Israelis and reading a lot, a couple of things stood out to me. First of all, the Israeli recruitment of Angleton was extremely astute. In the early 1950s, Angleton was a rising star at this new agency, the CIA, but he was not a senior figure and not even particularly powerful. The Israelis recognized the latent qualities that would make him powerful. ..."
"... In 1954 Angleton became the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff, the first one. In 1956 Amos Manor passed him a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech to the Soviet Communist Party in which he criticized the cult of personality around the deceased dictator, Joseph Stalin. This intelligence coup made Angleton a legend within the CIA and the power within the agency as well, and it was very much made possible by the Israelis. ..."
"... Angleton's formative and sometimes decisive influence on US policy towards Israel can be seen in many areas – from the impotence of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in the region, to Israel's triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War, to the feeble US response to the attack on the Liberty, to the intelligence failure represented by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. ..."
"... The question, which was put to me by Grant but is right on point, was why didn't the CIA help the FBI investigate the diversion of US weapons-grade material from the United States to Israel in the 1960s and 1970s? The short answer is because Jim Angleton didn't want to. Angleton played a key role in enabling Israel to obtain nuclear weapons, and he did so in a subtle way that characteristically left few fingerprints. He was not a man to investigate himself. Many of these details are now known thanks to Grant Smith, Roger Mattson, John Hadden, Jr. and others. ..."
"... the Nuclear Materials and Equipment Corporation, otherwise known as NUMEC, started processing highly-enriched uranium in the United States in 1959. NUMEC had been created by David Lowenthal, a Zionist financier who financed the postwar boatlift from Europe to Palestine that was romanticized in the book and movie Exodus. He hired Zalman Shapiro, a brilliant young metallurgist to run the company. ..."
"... By October 1965, the AEC estimated that 178 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium had gone missing from the NUMEC facility, by March 1968, that figure was 267 kilograms. ..."
"... John Hadden was the CIA station chief in Israel from 1964 to 1967. He worked very closely with Angleton throughout this period. He would later concur with the near unanimous assessment of CIA's nuclear scientist that Israel had indeed stolen fissile material from NUMEC and used it to build their nuclear arsenal. ..."
"... With the fissile material diverted from NUMEC, Israel was able to construct its first nuclear weapon by 1967 and become a full-blown nuclear power by 1970 – the first and still the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Angleton, it is fair to say, thought collaboration with Israel was more important than US nonproliferation policy. ..."
"... When Angleton left government service 20 years later, Israel held twice as much territory as it had in 1948. The CIA and Mossad collaborated on a daily basis and the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies knit together by expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts and coordinated diplomacy. ..."
"... Angleton's influence on U.S.-Israeli relations between 1951 and 1974 exceeded that of any Secretary of State with the possible exception of Henry Kissinger. His influence was largely unseen by Congress, the press, other democratic institutions, and much of the CIA itself. He was empowered by his own ingenuity and the clandestine arrangements rationalized by doctrines of national security and counterintelligence. The arc of his career breathes life into the concept of the deep state. ..."
"... Angleton, more than any other American, enabled the Americans to gain and hold this strategic high ground in the Middle East. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, the biggest Zionist of the lot ..."
Angleton embodied and shaped the CIA's operational ethos and its
internal procedures, especially in the realm of counterintelligence. His theories of Soviet
penetration dominated the thinking of Western intelligence agencies, and their legacy can even
be seen in the counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign and allegations of
collusion with Russia. I want to emphasize that I only use the term deep state as a colloquial
shorthand term for the array of US national security agencies that operate under the shroud of
official secrecy.
Let's not forget there are a dozen, at least a dozen such agencies based here in Washington.
The CIA with its $15 billion a year budget is the largest. The NSA with a budget of about $10
billion is the second largest. The Defense Intelligence Agency is about $4 billion. Then along
with some other obscure but still very large agencies like the NGIA. Never heard of the NGIA? I
didn't think so. The National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency is a $4.9 billion a year agency.
Collectively, these agencies spend probably $50 billion to $60 billion a year, which make them
a very small but powerful potent sector in the American scheme of power.
Want to know how the NGIA spent your $4.9 billion? Good luck. Want to see a line item budget
of CIA activities in Africa last year? Move along. It's true that Congress nominally has
oversight powers over these agencies. Our elected officials do have their security clearances
that we don't have, so they can go in and look at selected operations. But the intelligence
oversight system is very weak as even its defenders will admit. The intelligence committees
polarized and politicized can't even agree on what kind of secret activities they're supposed
to monitor. The FISA court system is supposed to protect Americans from surveillance by their
government, but it largely functions as a rubberstamp of the secret agencies. A secret
government is the norm in America in 2018 which is why the discourse of the deep state has such
currency today.
Angleton, I'm going to put to you, was a founding father of what we call the deep state. So who was he? Born in
December 1917, James Angleton grew up as the oldest son of James Hugh Angleton, a brash self-made American businessman who moved
to Milan, Italy during the Depression and made a fortune during the time Benito Mussolini selling cash registers. Angleton
attended private school in England. He went to Yale College, and then to Harvard Law school. He was a precocious good-looking
young man with sophisticated manners and a literary frame of mind.
As an undergraduate, he befriended his fellow expatriate – Ezra Pound – in
Italy. Pound was the modernist poet in the mad tribune of Mussolini's fascism. In their
correspondence, which I found at Yale, Angleton sometimes ape the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Ezra
Pound. For example, criticizing the Jewish book merchants who he thought overcharged for
Pound's books.
In 1943, Angleton was recruited into the Office of Strategic Services, America's first
foreign intelligence service stationed in Rome during and after World War II. He excelled at
secret intelligence work. I tell a story in The Ghost of how he rescued a leading Nazi and a
leading Italian fascist from postwar justice. Among other tasks, he reported on the flow of
Jews escaping from Germany and heading for Palestine. The revelations of the Holocaust
transformed his disdain for Jews into something of sympathy. He began to develop sources among
the leaders of the Jewish and Zionist organizations – including Teddy Kollek who was a
British intelligence agent, and a German operative named Arthur Pier who later became known as
Asher Ben-Natan.
With the passage of the National Security Act in July 1947, Angleton went to work at the
CIA. The CIA came into existence and Angleton became the chief of the foreign intelligence
staff with responsibility for intelligence collection operations worldwide. In those days, the
CIA was right here in the heart of Washington. It's hard for people to believe now, but the CIA
was located in a series of temporary buildings located along the reflecting pool next to the
Lincoln Memorial. The tempos, as they were called by CIA people, were drafty in the winter, hot
in the summer, and devoid of charm year-round. But this is where Angleton worked, at what was
known as the Office of Special Operations.
Angleton, while sympathetic to Jewish suffering, was still very wary of Israel when he
started his career at the CIA. Before the 1948 war, the Jewish army had been largely armed by
Czech arms manufacturers and communist Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union was the first country
to recognize the state of Israel in 1948. Angleton initially feared that the Soviets would use
Israel as a platform for injecting spies into the West. The Israelis, for their part, were
looking to cultivate American friends. Stalin's anti-Semitic purges in 1948 showed that his
allegiance to the Jewish state was superficial at best.
In 1950 a man named Reuven Shiloah, the founder of Israel's first intelligence organization,
came to Washington. He visited the CIA and he came away very impressed with how it was
organized. He went back to Israel and in April 1951, he created out of a very fractious
collection of security forces what was known as the Institute for Intelligence and Special
Tasks – inevitably known as Mossad, Hebrew for institute.
In 1951 Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion came to the United States and brought Shiloah with
him. Ben-Gurion met privately with President Truman, and Angleton arrange for Ben-Gurion to
also have lunch with his friend Allen Dulles who would shortly become the director of the CIA.
The purpose of this meeting, Efrain Halevy, a retired director of the Mossad and a longtime
friend of Angleton's told me in an interview in Tel Aviv, the purpose was in Halevy's words to
clarify in no uncertain terms that notwithstanding what had happened between Israel and United
States 1948 and notwithstanding that Russia had been a key factor in Israel's survival, Israel
considered itself part of the Western world and would maintain the relationship with the United
States in this spirit.
Shiloah stayed on in Washington to work out the arrangements with Angleton. Shiloah,
according to his biographer, soon developed a special relationship – quote/unquote
– and Angleton became the CIA's exclusive liaison with the Mossad in 1951. Angleton
return the favor by traveling to Israel often. He was introduced to Amos Manor, chief of
counterespionage for Israel's domestic security service known as Shabak or Shin Bet.
Manor headed up Operation Balsam which was the Israeli's conduit to the Americans. "They
told me I had to collect information about the Soviet bloc and transmit it to them," Manor
recalled about the Americans. "I didn't know exactly what to do, but I had the idea of giving
them material we had gathered a year earlier about the efforts of the Eastern Bloc to use
Israel to bypass an American trade embargo. We edited the material and informed them that they
should never ask us to identify our sources." From such arrangements, the CIA-Mossad
relationship began to grow. Manor would be friends with Angleton for the rest of his life.
In 1963 a man named Isser Harel was succeeded as the chief of Mossad by a military
intelligence officer named Meir Amit. Amit found Angleton to be a little eccentric, but he
noted that his – quote – identification with Israel was a great asset for Israel.
Asher Ben-Natan, Angleton's source dating back to the OSS days, was playing a key procurement
role in the secret Israeli program to obtain nuclear weapons. Teddy Kollek, one of Angleton's
closest contacts and friends in Washington, later became the mayor of Jerusalem. Angleton's
Israeli friends in short were really the architects, some of the architects of the Zionist
state.
As I came to learn his story from talking to CIA veterans and Israelis and reading a lot, a
couple of things stood out to me. First of all, the Israeli recruitment of Angleton was
extremely astute. In the early 1950s, Angleton was a rising star at this new agency, the CIA,
but he was not a senior figure and not even particularly powerful. The Israelis recognized the
latent qualities that would make him powerful.
Second, Angleton's creative intellect and his operational audacity inspired deep feelings of
loyalty among the Israelis. While Angleton's counterintelligence vision would become very
controversial within and bitterly divisive within the CIA, he was widely admired in Israel as a
stalwart friend. He still is to this day.
In 1954 Angleton became the chief of the CIA's counterintelligence staff, the first one. In
1956 Amos Manor passed him a copy of Nikita Khrushchev's secret speech to the Soviet Communist
Party in which he criticized the cult of personality around the deceased dictator, Joseph
Stalin. This intelligence coup made Angleton a legend within the CIA and the power within the
agency as well, and it was very much made possible by the Israelis.
Angleton's formative and sometimes decisive influence on US policy towards Israel can be
seen in many areas – from the impotence of US nuclear nonproliferation policy in the
region, to Israel's triumph in the 1967 Six-Day War, to the feeble US response to the attack on
the Liberty, to the intelligence failure represented by the Yom Kippur War of 1973. I tell a
lot of the story in The Ghost, but the story of Angleton in Israel is really so large and so
profound that it probably deserves its own book. I could certainly not do justice to it in the
18 minutes that I have, so I'm going to confine myself to one narrow question about the
tradeoffs that became implicit in this arrangement between the CIA and the Mossad and its
implications for us.
The question, which was put to me by Grant but is right on point, was why didn't the CIA
help the FBI investigate the diversion of US weapons-grade material from the United States to
Israel in the 1960s and 1970s? The short answer is because Jim Angleton didn't want to.
Angleton played a key role in enabling Israel to obtain nuclear weapons, and he did so in a
subtle way that characteristically left few fingerprints. He was not a man to investigate
himself. Many of these details are now known thanks to Grant Smith, Roger Mattson, John Hadden,
Jr. and others.
I want to just give you a sense of how this transpired. So the Nuclear Materials and
Equipment Corporation, otherwise known as NUMEC, started processing highly-enriched uranium in
the United States in 1959. NUMEC had been created by David Lowenthal, a Zionist financier who
financed the postwar boatlift from Europe to Palestine that was romanticized in the book and
movie Exodus. He hired Zalman Shapiro, a brilliant young metallurgist to run the company.
At that time, the US government owned all of supplies of nuclear fuel which private
companies, like NUMEC, were allowed to use but ultimately had to return to the government.
Within a few years the Atomic Energy Commission noticed worrisome signs that the Apollo Plant
– NUMEC had a plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania – that the plant's security and
accounting were very deficient. Unexplained losses of nuclear material did happen at other
companies, but NUMEC's losses were proportionately much larger. By October 1965, the AEC
estimated that 178 kilograms of highly-enriched uranium had gone missing from the NUMEC
facility, by March 1968, that figure was 267 kilograms.
John Hadden was the CIA station chief in Israel from 1964 to 1967. He worked very closely
with Angleton throughout this period. He would later concur with the near unanimous assessment
of CIA's nuclear scientist that Israel had indeed stolen fissile material from NUMEC and used
it to build their nuclear arsenal. This story is now very well documented. In the spring of
1965, a technician working at the night shift at NUMEC went out on a loading dock for a breath
of fresh air and saw an unusual sight. Zalman Shapiro was pacing on the dock while a foreman
and truck driver loaded cylindrical storage containers, known as stovepipes, onto a flatbed
truck.
The technician saw a clipboard saying that the material was destined for Israel. It was
highly unusual to see Dr. Shapiro in the manufacturing section of the Apollo nuclear facility,
the technician said. It was unusual to see Dr. Shapiro there at night, and it was very unusual
to see Dr. Shapiro so nervous. The next day NUMEC's personnel manager visited the technician
and threatened to fire him if he did not keep his mouth shut, that's a quote, concerning what
he had seen. It would be 15 years before the employee told the story to the FBI.
What did Angleton know about NUMEC? Well, he knew that the AEC and the FBI were
investigating starting in 1965. As the Israel desk officer of the CIA, he talked about the
NUMEC case with liaison agent Sam Papich who was monitoring the investigation for the FBI. He
also spoke about it with his colleague John Hadden.
On the crime scene particulars, Hadden defended his former boss. "Any suggestion that
Angleton had help the Israelis with the NUMEC operation was totally without foundation," he
told journalists Andrew and Leslie Cockburn. But Hadden didn't deny that Angleton had helped
the Israeli nuclear program. Why would somebody whose whole life was dedicated to fighting
communism have any interest in preventing a very anti-Communist nation for getting the means to
defend itself, Hadden asked. The fact they stole it from us didn't worry him in the least, he
went on. I suspect that in his inmost heart he would have given it to them if they had asked.
Hadden knew better than to investigate any further. I never sent anything to Angleton on this
– the nuclear program – because I knew he wasn't interested, Hadden later told his
son, and I knew he'd try to stop it if I did.
With the fissile material diverted from NUMEC, Israel was able to construct its first
nuclear weapon by 1967 and become a full-blown nuclear power by 1970 – the first and
still the only nuclear power in the Middle East. Angleton, it is fair to say, thought
collaboration with Israel was more important than US nonproliferation policy. He believed that
the results proved his point. When he started as chief of the counterintelligence staff in
1954, the state of Israel and its leaders were regarded warily in Washington – especially
at the State Department. When Angleton left government service 20 years later, Israel held
twice as much territory as it had in 1948. The CIA and Mossad collaborated on a daily basis and
the governments of the United States and Israel were strategic allies knit together by
expansive intelligence sharing, multibillion-dollar arms contracts and coordinated
diplomacy.
Angleton's influence on U.S.-Israeli relations between 1951 and 1974 exceeded that of
any Secretary of State with the possible exception of Henry Kissinger. His influence was
largely unseen by Congress, the press, other democratic institutions, and much of the CIA
itself. He was empowered by his own ingenuity and the clandestine arrangements rationalized by
doctrines of national security and counterintelligence. The arc of his career breathes life
into the concept of the deep state.
I thought of this story when I visited one of the memorials to Angleton in Israel in 2016.
The memorial is located on a winding road outside the city of Mevaseret Zion, which is now
really a suburb of Jerusalem. Historically, control of this high ground has been seen as key to
the control of Jerusalem and of Palestine itself. A nearby ruins of a castle built by
12th-century Christian crusaders for exactly that purpose stands in mute testimony to the
importance of its strategic location.
The Angleton memorial consists of a pedestal of stones topped with a black plaque. To James
Angleton, a friend it says. This plaque was dedicated in 1987, a few months after Angleton
died, and it has been maintained by his Israeli friends ever since. It's still in perfect
condition. The location is no accident. In the course of his extraordinary career,
Angleton, more than any other American, enabled the Americans to gain and hold this
strategic high ground in the Middle East. He was, as his friend Meir Amit said, the biggest
Zionist of the lot . Thank you.
Those are two different phenomena. Most of the opposition is directed against warmongering
Likudniks, neocons and financial oligarchy (signicant part of which is ethnically Jewish, like
Germany in 30th), while often incorrectly using ethnic terminology. So in many case you need to
substitution Jew with a Neocon or Likudnik to make sense of the sentiments expressed.
"How much anti-Jewish hostility is there today in America? A lot? A little? Is it
negligible? Potentially explosive? It is hard to tell because disliking Jews is often a
firing offense, and a controlled press makes discussion impossible.
A clue can perhaps be
found in the comments sections of political websites where, protected by anonymity,
commenters are often bitterly anti-Jewish. But then, these comments may, or may not, be the
work of a few cranks."
This is a question that has moving parts. There might be a lot of hostility today and was
very little a few decades ago because what was once thought behavior we could afford or was
perhaps thought a temporary reaction to WW2 now seems much more insidious.
Or any of a dozen
similar relationships. I have always noticed Jewish behavior being a New Yorker, but had
until very recently been rather indulgent about it.
What some refer to as "Middle Eastern" characteristics probably more correctly can be called the "rug merchant mentality."
Notable quotes:
"... Diversity often disappears through assimilation. Today people named O'Toole and Libertini may be proud of their ancestry, but they think of themselves as American, not as Irish and Italian. So do others. Thus hostility to them, once intense, has vanished. ..."
"... Jews do not assimilate. Yes, they speak the same language, wear the same clothes, and peck at smartphones like everyone else. Yet they think of themselves as Jews. So, therefore, does everyone else. While there is no legal or moral reason why they should not so think of themselves, there are consequences: Human nature is what it is, regardless of whether we think it should be. ..."
"... Worse -- and this has caused millions of deaths -- Jews are often successful. It doesn't matter whether the success arises from superior intelligence, greater drive, collusion, or the will of Yahweh. It happens. Thus the pattern repeated over and over and over down the ages. Jews prosper, become rich, gain power sometimes abused, and become arrogant. If Christians did this -- Bill Gates, or the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age -- they would be resented as individuals perhaps, not as an ethnicity. But Jews are Them. The surrounding population feels colonized -- by Them, by Space Aliens, by internal foreigners -- and deeply resents it. ..."
"... Power and wealth are not necessary to engender slaughter. Mere difference, specifically not being Christian, has often been enough. History is littered with examples, of which Jews are well aware. When the First Crusade took Jerusalem in 1099, the Christian armies immediately burned the synagogue with the Jews inside. Why? The Jews had no part in the war, which was between Muslims and Christians. ..."
"... A Jewish friend once expressed the attitude as sometimes being, "Look what they have done to us. We can do anything we want to them." ..."
"... "It appears that gypsies are born only to be thieves. They are born as thieves, raised among thieves, study to be thieves, and finally end by being common thieves." Cervantes died in 1616, which makes the story over 400 years old. Yet this description of gypsies is their reputation today, very much supported by police files.They haven't assimilated, and they haven't changed. Jews of course have never been associated with burglary or picking pockets, but the passage makes clear that peoples can maintain characteristics over centuries ..."
"... Jews with remarkable consistency have been described for centuries as smart, greedy, combative, clannish, "pushy," exploitative, and arrogant. This is how I hear them described in Mexico, where I live. (I think of these as Middle Eastern traits, but never mind.) Then there is chutzpah. which in practice seems to mean "brashly walking over other people." It can leave others feeling bulldozed, defeated, used. This bruising of the ego, of self-respect, arouses a hostility all out of proportion to actual damage done. It is, or so I think, a major cause of dislike for Jews. Such descriptions are dismissed today as stereotypes. A stereotype is just the aggregate observation of many people over time. ..."
"... In sum, Jews seem alien, smarter than others and far more aggressive than Christians, whom they seem to trample. Christians feel that they cannot compete, that they are outsmarted at every turn, or at least pushed around, and made victims. This bruising of the ego sets off irrational, serious hostility. It is the attitude of blacks toward whites, for the same reasons ..."
"... Finally there is Israel, the albatross around the Jewish neck, making it impossible for Jews quietly to be more or less normal Americans. To Jews Israel is of immense and understandable importance, but this enthusiasm brings up charges of dual loyalty or, often, loyalty exclusively to Israel. The truth of this doesn't matter. It looks true, which is enough. Does Rachel the Jewish dentist in Peoria back Israel? To what extent? What does she think of Israeli behavior? We don't know. We know that Jewish lobbies like AIPAC and the Neocons back Israel one hundred percent. And they control American Mid-Eastern policy. This is much noted on the Web. ..."
"... America is not really stable. Political animosity runs high, racial hostility is great and growing, standards of living fall, offshoring and automation leave the young with nowhere for their lives to go. Wealth goes rapidly from the many to the few and what was the working class falls into drugs and anomie. The wars never end. Infrastructure ages and falls behind that of more advanced nations. Anger grows. As the pie shrinks, someone will have to get less pie. ..."
It is strange: Jews have been disliked everywhere and in all times. The dislike appears in odd places. I was astonished to find
that my Nepalese trekking guides were intensely hostile to Jews. They said that Jews (actually Israelis in most cases I think, but
the Nepalese do not seem to make the distinction) were loud, demanding, and always trying to force down the guides' fees. Historically
the hostility has often been powerful and, not infrequently, murderous. Jews have been expelled from country after country, excluded
from polite society, subjected to quotas,and required to live in certain regions. Why?
How much anti-Jewish hostility is there today in America? A lot? A little? Is it negligible? Potentially explosive? It is hard
to tell because disliking Jews is often a firing offense, and a controlled press makes discussion impossible. A clue can perhaps
be found in the comments sections of political websites where, protected by anonymity, commenters are often bitterly anti-Jewish.
But then, these comments may, or may not, be the work of a few cranks.
Today there appear news stories about growing hostility on campuses, that Jews are fleeing Paris because of increased or more
openly expressed dislike, or that the German Right, never fond of Jews, gains strength.
Since the dislike has existed for at least two thousand years, there must be some enduring reason or reasons. What?
One I think is the Space Alien Effect. It is human nature to dislike people different from oneself. This fact runs against today's
cult of diversity, which accounts for the disastrous reality of American life, but a glance around the world reveals that diversity
causes most of the planet's troubles: Sunni and Shia, Jew and Muslim, Tutsi and Hutu, black, white and brown in America, Tamil and
Sinhalese; Turks and Kurds; Turks and Armenians; Thais and Muslims, Germans and Jews. Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, on and
on for a very long list of religious, ethnic, and racial differences. Diversity is nobody's strength.
Diversity often disappears through assimilation. Today people named O'Toole and Libertini may be proud of their ancestry, but
they think of themselves as American, not as Irish and Italian. So do others. Thus hostility to them, once intense, has vanished.
Jews do not assimilate. Yes, they speak the same language, wear the same clothes, and peck at smartphones like everyone else.
Yet they think of themselves as Jews. So, therefore, does everyone else. While there is no legal or moral reason why they should
not so think of themselves, there are consequences: Human nature is what it is, regardless of whether we think it should be.
Specifically, Jews are always Them. We are Us. We are aware that Feinstein is Jewish as we are not aware that O'Malley is Irish
-- because he isn't. Difference alone doesn't cause antagonism. but makes it much more likely.
Worse -- and this has caused millions of deaths -- Jews are often successful. It doesn't matter whether the success arises
from superior intelligence, greater drive, collusion, or the will of Yahweh. It happens. Thus the pattern repeated over and over
and over down the ages. Jews prosper, become rich, gain power sometimes abused, and become arrogant. If Christians did this -- Bill
Gates, or the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age -- they would be resented as individuals perhaps, not as an ethnicity. But Jews are
Them. The surrounding population feels colonized -- by Them, by Space Aliens, by internal foreigners -- and deeply resents it.
As noted, the reaction may take the form of ostracism, enforced quotas, confinement to the Pale of Settlement, expulsion from the
country, ghastly pogroms, or Auschwitz.
Hitler's complaints against the Jews were along usual lines, that Jews controlled German culture, finance, academia, and the media.
These are also things said in America today today on the internet against Jews . Whether these criticisms are true, fair, justified,
or make sense does not matter. What matters is that people feel, or can easily be made to feel, controlled, by Them. Making a list
of powerful Jews is sufficient and, with the internet, easy.
The dislike is profoundly visceral, not rational, tapping into deep wells of instinct that make little sense -- which doesn't
matter. This can be seen in the wild disproportion between offense given and reaction. How do you get rationally in Germany from
growlings in beer halls, "There are too damn many Jews in everything," to "We should kill all the Jews"?
Them, not Us. It makes little obvious sense to say that Jews are not Americans. Bob Dylan isn't an American? Lauren Bacall? Yet
this is clearly how anti-Jewish commenters on the web see it. Them, not Us. It is a matter of limbic tribalism, which does not map
well onto legal principles.
The hostility is often to Jews more as a metaphysical category than as actual people. Many who loathe Jews have little contact
with them. Ask, "What have Jews actually done to you? Hacked your bank account? Gypped you out of your house? Shot your dog?" and
the answer will likely be, "Nothing." Rachel Cohen, the dentist next door in Peoria, is not easily envisioned as trying to destroy
America, impose communism, or wreck the currency. Thus, "some of my best friends but ." While the Jews one actually knows probably
are not bad people, or at most annoying, The Jews collectively are a sort of ominous barely visible miasma. (For the record, no American
Jew has ever harmed me, and many have helped me in what I humorously call "my career." Coupla girlfriends, too.)
Importantly, Jewish presence is seen as Jewish conspiracy. Four Jews on the Supreme Court? From two percent of the population?
My God, they must be up to something . A conspiracy, doubtless. But a conspiracy to do what? A candidate theory, correct as it happens,
is that Jews as a people do anything and everything they can to advance the fortunes of Israel. But on the Supreme Court how? Other
suggestions are a desire to destroy the white race (including themselves?), to bring America down (why?), to wreck the international
monetary system (why?), or to impose a Zionist world empire. Most of these make between little and no sense, which doesn't matter.
Jews don't actually have to sacrifice Christian children to die for it. They just have to be thought to do so.
It is interesting that these usually nonexistent Jewish conspiracies get enduring attention while other, demonstrably real, conspiracies
do not arouse similar ire. For example, the Koch brothers, who are not Jewish, have funded and led a massive and disguised campaign
to subvert American politics for the benefit of big business. The arms industry bribes, suborns, and finagles to get the government
to buy hugely expensive weapons. The FBI was recently caught trying to prevent the election of Donald Trump. The Clintons are crooked
as kite string in a ceiling fan. So why do Jewish conspiracies, sometimes real but, more usually, imagined, get attention on the
web?
The Space Alien Effect. Jews are Them. We are Us. Both know it.
The importance of this tribalism should not be underestimated. I once walked down Main Street in Farmville, Virginia, a small
town in the Southside, with a friend. He said -- I forget how the subject came up -- with some bitterness, "The Jews own everything
on Main Street. Just like they do everywhere." He pointed to Rose's, a perfectly ordinary department store. It did nothing wrong
or even interesting. But it was Jewish. That was enough.
Them, not Us. The Presbyterian owners of a store actually engaged in gouging would have been resented as individuals, not as a
tribe. The Jews.
Power and wealth are not necessary to engender slaughter. Mere difference, specifically not being Christian, has often been
enough. History is littered with examples, of which Jews are well aware. When the First Crusade took Jerusalem in 1099, the Christian
armies immediately burned the synagogue with the Jews inside. Why? The Jews had no part in the war, which was between Muslims and
Christians.
This explains why Jews do not like Christianity, though the antipathy typically is (wisely) disguised as a principled adherence
to the invented constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. Note that while Americans think of the Holocaust as something
the Germans did (I do) to Jews it can look like just another attack by a Christian country (Poland, Russia, England, the Baltics,
and so on.) A Jewish friend once expressed the attitude as sometimes being, "Look what they have done to us. We can do anything
we want to them."
Here we encounter the unfortunate human tendency to blame entire groups for what a few members did. For example, the Jews killed
Christ. "(Gosh, Rachel, you don't look old enough.") Or whites enslaved blacks. Actually, no one in the United States has been a
slave, or owned one, for a century and a half. Most of liberal politics would wither to nothing if we accepted that people cannot
be guilty of things they did not do.
It is not necessarily wise to be seen as trying to eliminate a majority religion.
Note that a people, though living always among others, can maintain characteristic over long periods. Recently I was reading Las
Novelas Ejemplares of Cervantes, specifically La Gitnailla , which means very approximately The Little Gypsy Girl. It begins,
"Parece que los gitanos y gitanas solamente nacieron en el mundo para ser ladrones: nacen de padres ladrones, críanse con ladrones,
estudian para ladrones y, finalmente, salen con ser ladrones corrientes."
"It appears that gypsies are born only to be thieves. They are born as thieves, raised among thieves, study to be thieves,
and finally end by being common thieves." Cervantes died in 1616, which makes the story over 400 years old. Yet this description
of gypsies is their reputation today, very much supported by police files.They haven't assimilated, and they haven't changed. Jews
of course have never been associated with burglary or picking pockets, but the passage makes clear that peoples can maintain characteristics
over centuries .
Jews with remarkable consistency have been described for centuries as smart, greedy, combative, clannish, "pushy," exploitative,
and arrogant. This is how I hear them described in Mexico, where I live. (I think of these as Middle Eastern traits, but never mind.)
Then there is chutzpah. which in practice seems to mean "brashly walking over other people." It can leave others feeling bulldozed,
defeated, used. This bruising of the ego, of self-respect, arouses a hostility all out of proportion to actual damage done. It is,
or so I think, a major cause of dislike for Jews. Such descriptions are dismissed today as stereotypes. A stereotype is just the
aggregate observation of many people over time.
Of course the evidence does not always support a particular explanation for avisible effect. A Jewish friend says, "We're no more
greedy than anyone else. We're just good businessmen so we make money." Those with money are usually described as greedy. I don't
think I have ever met a greedy Jew, though I have met many who were very careful with money. It doesn't matter whether you really
are greedy only that people think you are.
Chutzpah: When I was seven we lived in Arlington, Virginia, next to the Furmans, recently someone said, of Hell's Kitchen, which
I didn't know what was. The Furmans were by no means bad people. One day Mrs. Furman came over and gave my mother a hard time because
my little brother, five was playing with a kid across the street instead of little Andrew Furman. Mom had done nothing to influence
my brother's choice of friends. She, a quietly genteel woman from the Southside of Virginia, was horrified by the aggressiveness.
She told me of this decades later, so it clearly made a bad impression. Thereafter, Them were not our kind of people. Small things
can produce lifelong dislike.
In sum, Jews seem alien, smarter than others and far more aggressive than Christians, whom they seem to trample. Christians
feel that they cannot compete, that they are outsmarted at every turn, or at least pushed around, and made victims. This bruising
of the ego sets off irrational, serious hostility. It is the attitude of blacks toward whites, for the same reasons .
Finally there is Israel, the albatross around the Jewish neck, making it impossible for Jews quietly to be more or less normal
Americans. To Jews Israel is of immense and understandable importance, but this enthusiasm brings up charges of dual loyalty or,
often, loyalty exclusively to Israel. The truth of this doesn't matter. It looks true, which is enough. Does Rachel the Jewish dentist
in Peoria back Israel? To what extent? What does she think of Israeli behavior? We don't know. We know that Jewish lobbies like AIPAC
and the Neocons back Israel one hundred percent. And they control American Mid-Eastern policy. This is much noted on the Web.
Jewish backing for Israel requires emotional contortions since Israel is everything liberals, to include Jews, profess to hate,
being racist -- just now it is expelling blacks -- religiously exclusive, an apartheid state, militaristic, and brutal in its treatment
of Arabs. This I suspect bothers some Jews, but assuredly is a grave PR problem for the country. But then, as a small coastal enclave
in a part of the world intensely hostile to it, a sort of second Crusader Kingdom, it is hard to see what choices it has. If it becomes
democratic or allows extensive intermarriage, for example, it will quickly cease to be a Jewish state, and there is no way to rule
nicely over a sea of people who want to kill you.
Is there a possibility of active anti-semitism in America? Yes. Why is America immune to a dislike that has influenced all of
history?
Yet at the moment, no. No overt expression will soon occur, and perhaps never will. But the classic preliminary conditions exist
and grow. The appearance of Jewish power is strong. Four of nine justices of the Supreme Court, a majority of Ivy presidents, CEOs
of television networks. Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sergei Brin co-founder of Google. the New York Times , Time-Warner, Disney,
much of Hollywood, huge parts of retail, most of the big publishing houses in New York. Anyone who has worked in Washington knows
that Jewish control of Congress and the media is near absolute. The list could go on for pages. Things like this create a propagandist's
paradise.. If America's tight control over expression ever slipped, a would-be Adolf with Google searches could come up with a shocking
list.
A rational person might ask, "So what?" Do the Supreme Court's Jewish justices make Jewish decisions -- whatever that might mean?
Or do they vote like any four NPR listeners chosen at random? Did Mark Zuckerberg do anything underhanded? Or was he a very bright
Jewish kid who had an idea and the strength of character to push it into existence? Does Schultz of Starbucks do something evil,
or does he, like, you know, sell reasonably good coffee at a reasonable price?
It doesn't matter. They are there, so they must be conspiring. And their influence is becoming more obvious, as with Trump's subservience
(as seen by much of the world) to Israel in planning to move the embassy.
People who think they are defending Jews will point to Jewish contributions to nearly everything -- science, music, math, technology,
literature, charity, medicine, support for symphonies. These contributions are real and immense. With respect to anti-Jewish politics,
they are also irrelevant or worse. Since the hostility to Jews rests largely on their excessive presence (again, in the eyes of the
anti-Jewish) pointing to their intellectual contributions just increases the dislike. It emphasizes both the Jewish presence and
apparent superiority.
Happy, prosperous societies seldom form lynch mobs. When things break down, when hope wanes, expectations fall, and near-desperation
sets in, explosions come. Today the United States quite arguably heads into a Weimar-like future of chaos and social violence. This
may sound crazy but is it? Nobody thought such a highly civilized country as Germany capable of Treblinka.
America is not really stable. Political animosity runs high, racial hostility is great and growing, standards of living fall,
offshoring and automation leave the young with nowhere for their lives to go. Wealth goes rapidly from the many to the few and what
was the working class falls into drugs and anomie. The wars never end. Infrastructure ages and falls behind that of more advanced
nations. Anger grows. As the pie shrinks, someone will have to get less pie.
It is hard to see how this can continue forever. My guess is that the fighting -- "unrest" is the polite term -- will break out
first between white and black. Whites are quiescent now, but see their lives worsening and their world deteriorating. The kneelers
in the NFL, the rioters
Fred, you know we love most of your columns, but this one is deeply flawed:
Specifically, Jews are always Them. We are Us.
That's it, huh? Then why did you go on to write the following?
Anyone who has worked in Washington knows that Jewish control of Congress and the media is near absolute.
That doesn't sound like being hated for the offense of simply being different; that sounds like something that would piss people
off.
They said that Jews (actually Israelis in most cases I think, but the Nepalese do not seem to make the distinction) were
loud, demanding, and always trying to force down the guides' fees.
Implicit in this is that the Nepalese don't dislike most other foreign visitors as much as they do the Israelis. And what had
the Israelis done, other than just what the Nepalese guides said? Failed to assimilate into the culture of Nepal while on vacation
there? I think your're kind of undermining your central thesis with this one.
Animus goes much deeper than simple resentment at Jewish success.
It is because of the destruction of our once stable society and the implosion of Western European nations under cultural currents
unleased by the Jews that is the source of that animus.
Speak honestly Fred and stop the tangential and mealy mouthed explanations for the animus.
For someone who thinks antisemitism is irrational, Fred, you sure do seem to provide a lot of rational sounding reason for disliking
the Jews.
Note: I haven't encountered any Jews who were pushy or hostile with me. I've known Jews from work, school and the community,
and they don't seem any more likely to be aggressive, in the interpersonal sense, than anyone else. I think this tendency has
been exaggerated – a lot. When I was in my early twenties my blond shiksa cousin had a couple of Jewish friends she would take
with her when she visited. Trust me, the only aggressive and mean one in the bunch was my cousin. The two Jewish girls were good
company, and my friends and I were always happy to socialize with them. The one Jewish kid in my class would never have been described
as aggressive by anyone.
That was in 1099. I could give a F who did what to whom that long ago. But with Jews their motto is "never forgive, never forget".
Even when they've lived better in white Christian nations than in any other they still work to undermine the white Christians
they live among. That their historical grudges have an endless shelf life is reason to hate them and bar them from living in our
nations.
Importantly, Jewish presence is seen as Jewish conspiracy. Four Jews on the Supreme Court?
Right. When Jews are overrepresented in any field it's because they're so darn smart. It whites are overrepresented in their
own friggin countries then Jews lecture us about unearned white privilege. This is why I and a growing number of whites hate them.
And it just so happens that all four Jews represent the totalitarian left wing of the court who consistently vote against white
American interests. Another reason they're hated.
I won't waste too much time since Fred's writing philo-semitic propaganda and taking pot shots at anyone who doesn't think
they're as groovy as he does. This is just one of Freddy's partisan diatribes similar to how he lionizes and promotes Mexicans
and Mexico.
Anyone who examines the historical record and the history of the Jews in the diaspora with an open mind will become anti-semitic.
As Fred hinted, Jews prize their ethnic identity much more than most whites. For example, while Italian and Greek Americans may
pay homage to their respective identities, they don't wear them on their sleeves. They certainly wouldn't describe an Italian
marrying a Greek as "intermarriage," a few potential exceptions notwithstanding.
Of course, Jews bragging about their success doesn't help either. Chinese and other Asian Americans – while not wielding the
political and cultural clout of Jews – are also very economically successful; but they at least have the wisdom to keep quiet
about it, as evidenced by their strident rejection of the "model minority" stereotype. Successful minorities worldwide such as
Bohras in India also manage to quietly enjoy their success; and that's saying something, given that India is an openly – and often
violently – majoritarian country.
Ultimately, I think that Jews' chutzpah engenders a lot of ill will. Of all affluent and accomplished minorities, they're
certainly the most flamboyant and pushy.
When a state is composed of a homogeneous population, the natural inertia of such a population will hold the Stage together
and maintain its existence through astonishingly long periods of misgovernment and maladministration.
But the situation is utterly different in a country where the population is not homogeneous .Should the ruling hand show signs
of weakness in such a State the result will be to awaken the individualistic instincts which are slumbering in the ethnological
groups.
Fred the apologist clearly states the jooies exercise "near absolute control" of Wash DC i.e. the goy 98% of the
US population has essentially been disenfranchised. That's not a reason to hate on the vile conniving jooies?
March 5, 2018 at 3:27 am
GMT 100 Words Stereotypes come from somewhere.
I have a friend who is prejudiced against Chinese people, based on his dealings with Chinese in the computer industry. His
perception (right or wrong, but it is the perception which matters) is that they were "sneaky," "underhanded," they "stuck
together against the round eyes."
Yet, as a school teacher, this same fellow readily bragged up the achievements of his numerous Oriental students. Which tells
me that, on a personal level, prejudice can be overcome. As the saying went, back in the days of hippies vs. rednecks, "Bar
stool to bar stool, things can be pretty cozy."
My friend is a devout evangelical Christian. Whenever I see the "fish" symbol, I tend to run the other way. But, I make an
exception in his case, because I know him to be, and respect him as, a good man.
Hitler's complaints against the Jews were along usual lines, that Jews controlled German culture, finance, academia,
and the media.
Not exactly.
In his own words:
There were few Jews in Linz.
As I thought they were persecuted on account of their Faith my aversion to hearing remarks against them grew almost into
a feeling of abhorrence.
Then I came to Vienna.
In the Jew I still saw only a man who was of a different religion, and therefore, on grounds of human tolerance, I was against
the idea that he should be attacked because he had a different faith.
Once, when passing through the inner City [Vienna], I suddenly encountered a phenomenon in a long caftan and wearing black
side-locks. My first thought was: Is this a Jew? They certainly did not have this appearance in Linz.
Cleanliness, whether moral or of another kind, had its own peculiar meaning for these people.
What soon gave me cause for very serious consideration were the activities of the Jews in certain branches of life .Was
there any shady undertaking, any form of foulness, especially in cultural life, in which at least one Jew did not participate?
The fact that nine-tenths of all the smutty literature, artistic tripe and theatrical banalities, had to be charged to the
account of people who formed scarcely one percent of the nation – that fact could not be gainsaid.
In summary, Hitler states that his antipathy towards Jews, as a group, was based on his experiences in the "big city" (Vienna),
and his *perception* that the Jews he encountered there were mostly immoral and corrupt, unlike those he had known in his (smaller)
home town.
"David Goldman–Sadly, American Jews stand out as a horrible example of demographic failure. In the United States, secular
and loosely affiliated American Jews, that is, the vast majority, have the lowest fertility rate of any identifiable segment
of the American population. As I wrote in my book How Civilizations Die (and Why Islam is Dying, Too):
Nowhere is the fertility gap between religious and non-religious more extreme than among American Jews. As a group, American
Jews show the lowest fertility of any ethnic group in the country. That is a matter of great anguish for Jewish community leaders.
According to sociologist Steven Cohen, "We are now in the midst of a non-Orthodox Jewish population meltdown. Among Jews in
their 50s, for every 100 Orthodox adults, we have 192 Orthodox children. And for the non-Orthodox, for every 100 adults, we
have merely 55 such children."
Half of the non-Orthodox children, moreover, marry non-Jews, and very few children of mixed marriages will remain Jewish.
As Reform Rabbi Lance J Sussman wrote in 2010, "With the exception of a number of Orthodox communities and a few other bright
spots in or just off the mainstream of Jewish religious life, American Judaism is in precipitous decline the Reform movement
has probably contracted by a full third in the last ten years!"
which in turn was inspired, if that is the word, by the trial of Captain Alfred Dreyfus of the French Army, in which Capt
Dreyfus was unjustly convicted of espionage.
From the preface:
In 1902, he [Herzl] published a utopian novel about the Jewish state, Altneuad (oldnew
land) a vision complete with monorails and modern industry. , Altneuad
envisioned a multipluralistic Democracy in which Arabs and Jews had equal
rights.
Doesn't seem to have worked out that way.
The central premise of Zionism seems to be that Jews cannot expect equable treatment in a majority Gentile society. Ironically,
the infamous case which inspired it also disproves this hypothesis.
To wit:
In the long run, justice was done in the case of Capt. Dreyfus.
He was very publicly restored to rank, with a promotion, in the French Army, and served honorably in what was then known as
the Great War, which was all he ever wanted to do in the first place.
On 12 July 1906, Dreyfus was officially exonerated by a military commission. The day after his exoneration, he was readmitted
into the army with a promotion to the rank of major (Chef d'Escadron). A week later, he was made Knight of the Legion of
Honour,[6] and subsequently assigned to command an artillery unit at Vincennes.
Of course, there are (particularly) Jews who will say, "But he had years of his life stolen from him." This is, of course,
true, but in the long run it is nothing more, nor less, than another miscarriage of justice, which in the case was, fortunately
for its victim, eventually corrected. It is, in that sense, not unique. It did result in an an outcome more favorable than
some both before and since.
It isn't just cultural currents unleashed; it's deliberate destruction planned by institutional Jewry. Barbara Specter's
married to the chief rabbi of Sweden and says Europe's "too monolithic," meaning "too white." She says Jews will be resented
for their leading role in making Europe multicultural, i.e., non-white majority. Right you are, Barbara.
1,200+ rabbis in the U.S. came out for unchecked immigration of "refugees" and Adelson, Saban, Gelbaum, the ADL, the AJC,
the HIAS, and BB are all for open borders. And the utter destruction of white America.
Jews played a huge role in Bolshevism, in putsches in Hungary, Austria, and Germany, and in Holodomor. "Jew" and "communist"
were practically synonymous in 1930s America and Israel ran Pollard, one of the most destructive spies ever known in America.
Jews have also done their utmost to push the most destructive aspects of the civil rights disaster.
Israel went to war against the U.S. with its deliberate attack on the USS Liberty with machine gunning of our sailors trying
to make it into the lifeboats. It's protestations of "mistake" were transparent lies.
AIPAC ensures that billions from the treasury are squandered every year on an enemy nation that tries to involve us in fighting
their wars for local hegemony. Is greater Israel also one of our projects?
Finally, institutional Jewry does everything in its power to distort National Socialism as "right-wing" to deflect attention
from the leftist essence of totalitarian destruction, torture, theft, and murder and the disproportionate Jewish role in extreme
leftist movements. The Jewish obsession with "The" Holocaust is the ultimate "holocaust denial." And woe betide he who cares
to point that out. "The" Holocaust pales in comparison to the communist ones? Hater!!
What is not to loathe in organized Jewry?
I know of decent, patriotic Jews but I know of few Jews who dare to speak out against what I have mentioned. I would be
attacked for "anti-Semitism" long before such voices are heard.
Fred us always a great read and a personal hero of mine. However, he missed the target here with his discussion of a bland
"otherness." Reading excerpts from the Talmud and quotes from the great Rabbi Schneerson reveals that there is indeed some
virulent Jewish hatred of the goyim out there. Bland otherness is not what I'm picking up.
Hitler's complaints against the Jews were along usual lines
You disingenuously fail to note that it is the consistency of these particular accusations throughout history that makes
them 'usual'. Jews are always persecuted for the same list of crimes . because they're always up to the same list of crimes.
How many times have they been expelled from the gentile nations that were effectively isolated in time and by geography. Are
you saying that gentile civilization has quietly conspired to sew a false narrative of Jews, across national borders, and throughout
it's entire, and diversely recorded history? Because that's the official Jewish narrative, as wild and absurd as it is. Of
course, you'll have to fight tooth and nail just to get one of them to be honest enough to admit that they've been routinely
expelled from a great many nations that had formerly welcomed them. And even then, you'll almost never get one honest enough
to admit any wrongdoing on the part of the Jews in any such instances of expulsion. Jews can only be victims or heroes, after
all. Never villains. Just ask the Democrats, or the Republicans. Or the Media. Or the ADL, or the SPLC, or your college professor
etc etc etc.
Them, not Us. It makes little obvious sense to say that Jews are not Americans.
Tell that to the Jews. They're the one's who don't practice what they preach. More than anything, it's that double standard,
along with the mass censorship of all criticism and dissent via a deafening chorus of cries of 'antisemitism' that foster the
most hostility towards Jews as a collective. Even your dentist Isn't likely to reproach Jews for their wrongdoings, or call
for the Orwellian 'strength' of diversity to flood Israel, the way they would in America. You make no mention of the widespread
'ethno-nationalism for me, but not for thee' views held by Jews with regards to Israel and the West.
Four Jews on the Supreme Court? From two percent of the population? My God, they must be up to something. A conspiracy,
doubtless.
Don't stop there. Not unless you're TRYING to be dishonest. You've pointed out a single piece in a very long pattern of
such events and then attempted to misrepresent the rest of the argument by omitting all the other pieces of evidence that come
together to show a cohesive Jewish conspiracy that is rooted in verifiable facts. Tell everyone how much of our government,
media, academia, finance etc is overwhelmingly dominated by this 2%.
Then compare the results of such an analysis with Hitler's complaints against the Jews. And then look at the collective
leftward political lean of all these Jewish dominated positions of power and influence in America/The West. The Marxists in
our colleges, the academics dictating our historical narrative and how we record it in history books, the bankers, the globalist
billionaires and media moguls and Hollywood big wigs etc etc etc.
What they all lobby for, advocate for and push, is all the same things they won't tolerate at all in Israel. And for exactly
all the same reasons that they decry whites as racists and bigots for bringing up.
Jews with remarkable consistency have been described for centuries as smart, greedy, combative, clannish, "pushy," exploitative,
and arrogant. This is how I hear them described in Mexico, where I live.
At some point, Fred, hopefully you figure out how to tell the difference between a coincidence and pattern of events. I'm
not holding my breath though.
I was astonished to find that my Nepalese trekking guides were intensely hostile to Jews. They said that Jews (actually
Israelis in most cases I think, but the Nepalese do not seem to make the distinction) were loud, demanding, and always trying
to force down the guides' fees. Historically the hostility has often been powerful and, not infrequently, murderous. Jews
have been expelled from country after country, excluded from polite society, subjected to quotas,and required to live in
certain regions. Why?
LOL.
No, see, this is just brainwashing by the Great Global Antisemitic Conspiracy. They read some virulent antisemitism online
first. Then, primed for antisemitism, they saw bad behavior from Jews where it didn't exist.
How much anti-Jewish hostility is there today in America? A lot? A little? Is it negligible? Potentially explosive? It
is hard to tell because disliking Jews is often a firing offense, and a controlled press makes discussion impossible.
Yeah, no recipe for animus there.
Countersemitism is probably less common than the countersemites think, and more common than the philosemites think.
Jewish success isn't the problem. Jews are very fond of this answer, because it strokes their ethnic egos, and feeds their
dindu nuffin culture (nobody, I mean NOBODY, does dindu culture like the Jews), but it's silly. Whites are rich tourists; did
your Nepalese friends say they didn't like whites? Or do you suppose they bitch to their Jewish clients about whites? I suppose
it's possible.
Countersemitism thrives despite an extremely hostile environment (it's firing, ruination, and unpersoning stateside; prison
time in Europe) because there are much better reasons for it than envy. No serious person takes up countersemitism trivially;
the cost is too high. There are far easier ways to work out one's psychological needs, if that's the only motive. No, countersemitism
is driven by altruism.
Finally there is Israel, the albatross around the Jewish neck, making it impossible for Jews quietly to be more or less
normal Americans.
Jews make it impossible. All they have to do is what whites would do; turn on Israel the way whites turned on South Africa.
All they have to do is be consistent in their leftism, and subject themselves to the same rules that they enforce on others.
You just glide past this and start yakking about Israel; what they do is their business, what the Jewish diaspora does
is our business.
Whites and Jews really are different.
Jewish behavioral profile: "we should be the last people to have to live by the rules we push on everyone else."
White behavioral profile: "we can't push rules on everyone else that we aren't already living by ourselves."
A rational person might ask, "So what?" Do the Supreme Court's Jewish justices make Jewish decisions–whatever that might
mean? Or do they vote like any four NPR listeners chosen at random? Did Mark Zuckerberg do anything underhanded? Or was
he a very bright Jewish kid who had an idea and the strength of character to push it into existence? Does Schultz of Starbucks
do something evil, or does he, like, you know, sell reasonably good coffee at a reasonable price?
It doesn't matter. They are there, so they must be conspiring. And their influence is becoming more obvious, as with
Trump's subservience (as seen by much of the world) to Israel in planning to move the embassy.
A rational person might point to the Jews and their leftism, support for "diversity" and such. Jews say "we need black faces
here, brown faces," etc., but then we're not supposed to turn around and say, "fine, we need white gentile faces in here"?
Sauce, gander. Jews see removal of Jews as antisemitism, so we should see removal of white gentile faces as anti-white racism.
Let Jews and all the rest advocate for their own representation, and we whites will advocate for ours.
That's the rational response.
People who think they are defending Jews will point to Jewish contributions to nearly everything–science, music, math,
technology, literature, charity, medicine, support for symphonies. These contributions are real and immense. With respect
to anti-Jewish politics, they are also irrelevant or worse. Since the hostility to Jews rests largely on their excessive
presence (again, in the eyes of the anti-Jewish) pointing to their intellectual contributions just increases the dislike.
It emphasizes both the Jewish presence and apparent superiority.
Nah. Jews follow whites around, the same way blacks do. Jews need whites, to live in white countries, the same way
blacks do. Jews chimp out at the thought of being excluded from white communities or countries, the same way blacks
do. That burning need is not the hallmark of superiority. Whites, on the other hand, don't need either group. They certainly
don't need to follow either around, or go ape at the idea of being excluded from their communities or countries.
This explains a lot of the chip on the Jewish shoulder. Jews have a love-hate, superiority-inferiority complex going with
whites, big time.
America is not really stable.
Owed mostly to diversity, which in turn is owed largely to the Jews, and their tireless efforts from 1924 to 1965 to pry
open our borders.
Your idealism and altruism are wasted on Fred Reed.
He isn't arguing in good faith.
He is just writing lies, which he knows full well to be lies, to provoke the anger of his audience, for his own amusement.
I believe they call it "trolling".
The only way antisemitism will ever go away is if more members of the Jewish elite follow the lead of Ron Unz and Stephen
Miller and make a good faith effort to use their influence for the benefit of the host community. (If you made a list of the
100,000 most influential Jews in America, would there be anyone on that list other than Unz and Miller who is favorably disposed
towards old-stock Americans?)
Trolls like Fred Reed, on the other hand, will reliably increase antisemitism every time they get access to a keyboard.
They will be perceived as toadies of the hostile Jewish elite, and unfortunately all Jews will receive a share of the animus
stirred up by the all too numerous likes of Fred Reed.
"... Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all about. ..."
"... In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history and culture, is already ascendant. ..."
"... Globalists may see the U.N., EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a "universal nation" of all races, tribes, cultures and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and grand-parents had, a nation-state that is all their own. ..."
"... Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free trade and global custody of mankind's destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution. Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future? ..."
"... Indeed, now that George W. Bush's crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit's Children's Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our people? ..."
"... The US has always been ruled or parasitized by corrupt, murderous psychopaths with the results we have to live with today. All corny rhetoric aside, it has never been a force for peace, justice, or freedom. Why would anyone desire it to remain what she has been? ..."
"... There is a rebellious coolness in tearing down the PC edifice similar to the fun that could be had attacking Christianity and its holy cows back in the 20th century. The age of Blair, Merkel, Obama and Juncker is drawing to a close. ..."
"... Nationalists supporting such people – any supposedly nationalist movement rooted on the political left – will simply be betrayed, as were the Greeks who voted for SYRIZA, the leftist supposedly "anti-establishment" party that carried its leaders into office and power and then transformed itself into a "respectable" party of the "centre left", and ensured that the boat was not rocked in any ways that might really upset the EU/globalist elites. ..."
"... The war is between globalism and nationalism, the stakes are whether we continue on the path to one world corporatist government and culture – a place where there are no borders, there is no "outside", and no escape from the crushing dogmas of political correctness, or step off before it's too late. And the only true nationalism is the nationalism of the right. That will be true until parties of the old left – devoted to supporting indigenous workers and not to pushing social radicalism – reappear, if they ever do. ..."
In a surprise overtime victory in the finals of the Olympic men's hockey tournament, the
Russians defeated Germany, 4-3. But the Russians were not permitted to have their national anthem played or flag raised, due
to a past doping scandal. So, the team ignored the prohibition and sang out the Russian
national anthem over the sounds of the Olympic anthem. One recalls the scene in "Casablanca," where French patrons of Rick's saloon stood and
loudly sang the "La Marseillaise" to drown out the "Die Wacht am Rhein" being sung by a table
of German officers.
When the combined North-South Korean Olympic team entered the stadium, Vice President Mike
Pence remained seated and silent. But tens of thousands of Koreans stood and cheered the
unified team. America may provide a defensive shield for the South, but Koreans on both sides of the DMZ
see themselves as one people. And, no fool, Kim Jong Un is exploiting the deep tribal ties he
knows are there.
Watching the Russians defiantly belt out their anthem, one recalls also the 1968 summer
Olympics in Mexico City where sprinters Tommie Smith and John Carlos stood on the podium, black
gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate racial
identity
Western elites may deplore the return of nationalism. But they had best not dismiss it, for
assertions of national and tribal identity appear to be what the future is going to be all
about.
Some attendees at the CPAC conclave this past week were appalled that Britain's Nigel Farage
and France's Marion Le Pen were present.
But Farage was the man most responsible for Brexit, the historic British decision to leave
the EU. Le Pen is perhaps the most popular figure in a National Front party that won 35 percent
of the vote in the runoff election won by President Emmanuel Macron.
And the most unifying stand of the NF appears to be "Let France be France!" The French
people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants from Africa and
the Islamic world. They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong? Is preservation of a country, the national family one grew up in, not conservative?
In Hungary and Poland, ethnonationalism, the belief that nation-states are created and best
suited to protect and defend a separate and unique people, with its separate and unique history
and culture, is already ascendant.
Globalists may see the U.N., EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a "universal nation" of
all races, tribes, cultures and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every
continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and
grand-parents had, a nation-state that is all their own.
Nationalists like Farage, who seek to pull their countries out of socialist superstates like
the EU, and peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica
and Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American
patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.
Why are European peoples who wish to halt mass migration from across the Med, to preserve
who and what they are, decried as racists? Did not the peoples of African and Middle Eastern countries, half a century ago, expel the
European settlers who helped to build those countries? The Rhodesia of Spitfire pilot Ian Smith was a jewel of a nation of 250,000 whites and
several million blacks that produced trade surpluses even when boycotted and sanctioned by a
hating world. When Smith was forced to yield power, "Comrade Bob" Mugabe took over and began the looting
of white Rhodesians, and led his Shona tribesmen in a slaughter of the Matabele of rival Joshua
Nkomo.
Eighty-five percent of the white folks who lived in Rhodesia, prior to "majority rule," are
gone from Zimbabwe. More than half of the white folks who made South Africa the most advanced
and prosperous country on the continent are gone.
Are these countries better places than they were? For whom?
Looking back over this 21st century, the transnational elite that envisions the endless
erosion of national sovereignty, and the coming of a new world order of open borders, free
trade and global custody of mankind's destiny, has triggered a counter-revolution. Does anyone think Angela Merkel looks like the future?
Consider the largest countries on earth. In China, ethnonationalism, not the ruling
Communist Party, unites and inspires 1.4 billion people to displace the Americans as the first
power on earth. Nationalism sustains Vladimir Putin. Nationalism and its unique identity as a Hindu nation
unites and powers India. Here, today, it is "America First" nationalism.
Indeed, now that George W. Bush's crusade for democracy has ended up like Peter the Hermit's
Children's Crusade, what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire
and enlist our people?
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
It's far more complicated. Scotland and Catalonia wanted to secede because they found their
nations TOO CONSERVATIVE. Catalonia wanted to be independent to take in MORE immigrants.
Scotland wanted independence to take in MORE immigrants and push diversity and leftism even
more.
At this point, I think France is too far gone. By some estimates, 70% of all births in
Paris are to Africans and Muslims. And French women got serious junglois fever, and many new
black babies are popping out of white wombs.
Also, Korean nationalism is myth. Koreans are toadies of any great power. 80% of Koreans
want to move to US or Canada and forever abandon their identity. Even though the current
'leftist' regime in SK is for better relations with NK, it is also for massive immigration
and replacement of Koreans with foreigners. And 80% of Korean youth support Diversity since
their US-trained teachers taught them so.
I'm not sure what Buchanan means by including Rhodesia. Is he saying nationalism was
justified in expelling whites? Or is he saying imperialism is better because whites ran a
better nation?
what is the vision, what is the historic goal our elites offer to inspire and enlist our
people?
The globalists envision the earth as a plantation with oligarchs (stateless corporate
monopolists) as planters, former national governments as overseers and the people of earth as
niggers.
They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?
Insofar as France has been a colonial power, the answer is, "yes." Insofar as France has
been a puppet of Israel, the answer is also, "yes."It's really sad when an historian of PB's
caliber seems to be either clueless or worse about what France has been. As far as the US being what she has been, the answer is also, "yes." Why would anyone want the US to support an entity like the bloody USSR as it has done in
the past? Why would anyone want to US to be a morally and fiscally bankrupt nation ruled by
monsters and controlled by Zio-gangsters, as she has been, and is?
The US has always been ruled or parasitized by corrupt, murderous psychopaths with
the results we have to live with today. All corny rhetoric aside, it has never been a force
for peace, justice, or freedom. Why would anyone desire it to remain what she has been?
Pretty much this, Pat. The future of white people rebounds inexorably towards
ethnonationalism. Yes, there will be a boiling off into so much mystery meat of immigrants
and whites who are attracted to that or end up with it, but a lot of those areas are
Balkanized. Every white child that is born will have more genetic and/or cultural attraction
to their own by default.
The baby boomers who have ascended the heights of the institutions can't take it with
them. Their time is over. The time for those adults who have been able to make a realistic
assessment of the world, now it's not a whitopia any more, has come. They are emboldened by
the s *** posting of the internet, the audacity of Trump. There is a rebellious coolness in
tearing down the PC edifice similar to the fun that could be had attacking Christianity and
its holy cows back in the 20th century. The age of Blair, Merkel, Obama and Juncker is
drawing to a close. The era of Xi and Putin has already been here a while, and now we have
Trump and will have a cascade of similar leaders in the West in due course I believe.
peoples seeking to secede and set up new nations like Scotland, Catalonia, Corsica and
Veneto today, and Quebec yesterday, are no more anti-conservative than the American
patriots of Lexington and Concord who also wanted a country of their own.
Well, yes and no. On the one hand, these people are in fact inherently anti-conservative
in the most fundamental sense – they are radicals, seeking to overturn the existing
order. On the other hand, where they are merely local elites seeking to formalise their own
power and shrug off remote overseers, and don't seek radical social change otherwise, then
they are also conservative. That's why the American Secession was not a revolution, merely a
transfer of power from remote to local elites.
Things are complicated further by supposed "nationalist" movements that are run by
leftists – as in the case of Scotland or Catalonia. These are people who merely want to
transfer control from the established state to a more distant superstate, the EU, and who are
firmly committed to all the dogmas of leftism – internationalism, antiracism, open
borders, social radicalism, and who are just as much dupes for globalist corporatism as any
establishment pseudo-conservative.
Nationalists supporting such people – any supposedly nationalist movement rooted on
the political left – will simply be betrayed, as were the Greeks who voted for SYRIZA,
the leftist supposedly "anti-establishment" party that carried its leaders into office and
power and then transformed itself into a "respectable" party of the "centre left", and
ensured that the boat was not rocked in any ways that might really upset the EU/globalist
elites.
The war is between globalism and nationalism, the stakes are whether we continue on the
path to one world corporatist government and culture – a place where there are no
borders, there is no "outside", and no escape from the crushing dogmas of political
correctness, or step off before it's too late. And the only true nationalism is the
nationalism of the right. That will be true until parties of the old left – devoted to
supporting indigenous workers and not to pushing social radicalism – reappear, if they
ever do.
It's far more complicated. Scotland and Catalonia wanted to secede because they found
their nations TOO CONSERVATIVE. Catalonia wanted to be independent to take in MORE
immigrants. Scotland wanted independence to take in MORE immigrants and push diversity and
leftism even more.
And they did not want independence, they wanted to transfer their subordination to a
slightly more remote, more globalist supranational organisation, namely the developing
superstate that is the EU.
And 80% of Korean youth support Diversity since their US-trained teachers taught them
so.
Considering growing numbers of S. Koreans want U.S. forces out of their nation and their
highly restrictive immigration policy where's the evidence that they're becoming diversity
loving social justice warriors?
Globalists may see the U.N., EU, NAFTA, TPP as stepping stones to a "universal nation"
of all races, tribes, cultures and creeds. But growing numbers in every country, on every
continent, reject this vision. And they are seeking to restore what their parents and
grand-parents had, a nation-state that is all their own.'
Right on Pat! So why your hypocritical stance towards Ukraine and its quest to separate
itself from Russian imperial interests? Your inconsistencies are appalling!
No, it's the eternal lure of family. As Sailer has noted, races/ethnicities are just
extended families. Only sociopaths don't care more for their family than strangers. Even with
the most overarching propaganda – schools, media, government, etc. – in history
pushing whites to forget this, we are slowly coming out of our slumber. Will we ever fully
wake up and, if so, in time? Who knows.
But I do know that our current society won't last. Much like what's going on in Africa,
this system – based on the falsehood of racial equality – will slowly (then
quickly) fall apart. Of course, the timeframe that I use is historic, not the timeframe that
we use in our own lives. A hundred years is a nothing if you look over the past 5,000 years
when human civilization began.
Does anyone really believe that the current Cult of Equality system in W. Europe and the
U.S. will still be around in 100 years, much less 200 years? No chance. Could it still be
hanging on by a thread in 50 or 60 years – long after I'm dead? Quite possibly.
However, we're already seeing some cracks in the system after 50 years and things seem to
be accelerating. What happens when Muslims start demanding Sharia law in parts of Paris or
London? What happens when whites are no longer welcome in the Dem Party as we're beginning to
see at the top level? What happens when government debt reaches a level where the gov can't
borrow as much and must start cutting welfare spending? What happens when an increasingly
black and brown Congress (and state houses) starts to demand much higher taxes on whites (and
Asians) to support blacks and browns?
Wanting to be ruled by your own people is natural – and good. Whites have been on
top for 500 years and have forgotten what it's like to have to fight for our place in the
sun. As we start to get ruled by others year after year, that tribal instinct will grow. Will
it grow fast enough that we survive? Again, who knows. I hope so.
If not, well, natural selection is a bitch, isn't it.
Should we give up these evil nation states for an evil global feudalism?
I can understand a desire for more options. The anarchists have the best of it in my
opinion when it comes to political ideology. But there is the real problem of security and
survival for anarchists in a non anarchist world.
From the point of view of globalists, nationalism is already a de-centralization of
political power. I favor decentralization even if it will not take me all the way to a
Jeffersonian agrarian utopia.
Who said "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good"?
French people do not want their country invaded by unassimilable millions of migrants
from Africa and the Islamic world.
They want France to remain what she has been. Is this wrong?
I guess six million wasn't enough for Pat Buchanan
anyone with a kippah's worth of brains know that if France is allowed to remain French,
then the gas chambers and soap factories are only a matter of time.
let's let ((Nicolas Sarkozy)) explain it to you all
Nazis:
must be forced to mix, if they don't do so willingly, because if not, then you can
just sit back and count the days until geysers of blood start shooting out of the ground
again.
we've all seen this kind of 'will to power' before, when people like the French (and Poles
and Hungarians) think they can threaten others with their anti-Semitism by refusing to mix
and blend their vile and evil white Nazi features and culture away.
Totally agree. If gentile whites aren't breed out of existence, it's just a matter of time
before we see gas chambers in Ohio or Lincolnshire.
Throughout Jewish history, non-Jewish whites inexplicably have shown an insanely
irrational dislike of Jews. Since it emerges over and over, across time and regions, it must
be some form of mental sickness inherent in gentile whites. There's no other explanation. The
only commonalty is gentile whites.
No matter where Jews go, within a century or two, the local goys start to hate them to the
point that Jews are often ejected from the area, sometimes attacked. Everywhere, every time.
Jews, who just want to fit in and become a part of the community – no, to improve the
community – are singled out for no reason again and again.
Well, this must end. Even with their own homeland surrounded by a fence and protected by
nuclear weapons, Jews will never be safe until gentile whites are no longer a race. What is
the loss of the European peoples and their culture compared to the need to protect the Jewish
people from the inevitable Holocaust II: Revenge of the Goys.
Thankfully, the new breed – a mix of African, European, Mesitzo and whatever else
– will be more enlightened.
Here's an interesting example of modern nations trying to deal with the consequences of
globalism in the context of the ruling political correctness dogmas:
Imagine trying that in the US! How's that for some disparate impact, eh Obama?
He denied that harsher penalties in one area could simply drive criminals into other
areas.
This seems a bit of a stretch really. I mean, it's still got to be a good thing to harass
ghetto thugs and petty criminal oafs on the turf they think is theirs, but there needs to be
preparation for the inevitable spillover into more respectable areas. Unless you take the
view that ghetto dweller crime spilling over more is a price worth paying because it will
help to "wake up" the wealthy leftist classes who vote for more immigration and evade the
costs.
it's just a matter of time before we see gas chambers in Ohio or Lincolnshire.
we already saw it in Charlottesville!
the SS was goose stepping towards Sobibór redux, chanting Nazi propaganda about how
'Jews will not replace us"
have you ever heard anything so vile?!
Of course Jews will replace you! because white people are congenitally EVIL!
They don't know their place, because jehovah put them here to SERVE the Jews!!! Yet
they stubbornly refuse!
and appoint a Nazi goyim to the Supreme Court!!!
and a CIS at that!
I'm sure glad you too can see what we're up against as these neo-Nazis in France try to
assert their inner Himmler, and avoid the Great Kosher Blending.
Thankfully, the new breed – a mix of African, European, Mesitzo and whatever else
– will be more enlightened.
not unattractive, but more to the point, unconnected to any ethnic or cultural
heritage.
the perfect obedient slave race
a doubleplus good improvement over the Nazis (all white people/anti-Semites)
Scotland wanted independence to take in MORE immigrants and push diversity and leftism
even more.
Scottish elites – in the form of the Scottish National Party – wanted that.
But did Scottish voters? Or were they just voting for Scottish independence rather than for
the policies of the SNP? Hard to tell.
I'm not sure what Buchanan means by including Rhodesia. Is he saying nationalism was
justified in expelling whites? Or is he saying imperialism is better because whites ran a
better nation?
I think he's saying that white Rhodesians were the nation, and that they would have
been justified in expelling the blacks if the blacks weren't happy with their lot –
rather than allowing the blacks to destroy 'their' country. This is a very old school WN
viewpoint that, even among WNs, you don't hear much of anymore, but Buchanan likes to make
ambiguous and plausibly deniable statements like this. I mean, it's very easy for him to
backtrack and claim that he simply meant one of the options you outlined, but probably what
he really believes is the version I put forward.
Rhodesia's a bit much, imo; there were just too few whites. You need to have
Israeli-settler-like fanaticism to support whites' keeping control of all that territory. I
could have supported the South Africans sending the blacks to their own 'homelands' and then
cutting off contact with them. That would have been a better long term solution than the
segregation they tried to implement. You need a much larger majority – like the South
has/had – to pull segregation off. Although, even then, apartheid could have last much
longer than it did, if it wasn't for pressure from other white countries.
It's not just nationalism that's rising but racial nationalism or what some like to refer to
as ethno-nationalism. No doubt those Russian hockey players were all ethnically Russian and
their celebration was as much one of blood as of nation which in saner times are indivisible.
black gloved fists thrust skyward in a Black Power salute, asserting their separate
racial identity
And it's long past due that whites in America and throughout the Western world start to
assert their separate racial identity and act accordingly. We are the only race of people
that doesn't act in its own racial interests and if that doesn't change we won't last this
century.
Raceless civil nationalism is a dead end for white people and it doesn't resonate with
anyone but brainless and brainwashed whites. Religion will always play second fiddle to race
and ethnicity and it always will.
Militant multiculturalism, the de facto secular religion of the West, must be overthrown
by any means necessary along with its many mullahs in government, universities and the
media.
"No, it's the eternal lure of family. As Sailer has noted, races/ethnicities are just
extended families."
No, races and ethnicities do NOT fit that description. It's an appeal to authority.
"But I do know that our current society won't last."
No, you are only speculating here. No one knows for certain.
"What happens when Muslims start demanding Sharia law in parts of Paris or London? What
happens when whites are no longer welcome in the Dem Party as we're beginning to see at the
top level? What happens when government debt reaches a level where the gov can't borrow as
much and must start cutting welfare spending? What happens when an increasingly black and
brown Congress (and state houses) starts to demand much higher taxes on whites (and Asians)
to support blacks and browns?"
Chicken Little.
"Wanting to be ruled by your own people is natural – and good."
Our people are Americans.
"Whites have been on top for 500 years and have forgotten what it's like to have to fight
for our place
in the sun."
The human race is more important than whites or blacks or Asians.
And French women got serious junglois fever, and many new black babies are popping out
of white wombs.
Is this right? Anyone have stats? Is anyone keeping count?
Even though Black African nationalism did expel European powers, can nationalism survive
in black Africa without whites?
Good point – no doubt the current borders have a lot to do with how lines were drawn
by the retreating European powers.
Without whites and their organization skills, black African tends to fracture into
tribes, and warring tribes do no make a nation
Possibly, but they did have the capability to organize into fairly large empires
(depending on which part of Africa you are talking about. The capability to form an empire
over a vast multi-ethnic, multi-religious landscape is certainly a stepping stone for the
ability to form a modern nation-state (not that that is the goal).
If things do fracture down and tribal alliances become preeminent, then expect the very
large ethno-linguistic groups (like the Fulani and Hausa that number in the tens of millions)
to form something that lies across many of the current borders.
Religion will always play second fiddle to race and ethnicity and it always will.
That seems to be ahistorical when put in those absolute terms. Consider that Catholics and
Protestants joined others apart from their own ethno-linguistic background to slaughter (what
they considered) heretics of their own ethnicity. The current mess in the Middle East is also
quite a bit related to religious fault-lines. Sunni and Shiah of various backgrounds are
ganging up on each other.
To take another example of a recent breakdown of civil law and slaughter (the Rwandan
genocide). It was split; being Christian didn't seem to matter to transcend ethnic fault
lines, but being Muslim did:
"Roman Catholicism has been the dominant faith in Rwanda for more than a century. But many
people, disgusted by the role that some priests and nuns played in the killing frenzy, have
shunned organized religion altogether, and many more have turned to Islam.
'People died in my old church, and the pastor helped the killers," said Yakobo Djuma
Nzeyimana, 21, who became a Muslim in 1996. 'I couldn't go back and pray there. I had to find
something else.'"
As an imam from Rwanda explains, the Muslim Hutus and Tutsis have made their ethnic
identity a lesser priority:
"First, you have to remember that Muslims represent one of the only -- perhaps the only --
truly integrated community in Rwanda. What do I mean by this? I mean that most mothers of
Muslims are Tutsis, and most fathers of Muslims are Hutus -- let's say something like 80
percent on each side. And while many Muslims share the appearance of Tutsis, we are really a
mixed community. We are a community built by intermarriage."
So I understand this attitude in places like Europe, but that's because they don't really
take religion as seriously as they used to, which means that other priorities bubble up. If
you observe other places in the world, ethnicity plays second fiddle.
Peace.
Note: By the way, sometimes people being scared of you can be quite helpful (from the
above article):
"You see, for many years Hutus had been taught to fear Muslims. They were scared of our
mosques, so we could hide Tutsis there without fear of Hutus entering. Hutus had been taught
that our mosques were houses of the devil. They were taught that the devil lived in Muslim
homes, too. It went even further. It was also believed by many Hutus that if you shook the
hand of a Muslim something bad would happen to you, maybe get sick, because Muslims were
dirty people. So for all these reasons, Hutu militias were afraid of Muslims and left us
alone for the most part. "
Please provide an example of Catholics and Protestants joining ethnic others to slaughter
heretics of their own race/etnicity so I can better respond.
The current mess in the Middle East is also quite a bit related to religious
fault-lines. Sunni and Shiah of various backgrounds are ganging up on each other.
Without a doubt but what Muslims won't admit is that there are also ethnic fault lines
between Kurd, Arab, Turk and Persian. Turks, Kurds and Arabs are mostly Sunni yet Sunni Islam
has not united them or fostered goodwill and they are savagely fighting each other. The
enmity between Arab Muslim and Turkish Muslim goes back almost 1000 years.
To take another example of a recent breakdown of civil law and slaughter (the Rwandan
genocide). It was split; being Christian didn't seem to matter to transcend ethnic fault
lines, but being Muslim did:
Partly proves my point that the Catholic faith of Hutu and Tutsi didn't avert the
inter-ethnic bloodshed nor was Catholic dogma sufficient to prevent the bloodletting. I don't
think I was aware that some turned to Islam which is arguably a much more militant,
uncompromising and violent faith than Christianity or Catholicism. So any future conflicts
involving that particular group are likely to be religious in nature.
So I understand this attitude in places like Europe, but that's because they don't
really take religion as seriously as they used to, which means that other priorities bubble
up. If you observe other places in the world, ethnicity plays second fiddle.
Be careful with that claim, because again it appears Hutu and Tutsi took Catholicism far
more seriously than Europeans do but it did not transcend the ethnic hatred and tensions that
existed.
Iran takes religion seriously but it, too, is affected by ethnic tensions such that the
CIA was inflaming ethnic minorities against the majority Persians in 2006 in an attempt to
weaken the central government. Racial and ethnic diversity isn't such a strength after all
since a foreign government could easily foment racial unrest in America with it's 40%
no-white population.
Afghanistan takes the Islamic religion very seriously (home of the Taliban) but Sunni
Uzbeks and Tajiks loathe the Sunni Pashtuns and vice versa while the Pashtuns loathe the
Shiite Hazeras. Islam has not melded the various ethnic groups into one polity nor has it
fostered mutual affection between them.
In America it's been long known that Sunday Christian worship is a very racially
segregated affair and Christianity and Catholicism has not melded its three dominant racial
groups (white, black, Latino) into a cohesive group.
Europeans took religion far more seriously during the WWI and WWII era (but less seriously
than previous centuries) but that didn't stop the mind boggling fratricide during the two
world wars which may yet lead to the demise of Western Europe and the U.K. Ideology,
nationality and ethnicity had greater pull and won the day.
While there's certainly outliers and exceptions I believe that the evidence shows that,
generally speaking, ethno-nationalism trumps religion in most cases because it's a force of
nature that people must come to terms with instead of deny.
So I understand this attitude in places like Europe, but that's because they don't
really take religion as seriously as they used to, which means that other priorities bubble
up.
And don't forget that Europeans took religion so seriously in the 17th century that it
nearly wiped out 50% of Germany's population during the Thirty Years War. I doubt ethnic
conflict would have been any more bloody and brutal. Your Tamerlane took it so seriously that
he's responsible for murdering 17 million people.
Note: By the way, sometimes people being scared of you can be quite helpful (from the
above article):
Not unlike a KKK member wearing a white sheet in the 19th century since blacks thought the
mask wearer(s) were ghosts and would flee in terror and fear. They incurred the slur "spook"
since they were so easily spooked by the sight of a white men wearing white sheets.
White people will be bred out and chased down. Within the next generation they will become
functionally enslaved (we're halfway there already). Our Overlords have seen to this by
shifting our nation's demographics in a decisive and irreversible way. Everything–
everything –is being redefined such that if white people do it, it's a crime,
and if nonwhite people or chosenites do it, it's a mitzvah . Your predictions? They
are delusional–I say enjoy them!
They stole America once they had grabbed the reins of the mass media, and that happened
before Patrick came along. Since then it's just been consolidation. PJB is one of the most
courageous voices of our time and he's paid a very high price professionally. Neither of
these is true of his critics, yourself included.
Referendums, at the point of a Russian gun, as was done in Crimea aren't truly an accurate
meaure of anything.
Would you feel that a referendum today, after somewhere in the vicinity of 3million people
have left the Donbas, would likewise settle anything?
I'd bet on the bred out before I'd bet on the functionally enslaved. It's hard to enslave
a population that's smarter and better-organized than your people. At the moment, whites are
enslaving themselves. That's very different than being enslaved.
Gentile whites can free themselves at any moment – if we choose to. Will we? Good
question. I don't care if whites drop to 10% or 20% of the population; if that small minority
found its racial/ethnic cohension and decided to push back as a group, it'd be functionally
independent and free in a very short period of time.
Whites are not blacks or mestizos. We are not being enslaved. (Jews are clever and
certainly a major driving force behind much of what's going on, but they aren't omnipotent.)
We have agency. A glitch in our DNA makes many whites ill suited for the current environment,
ironically, an environment we created. This means that one of three things will happen. All
whites will be absorbed by other groups better suited for this environment. Whites with the
attributes to survive in this environment – the tribal whites – survive and
prosper while other whites fade away. The environment changes.
The future is not linear. You can't just extrapolate today's trends a hundred years out.
Europe was 99%+ white a hundred years ago. Now, 10% to 15% of births are to non-whites with
immigration continuing. North America was 100% native Indians 600 years ago. Now, they are
only a couple of percentage points of the population.
Things change. Momentum changes. I already hear whites laughing in public about being call
a racist. Granted, they laugh because they believe that they are "color blind" and thus not
racist, rather than being proud of being white. But let's take this one step at a time.
Indeed, my own child – truly unprompted – mentioned to me that she should be as
proud of European ancestry and a black should be of their African ancestry.
That is patently false. Whites are free to make their own decisions, and are only
"enslaved" as individuals if their choices box them in, and they choose not get themselves
out of their predicament.
"I don't care if whites drop to 10% or 20% of the population; if that small minority found
its racial/ethnic cohension and decided to push back as a group, it'd be functionally
independent and free in a very short period of time."
No, because that group would be enslaving the 80-90% of other white people. You neglect to
consider that European whites themselves tend to lack cohesiveness due to their political or
religious differences. You assume this minority group will be able to set aside their
problems for the benefit of their "race". Perhaps, but perhaps not.
"A glitch in our DNA makes many whites ill suited for the current environment, ironically,
an environment we created."
A false premise on your part.
"Indeed, my own child – truly unprompted – mentioned to me that she should be
as proud of European ancestry and a black should be of their African ancestry."
Yet she was programmed to make this remark, maybe without realizing it. No different than
an SJW who have their own kids and indoctrinate them. You and them are one in the same in
this regard.
Please provide an example of Catholics and Protestants joining ethnic others to
slaughter heretics of their own race/etnicity so I can better respond.
Not race, but certainly ethnicity. The slaughter in Germany that you described was (if I
recall my history correctly) due to the Thirty Years War where various powers from outside
what is now Germany were called in on one side or another; from as far as Sweden, Spain, even
Scotland. Some states even sided with the Ottomans (though I think they did not put soldiers
out in the field).
I don't really have a problem with your greater point that ethnicity/tribal identity is
often at odds and in tension with religious identity and often wins out. I simply don't see
how one can make an absolutist claim that ethnicity always wins out since there are many
historical exceptions to the rule.
For instance you pointed to the tension among the various ethnic groups in Afghanistan.
This is true, but religion also can help them transcend that divide, something that the
Taliban have been pushing successfully as of late:
"Ethnic Minorities Are Fueling the Taliban's Expansion in Afghanistan: The Taliban is gaining
dangerous leverage by recruiting Tajiks, Turkmen, and Uzbeks."
Of Islam and race, Arnold Toynbee (the very capable British historian) wrote:
"The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding moral
achievements of Islam, and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need
for the propagation of this Islamic virtue; for, although the record of history would seem on
the whole to show that race consciousness has been the exception and not the rule in the
constant interbreeding of the human species, it is a fatality of the present situation that
this consciousness is felt-and felt strongly-by the very peoples which, in the competition of
the last four centuries between several Western powers, have won-at least for the moment-the
lion's share of the inheritance of the Earth."
Though Toynbee was being hyperbolic, it is a phenomenon that is quite real and caused
someone like Malcolm X (ra) to completely re-evaluate his assumptions about White people
after having gone to Hajj, writing:
"During the past eleven days here in the Muslim world, I have eaten from the same plate,
drunk from the same glass, and slept on the same rug – while praying to the same God
– with fellow Muslims, whose eyes were the bluest of blue, whose hair was the blondest
of blond, and whose skin was the whitest of white. And in the words and in the deeds of the
white Muslims, I felt the same sincerity that I felt among the black African Muslims of
Nigeria, Sudan and Ghana."
You are right about ethnic/tribal affiliation being part of the core of the human animal.
It is, like sexuality and lust, embedded deep in the recesses of human consciousness. Just
like a pack of wolves or a troop of chimpanzees will tear apart another group in competition
for resources, we too have that innate animal instinct in us. But like sexuality, avarice or
a whole host of human traits – the whole point of religion is to help us to; a)
transcend them and b) point them to a useful purpose or keep them under control.
We will never see ethnic identity or attraction to it completely wiped out (thank God),
that is part of the beauty of the human project:
"O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you nations and tribes
that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of Allah is the
most pious of you. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Acquainted." (49:13)
However, religion is supposed to helps us to overcome the pathologies and extremes that
can arise from it, same as from unchecked sexuality or other natural human tendencies. Of
course, religion can be used to underwrite other pathologies as well. Well, the world is
never perfect, eh? It'll be interesting to see which way this goes.
I think people will start to be more ethnocentric and identity-conscious for a while
(Whites will jump in on this as Blacks and other minorities already do), but I simply don't
know how long that will last since that really doesn't provide much in the way of long term
transcendental purpose and seems really to be a temporary reaction to the way things have
gone to the other extreme for the last few decades.
Yet she was programmed to make this remark, maybe without realizing it.
Not sure about this. It comes naturally to people and there is a side of it that is wrong
(which takes it to extreme pride and arrogance) and a side which is natural and healthy.
On twitter, I follow an African American Muslim scholar, Dr. (Shaykh) Abdullah Ali, who
once wrote – in criticism of some of the SJW Muslim activists that like to call
everyone racist:
Can a White Man Be Proud of His People?
Another area of concern related to Muslim activists is the push for cultural Marxist
egalitarianism. It is not that one should be opposed to equal opportunity for all members
of society. It is just that Islam promotes meritocracy rather than "sameness" and "equal
representation" for the sake of equal "representation." According to this cultural
paradigm, it is "good" to celebrate and take pride in what is unique about one's own
culture. This seems the case, at least, for any person who is not "white." White people, on
the other hand, due to their historical domination of others are forbidden from publicly
expressing pride about European civilizational contributions lest they be declared a racist
or white supremacist. This concern is shared by nativists like Richard Spencer. But
Spencer, however, regurgitates the pseudoscientific racist assumptions of the 19th century
French aristocrat Arthur De Gobineau who pioneered the Aryan master race theory. Those
blinkered notions aside, what legitimate wrong could be claimed about a white man or woman
feeling pride about the achievements of their ancestors if it does not result in cultural
domination?
The question he ends with is a pertinent one; what is wrong with that, especially if
everyone else is able to publicly do it and not be shamed. Why should we assume this is a
sign of indoctrination and not something very natural and healthy. My kids are mixed
heritage; I definitely want them to know and love their European side as much as their roots
from the Indian subcontinent.
Corny's not a bad guy. He has schtick – sort of a cross between "We're all God's
children" and libertarianism – and he sticks to it. Whether he believes it or not, who
knows.
But he is disingenuous.
There was a point in my career when I dealt a lot with lawyers from other companies about
reasonably complex issues. After awhile, I could tell when a lawyer was doing their best to
make things clearer to see if we could reach a deal and when a lawyer was trying to make
things murky in hopes of cheating you out on something. Naturally, the DB lawyers would
always argue that our side just wasn't smart enough to understand their brillant
proposition.
It was just annoying. Everyone knew what was going on. I suppose that the DB lawyers felt
that they needed to try, but it just ended up making everything take a lot longer than
necessary.
Corny most definitely falls in the DB lawyer camp. He deliberately obfuscates. If you tell
him that an orange is the color orange, he'll say that you can't prove that because there are
different shades of orange and thus the color orange doesn't exist. It's tedious and
pointless.
It's a shame. I'd love to have someone who believes in multi-everything to discuss these
issues with. I've changed my mind on a number of things over the years so maybe they could
show me where I'm wrong. That'd be a fascinating dialogue.
Sadly, that's Corny is not that guy. He's either a true believer or a very diligent (maybe
paid?) troll. Either way, not of much use.
There were opportunities to take it back but they weren't taken and Pat was there then.
The reason it isn't written about much is because Pat would have to come to terms with who
the real Nixon and Reagan were and Pat will never allow such thoughts into his head, let
alone his writing.
"... He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon. ..."
"... Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump. ..."
"... The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported. ..."
"... The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent. ..."
"... Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are usually secondary to his machinations ..."
"... Great development and exposure of this hillary-look-alike. Love the phrase 'pretend progressive,' as it describes Schumer to a T. Great piece. ..."
"... Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong. Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States. ..."
"... Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency. ..."
"... Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes me wonder what he knows? ..."
"... Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers ..."
"... Generals gathered in their masses, just like witches at black masses. Evil minds that plot destruction, sorcerer of death's construction. In the fields the bodies burning, as the war machine keeps turning. Death and hatred to mankind, poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah! ..."
"... Politicians hide themselves away They only started the war Why should they go out to fight? They leave that role to the poor ..."
"... Time will tell on their power minds Making war just for fun Treating people just like pawns in chess Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪ ..."
Thomas Hedges: In the 2007 book he published, Positively American, in the midst of his campaign against the war, Schumer
admitted that his opposition that year and the year before, was as much about ending a failed policy as it was about getting votes.
In reality Schumer had been one of the war's most ardent supporters, beyond his public display against the war carefully timed for
the 2006 Congressional elections, Schumer in fact pitted much of the blame on Iraqis themselves, arguing that Sunis, Shiites and
Kurds seemed more interested in starting a civil war in Iraq than in receiving help from the Americans and constructing any democratic
central government.
He even said, that in a similar future situation, he might vote again to authorize the use of force against a country like Iraq.
"Today," he wrote in his book, "I still believe that when our country is under attack the chief executive deserves a degree of latitude,
if God forbid, we were attacked again, I could well vote to give it to a future President, Democrat or Republican." And when a Real
News correspondent pressed Schumer in 2007 on US reparations to the Iraqi people, this is what he had to say.
Sam Husseini: Do we owe something to the Iraqi people other than just getting out? Do we owe them reparations for having
brought about this war?
Chuck Schumer: I don't believe that.
Ben Norton: It's hard to find a Democrat that's more gung-ho about war than Chuck Schumer. Not only did he support the
Iraq war, and fearmonger about weapons of mass destruction, he tepidly criticized the Bush administration for how it carried out
the war.
Thomas Hedges: In fact, tepid criticism seems to be Schumer at his most radical. In general, he is someone who supports
hard-line policy decisions, atoning for mistakes only years down the line, and usually because it's politically expedient to do so,
as in an election is about to take place.
Chuck Schumer: If you don't give up and you keep fighting and you're right, you win!
Thomas Hedges: In his early days, Schumer wasn't as focused on foreign policy, in the years before 911 would shift America's
attention to the Middle East, Congressman Schumer, along with the new Democrats like Bill Clinton among others, would exploit the
crime scare of the 1990's in order to gain more votes and more power. During those years, Schumer supported the Omnibus Crime Bill
of 1994, which spiked the prison population. And in 1995 he sponsored the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act, which became the foundation
from which the Patriot Act six years later, was built.
Ben Norton: When it comes to the war on terror he was a very enthusiastic supporter and remains so. He voted for the Patriot
Act, and again this is a supposed Democratic leader, who voted for the Bush administration to take away Americans civil liberties.
Thomas Hedges: In the years straddling 911, he supported many of the same policies Republicans supported. From his tough
on crime approach to supporting war in the Middle East, to defending the surveillance of Muslim groups in New York after 911. Schumer
and the GOP had very few differences, in fact despite shedding tears at a press conference earlier this year after the Muslim ban
that Trump implemented, Schumer himself had proposed something eerily similar.
Ben Norton: In November of 2015, not that long ago, less than two years ago, Schumer also said that the US government should
consider a so called pause on the re-settlement of Syrian refugees. He also, in one of the most egregious yet under reported aspects
of Schumer, previously said that torture should be considered in some places, and he said that, "Oh well if you oppose torture, you
say this now, but you need to put yourself in the shoes of people in these particular situations etc." So he really left torture
on the table.
Before Trump was President, he had actually donated money to Schumer, that of course, represents something, this is not a progressive
Democrat. Schumer actually represents the segment, the influential powerful segment of the Democratic Party, that has helped pave
the way for Donald Trump to carry out many of the policies he's already implementing.
Thomas Hedges: But for voters who have paid attention to Schumer for a long time, the Senator's policy choices are anything
but surprising.
Kevin Zeese:He basically is a Senator for Israel. He totally supports the Israeli foreign policy viewpoint, which
is a very hawkish, if you were a Republican you would call him a neocon.
Ariel Gold: He has come out in strong opposition to the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions movement and was very supportive
of New York Governor Cuomo's order to ban BDS in New York state, and Schumer made a direct statement in support of that.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's staunch support for Israel has prompted him for example, to criticize the Obama administration,
when in 2016, the United States abstained from a UN Security Council resolution re-affirming something the Council had almost unanimously
upheld since 1979. Namely, that Israel's settlement building projects on Palestinian land violated international law.
Ben Norton:Schumer criticized the Obama administration for abstaining on this very basic resolution, which every other
country voted for. So the US was still a pariah, because the US didn't vote for it, it just abstained on it. But to Schumer that
was not enough, he wanted it to be completely vetoed, because anything that Israel does is sacrosanct, and anyone who criticizes
it, in Schumer's eyes, is not someone he wants to ally with politically, so he'd rather affectively ally with Trump.
Thomas Hedges:The most recent showing of that allegiance was last month, when Schumer supported Trump's decision to
launch an air strike on an Air Force base in Syria, something Israel also strongly supported.
Chuck Schumer: On Syria, I salute the professionalism and skill of our armed forces, who took action last night. The
people of Syria have suffered untold horrors and violence at the hands of Bashar al-Assad and his supporters in Tehran and in
Putin's Russia, making sure that Assad knows when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price, is the right thing
to do.
Thomas Hedges: But perhaps Schumer's greatest show of allegiance to Israel, was his decision to oppose the Iran nuclear
deal, without which experts have warned, would put the United States and Iran on a collision course.
Ben Norton: Under President Obama, Schumer was one of the most prominent Democrats to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, and
he was of course fearmongering about Iran, which to him is the devil incarnate, and he actually made factually false statements about
the nuclear agreement, and claimed that it would allow Iran in 10 years to produce nuclear weapons etc.
Thomas Hedges: Leading up to his decision, Schumer reassured Zionists that he was consulting the most credentialed men
in Washington, including Henry Kissinger, an opponent of the deal, and the man who orchestrated the violent coup in Chile that toppled
its democratically elected leader, as well as the architect of the very bloody Vietnam war.
Chuck Schumer: I spent some time with Dr. Kissinger, I'm spending time with excellence.
Ariel Gold: So it threatened to pull us into another war, and we're back in that threat again with Trump winning the election
we hear a lot about undoing the Iran nuclear deal, and it's one of the things that Israel has been saying they would like to see
come out of the Trump administration.
Thomas Hedges: Schumer's willingness to oppose the deal early on, which created an opening for other undecided Democrats
to do the same, is a strong display of support for Israel.
News Anchor: Schumer's support here really would have been key for the White House, but coming out overnight against
this deal saying in a statement quote, "I will vote to disapprove the agreement, not because I believe war is a viable or desirable
option, not to challenge the path of dis-plomacy it is because, I believe Iran will not change."
Thomas Hedges: It also put him in yet the same camp as current President Donald Trump in terms of pursuing a Middle East
policy that is in line with Washington's most hawkish advocates. In the end, Schumer's a friend of the neo conservative foreign policy
agenda. While he may cry over Trump's Muslim ban and purport to have the same inclinations as America's most progressive members
of the Senate, he's fundamentally in agreement with the United States forceful efforts abroad.
Kevin Zeese:The criticism of the Democratic Party is it is the Wall Street and war party. That is Chuck Schumer, and
so for him to have this kind of pretend progressive image, it's just so obviously fraudulent.
Thomas Hedges: As the United States nears yet another arms deal with Middle East ally Saudi Arabia, this time for
a hundred billion dollars, and coupled with its four billion dollar annual aid to Israel, we can expect Schumer not only to support
an even more militarized Middle East, but to continue to rail against countries like Iran that pose a threat to US and Israel's hegemony
in the region.
Chuck Schumer has replaced Joe Lieberman as the Senator representing Israeli interests in the Senate. US interests are
usually secondary to his machinations
Schumer and Clinton must be understood in relation to Israel. Israel to both of them are sacrosant. Israel can do no wrong.
Both these two war hawks for Israel takes their orders from Netanyahu. He is like a vice president for Israel in the United States.
"I only take up causes in which I know I'll find no allies. And often I wait for a cause to become successful before
attacking it."
Schumer (sic) is a scum bucket who ought to be trounced out of the Senate, through the revolving door to his sinecure on
Wall Street. Schumer's ultimately loyalties are to his corporate benefactors on Wall Street. Which too is his constituency.
Anything in the way of progressiveness that you suggest will be only, like Obama's eloquent blackness, to run cover for favors
for the war party. Which at this late date ought also be christened the "hastening to collective extinction" party.
Schumer is a puppet for the deep state and the deep state may have some "dirt" on him in order to keep him in line...and
his famous quote about the security state: "they have 6 ways to Sunday to get back at you" or something to this effect...makes
me wonder what he knows?
Israel is the driving force behind disruption of the middle east...the more the middle east is neutralized, the better
for Israel...Chuck is one of their best foot soldiers
♪ Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerer of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds...Oh lord yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor
Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait `till their judgement day comes, yeah! ♪
Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, the right-wing French politician, delivered a solid speech to CPAC today. It's embedded
above. It was not the usual American conservative boilerplate. For example, check out this passage:
To open oneself to the outside, you must have a solid core. To welcome, you have to remain, and to share, you must
have something to offer. Without nation, and without family, the limits of the common good, natural law, and
collective morality disappears, as the reign of egoism continues.
Today, even children have now become merchandise. We hear now in the public debate, we have the right to order a
child from a catalog, we have the right to rent a woman's womb, we have the right to deprive a child of a mother or
father. No you don't! A child is not a "right". Is this the freedom that we want? No. We don't want this atomized
world of individuals without gender, without fathers, without mothers, and without nation.
She went on to condemn euthanasia, gender theory, and transhumanism. Le Pen said that the fight cannot be political
alone, but must take place in culture, in media, and in the education system. She ended like this:
I finish with a Mahler quote I like very much, a quote which sums up conservatism in modernity: 'Tradition is not
the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire."
I like that quote very much too:
"Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire." -- Gustav Mahler.
#BenedictOption
Michael Brendan
Dougherty picked out the most unusual thing about her speech
: how it inadvertently revealed how very, very
Protestant most American conservatism is. Check out his short reaction piece for the details. That is what occurred to
me as well, especially having just returned from a week in France. Even though
The Benedict Option
was written for an American readership, I find it so much easier to discuss it with
French and Italian Catholics, for reasons that I have not been able to figure out. Hearing Le Pen in an American context
really brought that out. Even American Catholics are a lot more Protestant in how they think politically than they
realize.
I don't say this as a put-down; it's what you would expect from people raised in an overwhelmingly Protestant nation,
one built on Protestant, classic-liberal principles. But there it is. My friend Fred Gion, a Catholic and political
conservative in Paris, told me over a decade ago that the arguments in my book
Crunchy Cons,
which was being
attacked by many US conservatives for being crypto-liberal, made perfect sense to European conservatives.
Continental conservatives in the Le Pen mold are more traditionalist, focusing on natural law, religion, and culture.
Conservative US Protestants share a lot of the views of European conservatives, but there seems to be among
conservatives from Catholic cultures a deeper sense of order unifying these principles. There also tends to be much more
skepticism of the free market and individualism.
Readers who have thought more about this than I have: tell me why this is. Which principles define conservative
politics in Britain and America as more Protestant than conservative politics on the continent? Let's talk about this --
but anybody, Protestant or Catholic, who wants to sneer at the other, keep it to yourself.
I agree with this from Dougherty as well:
And I have a warning for those who would warm to [Le Pen's speech] uncritically. As my career grants me
friendships with other conservatives across Europe, I notice the tendency in them and in myself to idealize or
project hopes onto the conservatives in other nations.
My Irish and
English friends tend to be far more positive about Trump than I am. And I have been far more positive about some of
their would-be champions than they can be. Unfamiliarity breeds fantasy.
This is true. I was asked quite a bit about Trump while I was in France. It was interesting to me
that most of my interlocutors regarded him ideally, in contrast to Emmanuel Macron, whom they detested. I could tell
that folks didn't really understand why I was so cool on Trump. I bet that things would be exactly reversed in the
matter of Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (but not her secular nationalist aunt Marine, whom I find unappealing!).
The main reason why nothing ever gets done in the Beltway is because the two-party system has strangled
everything. It is an archaic system which cries out for reform.
Hear! Hear! Three or four parties doing
some honest horse trading would serve us much better.
'Look, you know we're never going to agree to X, but, none of us alone have sufficient strength to form a
government, so, we could give you Y if you'll go along with Z, and pretty much all of us agree on Q.'
Any way there are a lot reasons that Trump is still unpopular in a nation with ~4% unemployment.
The
European country with the lowest unemployment rate is the Czech Republic (also with good economic growth and
tied for the second-lowest Gini index in the world), and they're also the most ethnocentric and, in a value
neutral sense, the most opposed to ethnic diversity. Denmark and Switzerland among others have also seen
major
reactions against ethnic diversification, in spite of being model high performing social democracies.
I don't know what they think about Trump per se in the Czech Republic or Denmark, I doubt they care for him at
all, but I do think it's a mistake to reduce all concerns about ethnicity and identity to economics. (As noted,
it's also a major mistake to elide all anti-liberal, ethnic-tribalist politicians together. Trump is not Marine
Le Pen, much to his discredit, and he's a cut below most other major cultural-reactionary leaders in Europe as
well, both in terms of ideology and personal character).
Yes, as a commenter above noted, I have to wonder where you found these pro-Trump Frenchmen? That alone gives
me pause about their supposedly Catholic ways. I get that there can be cultural differences that make the grass
look greener on the other hill. But they are seeing green where even their fellow countrymen see an
orange-colored blight. Worry.
I think the difference between American Protestant "conservatives" and European Catholic conservatives is
rather simple: the latter are steeped in the "Tory" benevolent paternalism of the social justice encyclicals of
the modern papacy, which, though not overtly socialistic, are extraordinarily concerned with the social
responsibilities of the "owners" and the rights and dignities of the "laborers." Those encyclicals totally and
completely reject unregulated free-market capitalism, albeit favoring entrepreneurship. The model of capitalism
they seem to embrace is called "distributism."
New ideas, good or bad, achieve escape velocity more easily where traditions are weak. Just as ideas can be
good or bad, traditions can be stultifying or sustaining. Protestant culture developed in rebellion against an
established culture and any time the dust begins to settle it can be stirred up again by rebels referring to
founding principles (inner light, congregationalism, every man his own priest, etc.)
My preference is for
protestantism as a personal mode of existence but I feel that a successful society will probably have a strong,
stiffening admixture of catholicism.
I'm not really religious and I'm trying to abstract protestantism and catholicism a bit from their formal
identities. I think that is okay if understood in the same spirit that Rod says that the United States is a
protestant culture and that this influences even American Catholics. I use upper and lower case letters to
differentiate confessing members of religions from general tendencies and mental dispositions.
Walter Bagheot once said that a reason the British political experience had been happier and more successful
than the French was that the British were more stupid. From the essay:
"In fact, what we opprobriously call 'stupidity,' though not an enlivening quality in common society, is
nature's favorite resource for preserving steadiness of conduct and consistency of opinion; it enforces
concentration: people who learn slowly, learn only what they must. The best security for people's doing their
duty is, that they should not know anything else to do; the best security for fixedness of opinion is, that
people should be incapable of comprehending what is to be said on the other side."
Bagheot doesn't just mention the French and the English, he also compares Greece to Rome. And in Bagheot's
formulation the inquisitive and experimental virtues are given to the Catholic French and steadiness assigned
to Protestant Great Britain Possibly a reason to look for a deeper more accurate division than protestant and
catholic.
Within the same TAC site, it's interesting how
Bill Wirtz
had a polar opposite reaction to La Pen's CPAC speech. Wirtz's obsession with Jean-Marie Le
Pen's Holocaust quote (which must be
contextualized
) notwithstanding, there is a profound struggle for the soul of the conservative movement
taking place, both here in the States and across Europe.
DRK,
Marine
LePen is the divorced-and-cohabiting one. (as for her religious beliefs, she claims to be a
believer, but doesn't go into detail and doesn't appear to be a regular churchgoer. She did have all her kids
baptised).
Marion
Marechal Le Pen is the practicing Catholic one.
Why is the "Benedict Option" easier to discuss with the French and Italian Catholics, even though it was
written mainly for the American readership? This is what I, a Traditionalist Catholic, think:
(a)
Protestantism covers a wide spectrum of beliefs, so a less "cohesive" and more "grainy" response is to be
expected (Fragmentation);
(b) Benedict Option may sound like "salvation by works" – if we only work hard and form these communities
ourselves, we'll survive and be "saved" in the end. And anyway, weren't those monasteries dens of vice?
(Anathema);
(c) A belief that God blesses the faithful us, but others bring evil upon themselves because they have
abandoned God, or follow idolatrous religions (Exceptionalism);
(d) Benedict Option, if it's to be done right, requires a comprehensive and rigorous study of the past.
However, such studies often bring on uncomfortable questions which can challenge "settled facts" (Amnesia);
To be fair, many Catholics share in some of the above. Part (c) can be heard among a few of my fellow
Catholic Traditionalists, and (d) can be found within the Vatican II faction. I think part (c) is particularly
tricky – the Book of Job comes to mind.
I've formerly posted at TAC as "A Libertarian Guy"
I watched Marion Maréchal-Le Pen's speech at CPAC last
night. It was like a thunderbolt out of a clear blue sky when she got to the part where she spoke against
surrogate mothering and the nonsensical fluid-gender stuff. I had no idea there were any political people in
Europe with that kind of common sense and morals.
I too, liked the quote, : 'Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire."
"... For Germany, the idea of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration' ..."
"... "That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples. According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic realm?" ..."
"... More recently, an article in Politico Europe ..."
"... Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance – even against ..."
"... Germany (and France) have been the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote , overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'. ..."
"... This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general), while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level. ..."
"... German authorities have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'. ..."
"... Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of 'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika -forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by the German airport operator Fraport. ..."
"... France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years, French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased 'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship between the stronger and weaker countries of the union. ..."
"... In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie ..."
"... Exportnationalismus' ..."
"... Modell Deutschland ..."
"... Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation' – under the German aegis, of course. As a recent article in Foreign Policy ..."
"... In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the initiative, Foreign Policy ..."
Originally from: Germany's dystopian plans for Europe: from fantasy to reality?By Thomas
Fazi 4 December 2017
For Germany, the idea
of Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect alibi to conceal their
hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'
After Emmanuel Macron's election in France, many (including myself) claimed that this
signalled a revival of the Franco-German alliance and a renewed impetus for Europe's process of
top-down economic and political integration – a fact that was claimed by most
commentators and politicians, beholden as they are to the Europeanist narrative, to be an
unambiguously positive development.
Among the allegedly 'overdue' reforms that were said to be on the table was the creation of
a pseudo-'fiscal union' backed by a (meagre) 'euro budget', along with the creation of a
'European finance minister', the centre-points of Macron's plans to 're-found the EU' – a
proposal that raises a number of very worrying issues from both political and economic
standpoints,
which I have discussed at length elsewhere .
The integrationists' (unwarranted) optimism, however, was short-lived. The result of the
German elections, which saw the surge of two rabidly anti-integrationist parties, the
right-wing FDP and extreme right AfD; the recent collapse of coalition talks between Merkel's
CDU, the FDP and the Greens, which most likely means an interim government for weeks if not
months, possibly leading to new elections (which polls show would
bring roughly the same result as the September election); and the growing restlessness in
Germany towards the 13-year-long rule of Macron's partner in reform Angela Merkel, means that
any plans that Merkel and Macron may have sketched out behind the scenes to further integrate
policies at the European level are now, almost certainly, dead in the water. Thus, even the
sorry excuse for a fiscal union proposed by Macron is now off the table, according to most
commentators.
At this point, the German government's most likely course in terms of European policy
– the one that has the best chance of garnering cross-party support, regardless of the
outcome of the coalition talks (or of new elections) – is the 'minimalist' approach set
in stone by the country's infamous and now-former finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, in
a 'non-paper' published shortly
before his resignation.
The main pillar of Schäuble's proposal – a long-time obsession of his –
consists in giving the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which would go on to become a
'European Monetary Fund', the power to monitor (and, ideally, enforce) compliance with the
Fiscal Compact. This echoes Schäuble's previous calls for the
creation of a European budget commissioner with the power to reject national budgets – a
supranational fiscal enforcer.
The aim is all too clear: to further erode what little sovereignty and autonomy member
states have left, particularly in the area of fiscal policy, and to facilitate the imposition
of neoliberal 'structural reforms' – flexibilisation of labour markets, reduction of
collective bargaining rights, etc. – on reluctant countries.
To this end, the German authorities even want to make the receipt of EU cohesion funds
conditional on the implementation of such reforms , tightening the existing arrangements
even further. Moreover, as noted by Simon
Wren-Lewis , the political conflict of interest of having an institution lending within the
eurozone would end up imposing severe austerity bias on the recovering country.
Until recently, these proposals failed to materialise due, among other reasons, to France's
opposition to any further overt reductions of national sovereignty in the area of
budgetary policy; Macron, however, staunchly rejects France's traditional
souverainiste stance, embracing instead what he calls 'European sovereignty', and thus
represents the perfect ally for Germany's plans.
Another proposal that goes in the same direction is the
German Council for Economic Experts' plan to curtail banks' sovereign bond holdings.
Ostensibly aimed at 'severing the link between banks and government' and 'ensuring long-term
debt sustainability', it calls for: (i) removing the exemption from risk-weighting for
sovereign exposures, which essentially means that government bonds would no longer be
considered a risk-free asset for banks (as they are now under Basel rules), but would be
'weighted' according to the 'sovereign default risk' of the country in question (as determined
by credit rating agencies); (ii) putting a cap on the overall risk-weighted sovereign exposure
of banks; and (iii) introducing an automatic 'sovereign insolvency mechanism' that would
essentially extend to sovereigns the bail-in rule introduced for banks by the banking union,
meaning that if a country requires financial assistance from the ESM, for whichever reason, it
will have to lengthen its sovereign bond maturities (reducing the market value of those bonds
and causing severe losses for all bondholders) and, if necessary, impose a nominal 'haircut' on
private creditors.
As noted by the German economist Peter Bofinger , the only member of the German Council of
Economic Experts to vote against the sovereign bail-in plan, this would almost certainly ignite
a 2012-style self-fulfilling sovereign debt crisis, as periphery countries' bond yields would
quickly rise to unsustainable levels, making it increasingly hard for governments to roll over
maturing debt at reasonable prices and eventually forcing them to turn to the ESM for help,
which would entail even heavier losses for their banks and an even heavier dose of
austerity.
It would essentially amount to a return to the pre-2012 status quo, with governments once
again subject to the supposed 'discipline' of the markets, particularly in the context of a
likely tapering of the ECB's quantitative easing (QE) program. The aim of this proposal is the
same as that of Schäuble's 'European Monetary Fund': to force member states to implement
permanent austerity.
Of course, national sovereignty in a number of areas – most notably fiscal policy
– has already been severely eroded by the complex system of new laws, rules and
agreements introduced in recent years, including but not limited to the six-pack, two-pack,
Fiscal Compact, European Semester and Macroeconomic Imbalances Procedure (MIP).
As a result of this new post-Maastricht system of European economic governance, the European
Union has effectively become a sovereign power with the authority to impose budgetary rules and
structural reforms on member states outside democratic procedures and without democratic
control.
The EU's embedded quasi-constitutionalism and inherent (structural) democratic deficit has
thus evolved into an even more anti-democratic form of 'authoritarian constitutionalism' that
is breaking away with elements of formal democracy as well, leading some observers to suggest
that the EU 'may easily become the postdemocratic prototype and even a pre-dictatorial
governance structure against national sovereignty and democracies'.
To give an example, with the launch of the European Semester, the EU's key tool for economic
policy guidance and surveillance, an area that has historically been a bastion of national
sovereignty – old-age pensions – has now fallen under the purview of supranational
monitoring as well. Countries are now expected to
(and face sanctions if they don't): (i) increase the retirement age and link it with life
expectancy; (ii) reduce early retirement schemes, improve the employability of older workers
and promote lifelong learning; (iii) support complementary private savings to enhance
retirement incomes; and (iv) avoid adopting pension-related measures that undermine the long
term sustainability and adequacy of public finances.
This has led to the introduction in various countries of several types of automatic
stabilizing mechanisms (ASMs) in pension systems, which change the policy default so that
benefits or contributions adjust automatically to adverse demographic and economic conditions
without direct intervention by politicians. Similar 'automatic correction mechanisms' in
relation to fiscal policy can be found in the Fiscal Compact.
The aim of all these 'automatic mechanisms' is clearly to put the economy on 'autopilot',
thus removing any element of democratic discussion and/or decision-making at either the
European or national level. These changes have already transformed European states into
'semi-sovereign' entities, at best. In this sense, the proposals currently under discussion
would mark the definitive transformation of European states from semi-sovereign to de
facto (and increasingly de jure ) non-sovereign entities.
Regardless of the lip service paid by national and European officials to the need for
further reductions of national sovereignty to go hand in hand with a greater 'democratisation'
of the euro area, the reforms currently on the table can, in fact, be considered the final
stage in the thirty-year-long war on democracy and national sovereignty waged by the European
elites, aimed at constraining the ability of popular-democratic powers to influence economic
policy, thus enabling the imposition of neoliberal policies that would not have otherwise been
politically feasible.
In this sense, the European economic and monetary integration process should be viewed, to a
large degree, as a class-based and inherently neoliberal project pursued by all
national capitals as well as transnational (financial) capital. However, to grasp the processes
of restructuring under way in Europe, we need to go beyond the simplistic capital/labour
dichotomy that underlies many critical analyses of the EU and eurozone, which view EU/EMU
policies as the expression of a unitary and coherent transnational (post-national) European
capitalist class.
The process underway can only be understood through the lens of the geopolitical-economic
tensions and conflicts between leading capitalist states and regional blocs, and the
conflicting interests between the different financial/industrial capital fractions located in
those states, which have always characterised the European economy. In particular, it means
looking at Germany's historic struggle for economic hegemony over the European continent.
It is no secret that Germany is today the leading economic and political power in Europe,
just as it is no secret that nothing gets done in Europe without Germany's seal of approval. In
fact, it is commonplace to come across references to Germany's 'new empire'.
A controversial Der Spiegel editorial from a few years back event went as far as
arguing that it is not out place to talk of the rise of a 'Fourth Reich':
"That may sound absurd given that today's Germany is a successful democracy without a trace
of national-socialism – and that no one would actually associate Merkel with Nazism. But
further reflection on the word 'Reich', or empire, may not be entirely out of place. The term
refers to a dominion, with a central power exerting control over many different peoples.
According to this definition, would it be wrong to speak of a German Reich in the economic
realm?"
More recently, an article in
Politico Europe – co-owned by the German media magnate Axel Springer AG
– candidly explained why 'Greece is de facto a German colony'. It noted how, despite
Tsipras' pleas for debt relief, the Greek leader 'has little choice but to heed the wishes of
his "colonial" masters', i.e., the Germans.
This is because public debt
in the eurozone is used as a political tool – a disciplining tool – to get
governments to implement socially harmful policies (and to get citizens to accept these
policies by portraying them as inevitable), which explains why Germany continues to refuse to
seriously consider any form of debt relief for Greece, despite the various commitments and
promises to that end made in recent years: debt is the chain that keeps Greece (and other
member states) from straying 'off course'.
Even though the power exercised by Europe's 'colonial masters' is now openly acknowledged by
the mainstream press, it is however commonplace to ascribe Germany's dominant position as an
accident of history: according to this narrative, we are in the presence of an 'accidental
empire', one that is not the result of a general plan but that emerged almost by chance –
even against Germany's wishes – as a result of the euro's design faults, which
have allowed Germany and its satellites to pursue a neo-mercantilist strategy and thus
accumulate huge current account surpluses.
Now, it is certainly true that the euro's design – strongly influenced by Germany
– inevitably benefits export-led economies such as Germany over more internal
demand-oriented economies, such as those of southern Europe. However, there is ample evidence
to support the argument that Germany, far from having accidently stumbled upon European
dominance, has been actively and consciously pursuing an expansionary and imperialist strategy
in – and through – the European Union for decades.
Even if we limit our analysis to Germany's post-crisis policies (though there is much that
could be said about Germany's post-reunification policies and subsequent offshoring of
production to Eastern Europe in the 1990s), it would be very naïve to view Germany's
inflexibility – on austerity, for example – as a simple case of ideological
stubbornness, considering the extent to which the policies in question have benefited Germany
(and to a lesser extent France).
Germany (and France) have been
the main beneficiaries of the sovereign bailouts of periphery countries , which essentially
amounted to a covert bailout of German (and French) banks, as most of the funds were channelled
back to the creditor countries' banks, which were heavily exposed to the banks (and to a lesser
degree the governments) of periphery countries. German policy, Helen Thompson wrote ,
overwhelmingly 'served the interests of the German banks'.
This is a telling example of how Germany's policies (and the EU's policies more in general),
while nominally ordoliberal – i.e., based upon minimal government intervention
and a strict rules-based regime – are in reality based on extensive state
intervention on behalf of German capital, at both the domestic and European level.
As Andy Storey notes, not only did the German government, throughout the crisis, show a
blatant disregard for ordoliberalism's non-interference of public institutions in the workings
of the market, by engaging in a massive Keynesian-style programme in the aftermath of the
financial crisis and pushing through bailout programmes that largely absolved German banks from
their responsibility for reckless lending to Greece and other countries; German authorities
have also been more than happy to go along with – or to encourage – the European
institutions' 'exercise of unrestrained executive power and the more or less complete
abandonment of strict, rules-based frameworks' – Storey is here referring in particular
to the ECB's use of its currency-issuing monopoly to force member states to follows its
precepts – 'to maintain the profitability of German banks, German hegemony within the
Eurozone, or even the survival of the Eurozone itself'.
Germany (and France) are also the main beneficiaries of the ongoing process of
'mezzogiornification' of periphery countries – often compounded by troika
-forced privatisations –, which in recent years has allowed German and French firms to
take over a huge number of businesses (or stakes therewithin) in periphery countries, often at
bargain prices. A well-publicised case is that of the 14 Greek regional airports taken over by
the German airport operator Fraport.
France's corporate offensive in Italy is another good example: in the last five years,
French companies have engaged in 177 Italian takeovers, for a total value of $41.8 billion, six
times Italy's purchases in France over the same period. This is leading to an increased
'centralisation' of European capital, characterised by a gradual concentration of capital and
production in Germany and other core countries – in the logistical and distribution
sectors, for example – and more in general to an increasingly imbalanced relationship
between the stronger and weaker countries of the union.
These transformations cannot simply be described as processes without a subject: while there
are undoubtedly structural reasons involved – countries with better developed economies
of scale, such as Germany and France, were bound to benefit more than others from the reduction
in tariffs and barriers associated with the introduction of the single currency – we also
have to acknowledge that there are loci of economic-politic power that are actively driving and
shaping these imperialist processes, which must be viewed through the lens of the unresolved
inter-capitalist struggle between core-based and periphery-based capital.
From this perspective, the dichotomy that is often raised in European public discourse
between nationalism and Europeanism is deeply flawed. The two, in fact, often go hand in hand.
In Germany's case, for example, Europeanism has provided the country's elites with the perfect
alibi to conceal their hegemonic project behind the ideological veil of 'European integration'.
Ironically, the European Union – allegedly created as an antidote to the vicious
nationalisms of the twentieth century – has been the tool through which Germany has been
able to achieve the 'new European order' that Nazi ideologues had theorised in the 1930s and
early 1940s.
In short, the European Union should indeed be viewed a transnational capitalist project, but
one that is subordinated to a clear state-centred hierarchy of power, with Germany in the
dominant position. In this sense, the national elites in periphery countries that have
supported Germany's hegemonic project (and continue to do so, first and foremost through their
support to European integration) can thus be likened to the comprador bourgeoisie of
the old colonial system – sections of a country's elite and middle class allied with
foreign interests in exchange for a subordinated role within the dominant hierarchy of
power.
From this point of view, the likely revival of the Franco-German bloc is a very worrying
development, since it heralds a consolidation of the German-led European imperialist bloc
– and a further 'Germanification' of the continent. This development cannot be understood
independently of the momentous shifts that are taking place in global political economy –
namely the organic crisis of neoliberal globalisation, which is leading to increased tensions
between the various fractions of international capital, most notably between the US and
Germany.
Trump's repeated criticisms of Germany's beggar-thy-neighbour mercantilist policies should
be understood in this light. The same goes for Angela Merkel's recent call – much
celebrated by the mainstream press – for a stronger Europe to counter Trump's
unilateralism. Merkel's aim is not, of course, that of making 'Europe' stronger, but rather of
strengthening Germany's dominant position vis-à-vis the other world powers (the US but
also China) through the consolidation of Germany's control of the European continental economy,
in the context of an intensification of global inter-capitalist competition.
This has now become an imperative for Germany, especially since Trump has dared to openly
challenge the self-justifying ideology which sustains Germany's mercantilism – a
particular form of economic nationalism that Hans Kundnani has
dubbed ' Exportnationalismus' , founded upon the belief that Germany's massive
trade surplus is uniquely the result of Germany's manufacturing excellence ( Modell
Deutschland ) rather than, in fact, the result of unfair trade practices.
This is why, if Germany wants to maintain its hegemonic position on the continent, it must
break with the US and tighten the bolts of the European workhouse. To this end, it needs to
seize control of the most coveted institution of them all – the ECB –, which
hitherto has never been under direct German control (though the Bundesbank exercises
considerable influence over it, as is well known). Indeed, many commentators openly acknowledge
that Merkel now has her eyes on the ECB's presidency. This would effectively put Germany
directly at the helm of European economic policy.
Even more worryingly, Germany is not simply aiming at expanding its economic control over
the European continent; it is also taking steps for greater European military 'cooperation'
– under the German aegis, of course.
As a recent article in Foreign Policy revealed , 'Germany is quietly building a
European army under its command'.
This year Germany and two of its European allies, the Czech Republic and Romania, announced
the integration of their armed forces, under the control of the Bundeswehr. In doing so, the
will follow in the footsteps of two Dutch brigades, one of which has already joined the
Bundeswehr's Rapid Response Forces Division and another that has been integrated into the
Bundeswehr's 1st Armored Division.
In other words, Germany already effectively controls the armies of four countries. And the
initiative, Foreign Policy notes, 'is likely to grow'. This is not surprising: if
Germany ('the EU') wants to become truly autonomous from the US, it needs to acquire military
sovereignty, which it currently lacks.
Europe is thus at a crossroads: the choice that left-wing and popular forces, and periphery
countries more generally, face is between (a) accepting Europe's transition to a fully
post-democratic, hyper-competitive, German-led continental system, in which member states
(except for those at the helm of the project) will be deprived of all sovereignty and autonomy,
in exchange for a formal democratic façade at the supranational level, and its workers
subject to ever-growing levels of exploitation; or (b) regaining national sovereignty and
autonomy at the national level, with all the short-term risks that such a strategy entails, as
the only way to restore democracy, popular sovereignty and socioeconomic dignity. In short, the
choice is between European post-democracy or post-European democracy.
There is no third way. Especially in view of the growing tensions between Germany, the US
and China, periphery countries should ask themselves if they want to be simple pawns in this
'New Great Game' or if they want to take their destinies into their own hands.
Money quote: "And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War
3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real.
And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage,
to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation."
Notable quotes:
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems .missing ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this. I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US? ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans while also benefitting from the
world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by
enemies. In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and the
second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries
or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them
hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World
War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative
than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or
no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so the US has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating
their cooperation.
Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though one that has been exaggerated
through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed
that more Americans are killed by falling furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to
its unpredictability and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels have been
willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded as a relatively minor problem.
So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against the American people it could
first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate with the actual threat before concentrating on three things.
First, would be to establish a solid modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop
into actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both Moscow and Beijing have
regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't have to like the governance of either country, but their
national interests have to be appreciated and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere
that must be respected by Russia and China.
Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which supports anti-missile defenses
if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails. Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine
but being able to intercept incoming missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent
given the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based equally on where the terror comes
from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking place. This is the element in national defense that is least
clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels.
Dealing with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such channels.
It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are only a handful that really matter,
but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing? First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back
on restoring a good working relationship with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued
unrest in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of the legitimate government
in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile congress and the media are poisoning the waters through
their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence
of malfeasance on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.
Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism DNA. Upon his arrival
in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump doubled down on the
Russia-bashing, calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support for hostile regimes
including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community of responsible nations in our fight against
common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."
The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both highly insulting and ignorant. It
was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense
of Western civilization and European values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin
in which the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The Trump-Putin meeting indicated
that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.
Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what a rational player would be seeking
to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the
most effective fighters against that group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shiite militias being provided by Iran
and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration are seeking to use the Syrian
engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.
As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent
reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to
escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek
Harvey, reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian former National Security
Adviser Michael Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and
has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council.
But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times
that "wants to use American spies to help oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding
Iran and also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who advised General David
Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.
Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need
to be confronted by force,
an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal moment that will determine whether
Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria." Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their
horror at a possible Shiite "bridge" or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria
and connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery
but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar
sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make
a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security
Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not
wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's
number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument
on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually supporting Saudi Arabia, the
source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands
of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon,
supported financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate opponents and select targets
overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in
France and Britain. So the United States is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual
terrorist threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also on behalf of Israel,
which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very hard
on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's
armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi
financing and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the principal causative
elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White House has the courage to take such a step and change
direction? Unfortunately, no.
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So,
our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled by
WASP Elites.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at YouTube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real American man, woman and child.
Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather that sacrificing its
own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! ,
@K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its best brains to the U.S so its
trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The chief- architect of IBM's Watson is a Hindu Indian and so is the
head of IBM's neuro-morphic computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM
is collaborating with the American defense organization DARPA) instead of helping India achieve technological competence.
And most of other super intelligent Indians also India is losing them to the west.
(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done the same. It is india's job to keep
its best brains working for it and not for others. And india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)
100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update
@Durruti Nice action approach
to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort
to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.
The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand
the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal,
the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his
republican opponents will not let him.
That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given
so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence
Agencies to the contrary not withstanding.
The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel
will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main oil supplier at the end of 1944.
The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Saudis would sponsor terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism
?
Sept 11 not, Boston not, Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the biggest.
That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army does what the USA wants them to do.
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi Arabia. But with such amateur
dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as
Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a
bloody nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue with his rapprochement
towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational, reasonable, academic even.
But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not only involve coming down very
hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which
America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?
The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality" but by "special interests" seems
.missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.
Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag.
Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle
east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.)
I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies.
So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,
"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"
Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for
him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies
never work and ours quit long ago.
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy',
the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security. Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia
population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves.
USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The
operation was by and large very successful btw.
It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world.
Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first
country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so
much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,
Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal
tendencies of Mexicans.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly
countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American continent and
the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW and may drastically alter parts
of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster, but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their kind to Anglo nations. Unlike
Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops that turned Detroit into a hellhole.
It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma, Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive purposes only. The real missiles
that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of
cold war. But millions of Negro puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so potent that even Japanese women
are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with
few blacks is turning like this, imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering the white race and spreading
the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW will be the real undoing of
the West.
Replies: @Sowhat And what grudge
is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural
resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades
long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that
bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting
her wars of conquest.
You won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their control of the FED and
US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no matter the cost.
The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them
a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.
The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser and his fashion model faux
Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't stand the sight of dead babies
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some
people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if
any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
@eah The WH should focus on
the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization
of their natural resources. I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast
and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others
to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely
argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"
-- goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses
Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend her interests just
as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and
Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they
acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity)
or they can go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture,
Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try
to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
, @bjondo Jews/Judaism
bring death, destruction, misery.
Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many areas.
Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us
Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford
and Rockefeller Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s.
You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications
and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.
@anarchyst Israel's current
"agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty
work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely argue
that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings", or in Judaism's
take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who transgress against "outsiders"--goyim
or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective
"tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who has a disagreement with an "outsider"
will always have the advantage of a judicial system which almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of the world should follow, demanding
that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands
moslems (who are guests in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that demonize and marginalize those of
us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define and defend
her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities between Islam and Judaism.
In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except
for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their European half whereby they acknowledge
that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can
go with their atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or
blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell in the ME where if they try to act
like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and the necessity to protect the USA
from terrorists attacks.
Iran is an hypothetical threat to Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.
In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities like Mashad. there are taxi
companies owned and run by women.
Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute and take care of daily chores.
It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.
Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning
to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening
question on you. How much, if any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming
there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've
spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way
of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems.
They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance
of US goals.
They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource wealth as their own personal kitty,
living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a
close ally of the US affords them protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person
but not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.
Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has
good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also
because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial
political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration
to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
@Paul Well, the real enemy of
the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters
to resisting congress members. Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure captured
by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing any of the preposterous lies
released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media. But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins, grass-root information, or whatever)
against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using terrorists as secret armies,
against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan and Iraq? What have those
two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the
real terrorists behind the scenes. Those who planned the 9/11 false flag."
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire. By the height of the Victorian
era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was
pro-Arabic/Islamic.
And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud.
So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including all the whites ruled
by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.
@Chad I fully agree that attacking
Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less,
in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been so since the state established
established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority
Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands
this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large
very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across
the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran
became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became
the new resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher
so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA
already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some serious thinking in the White House
about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap
on a suicide vest and have a go."
Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because the pro-Arabic/Islamic English
Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it
wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
1,000 Words @RobinG#UNRIG
adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out
Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted among men, deriving their
just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the
right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military financial aristocracy destroyed
the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald
Kennedy , and overthrew his government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy, left 2 million dead in a
wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by encouraging the export of industry
and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs
cost American taxpayers $13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard working
citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability. Without a productive foundation,
the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion. This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations.
Concurrently, the top 1% of the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest rate
has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as their savings cannot stay even with
the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures, and is or has recently
conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain 700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much
on military weapons of terror as the rest of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget
is spent on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared by the Founders of the United
States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever
is chosen in November 2016, operates a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely
tortured. The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic and Republican
factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population; the people are intimidated
and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress, is bought, utterly owned
and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only
a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government, with its controlling International
Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations,
including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous debts owed to that unconstitutional
regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with
a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and in their own right. The 2d. Generation
receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the 1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with
a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful government which will ensure
President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom
from want "which means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free people. We will establish a government,
hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage
of the previous totalitarian governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states with biggest problems -- Illinois,
California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions
are unfunded or underfunded.
I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force," ** whose primary activity was
to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that
did business with Iran. I recall very clearly that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in
divesting from such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.
Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What shape would the US economy,
and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded,
Against Our Better Judgment, to entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?
____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman
and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting to influence the Iran Deal.
The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off groups such as Foundation for
Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.
Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of
nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal
ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like
1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from
new challengers instead of British empire.
Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still
has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as
sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar
to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still
no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even
of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
"... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
"... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
"... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
"... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
"... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
"... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
"... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
"... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer
that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more
democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.
Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state
at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting
what America has on offer.
In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician
peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.
The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote,
delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized
from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!
Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.
South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by
Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians
are talking of separation.
By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington
Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."
Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.
To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many
may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that
in their own nations than did Jefferson in his
... ... ...
European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And
it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right.
For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds
deeply nationalist views.
European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent
that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion
of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem
but an existential crisis.
To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their
grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to
be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from
overuse.
And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled
by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in
nations created for their own kind.
Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse
America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.
And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of
1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.
Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not
be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.
Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you
know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans,
pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman
leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.
Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an
abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because
you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide
doesn't mean diversity is good.
The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their
backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade.
This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests
are now between what the west would consider conservatives:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html
Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been
false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash
liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies
and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political
ideology.
"Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.
What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied
to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to
as "two wings of the same bird of prey."
Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from
ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number
of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization
is less important than short-term profits and power.
Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed
to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who
lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.
To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush
Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim
control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed
in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.
Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House.
Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting
and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way.
Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.
And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly
backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have
pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now
are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.
Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original
meanings to be completely worthless.
The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died
for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores
had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by
bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a
society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt
government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential
Pardon or any other government favor.
Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in
the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust
at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even
the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money
at the military machine and the problems it invents.
So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must
be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for
the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.
Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.
I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the
decline.
It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under
Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk
eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.
If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation
were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).
And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the
US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans
for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free
trade".
In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich
global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their
media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.
The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism),
as shown by the last US Presidential election.
A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz,
but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for
cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum
there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's
also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a
lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism
kinda made more sense than liberalism.
With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon
for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children
Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders.
Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is
explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations,
as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as
has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.
Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition
laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have
been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies
were a long-term failure.
Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control,
as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.
Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will
destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence
is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration
and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.
But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after
Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint
chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin
in liberal interventionism.
What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and
it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing,
and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their
chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free
marketplace of ideas they lose.
Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of
nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal
ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like
1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from
new challengers instead of British empire.
Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still
has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as
sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar
to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still
no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even
of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
"... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
"... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
"... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
"... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
"... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
"... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
"... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
"... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer
that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more
democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.
Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state
at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting
what America has on offer.
In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician
peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.
The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote,
delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized
from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!
Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.
South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by
Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians
are talking of separation.
By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington
Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."
Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.
To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many
may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that
in their own nations than did Jefferson in his
... ... ...
European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And
it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right.
For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds
deeply nationalist views.
European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent
that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion
of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem
but an existential crisis.
To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their
grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to
be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from
overuse.
And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled
by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in
nations created for their own kind.
Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse
America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.
And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of
1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.
Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not
be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.
Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you
know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans,
pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman
leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.
Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an
abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because
you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide
doesn't mean diversity is good.
The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their
backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade.
This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests
are now between what the west would consider conservatives:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html
Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been
false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash
liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies
and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political
ideology.
"Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.
What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied
to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to
as "two wings of the same bird of prey."
Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from
ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number
of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization
is less important than short-term profits and power.
Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed
to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who
lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.
To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush
Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim
control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed
in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.
Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House.
Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting
and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way.
Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.
And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly
backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have
pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now
are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.
Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original
meanings to be completely worthless.
The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died
for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores
had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by
bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a
society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt
government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential
Pardon or any other government favor.
Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in
the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust
at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even
the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money
at the military machine and the problems it invents.
So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must
be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for
the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.
Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.
I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the
decline.
It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under
Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk
eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.
If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation
were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).
And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the
US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans
for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free
trade".
In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich
global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their
media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.
The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism),
as shown by the last US Presidential election.
A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz,
but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for
cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum
there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's
also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a
lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism
kinda made more sense than liberalism.
With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon
for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children
Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders.
Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is
explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations,
as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as
has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.
Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition
laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have
been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies
were a long-term failure.
Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control,
as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.
Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will
destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence
is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration
and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.
But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after
Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint
chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin
in liberal interventionism.
What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and
it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing,
and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their
chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free
marketplace of ideas they lose.
Also the concept of "Neoliberal jihad is valid, but it is better to call it Neoliberal World revolution as it was borrowed
from Trotskyism
Notable quotes:
"... Jihad vs. McWorld ..."
"... In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western neoliberalism representing McWorld. ..."
"... Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating them all, of course. ..."
"... Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. ..."
In his ground-breaking
1995 book Jihad vs. McWorld , political scientist Benjamin Barber posits that the
global conflicts of the early 21st century would be driven by two opposing but equally
undemocratic forces: neoliberal corporate globalization (which he dubbed "McWorld") and
reactionary tribal nationalisms (which he dubbed "Jihad"). Although distinct in many ways, both
of these forces, Barber persuasively argues, succeed by denying the possibilities for
democratic consensus and action, and so both must be opposed by civic engagement and activism
on a broad scale.
In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly
cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western
neoliberalism representing McWorld. Case in pitch-perfect point: the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center. Yet despite his use of the Arabic word Jihad, Barber is clear that
reactionary tribalism is a worldwide phenomenon -- and in 2016 we're seeing particularly
striking examples of that tribalism in Western nations such as Great Britain and the United
States.
Britain's vote this week in favor of leaving the European Union was driven entirely by such
reactionary tribal nationalism. The far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and its
leader Nigel Farage
led the charge in favor of Leave , as exemplified by a recent UKIP poster featuring a photo
of Syrian refugees with the caption " Breaking point: the EU has failed
us ." Farage and his allies like to point to demographic statistics about how much the UK
has changed in the last few decades , and more
exactly how the nation's white majority has been somewhat shifted over that time by the
arrival
of sizeable African and Asian immigrant communities.
It's impossible not to link the UKIP's emphases on such issues of immigration and demography
to the presidential campaign of the one prominent U.S. politician who is
cheering for the Brexit vote : presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. From his
campaign-launching speech about Mexican immigrant "criminals and rapists" to his proposal to
ban Muslim immigration and his "Make American Great Again" slogan, Trump has relied on
reactionary tribal nationalism at every stage of his campaign, and has received the
enthusiastic endorsement
of white supremacist and far-right organizations as a result. For such American tribal
nationalists, the 1965 Immigration Act is the chief bogeyman, the origin point of continuing
demographic shifts that have placed white America in a precarious position.
The only problem with that narrative is that it's entirely inaccurate. What the 1965 Act did
was reverse a
recent, exclusionary trend in American immigration law and policy, returning the nation to
the more inclusive and welcoming stance it had taken throughout the rest of its history.
Moreover, while the numbers of Americans from Latin American, Asian, and Muslim cultures have
increased in recent decades, all of those
communities have been part of o
ur national community from its origin points . Which is to say, this right-wing tribal
nationalism isn't just opposed to fundamental realities of 21st century American identity -- it
also depends on historical and national narratives that are as mythic as they are
exclusionary.
Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating
them all, of course. Although Trump rallies have featured troubling instances of violence, and
although the
murderer of British politican Jo Cox was an avowed white supremacist and Leave supporter,
the right-wing Islamic extremism of groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram rely far more
consistently and centrally on violence and terrorism in support of their worldview and goals.
Such specific contexts and nuances are important and shouldn't be elided.
Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of
this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. From ISIS to UKIP, Trump to France's
Jean-Marie Le Pen, such reactionary forces have become and remain dominant players across the
world, influencing local and international politics, economics, and culture. Benjamin Barber
called this trend two decades ago, and we would do well to read and remember his analyses -- as
well as his call for civic engagement and activism to resist these forces and fight for
democracy.
Weak article but some valuable observations: "Since these [neoliberal] figures and
institutions delivered an economics of inequality and a foreign policy of war over the last three
decades, the flight from the center is certainly understandable." ... "Secessionist movements are
gaining momentum" ... "Those who might enjoy an EU-style frisson of
schadenfreude look at Europe's ills as a case of the chickens coming home to roost. Many
European governments supported the American-led conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria
that have shattered the Greater Middle "
He does not understand that neoliberalism, and , especially, neoliberal globalization,
generates powerful splash of nationalism. So in Europe 2020th might be a repeat 1920th on a new
level. As colonialism under neoliberalism was replaced by neo-colonialism in a form of debt
slavery and enforcement of Washington consensus, what we observe is the start of blowback.
In a way nationalism remain the only viable option ion the fight against neoliberalism.
Sure, most Americans don't yet fall into irreconcilable
factions . But if you consider the transformation of Yugoslavia from vacation spot to
killing field in two short years after 1989, it's easier to imagine how a few demagogues, with
their militant supporters, could use minority passions in this country to neutralize majority
sentiments. All of which suggests why the "American carnage" that Trump invoked in his
inaugural address could turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course, it's not just Donald Trump. Globally speaking, the fledgling American president
is more symptom than cause. The United States is just now catching up to much of the rest of
the world as President Trump, from his bullying pulpit, does whatever he can to make America
first in fractiousness.
When it comes to demagogues and divisiveness, however, he has plenty of competition -- in
Europe, the Middle East, indeed all over our splintering planet.
The Multiplication of Division
The recent referendum on independence in Catalonia is a reminder that a single well-timed
blow can break apart the unitary states of Europe as if they were nothing but poorly made
piñatas. True, it's not clear how many Catalans genuinely want independence from Spain.
Those who participated in the referendum there opted overwhelmingly in favor of secession, but
only 42 percent of voters even bothered to register their preference. In addition, the
announced relocation of
531 companies to other parts of the country is a sobering reminder of the potential
economic consequences of secession. However the standoff may be resolved, though, separatist
sentiments are not about to vanish in Catalonia, particularly given the Spanish government's
heavy-handed attempts to
stop the vote.
Such splittism is potentially contagious. After Britons narrowly supported Brexiting the
European Union (EU) in a referendum in 2016, the Scots again began talking about independence
-- about, that is, separating from their southern cousins while remaining within the EU.
Catalans have a different dilemma. A declaration of independence would promptly sever the new
country from the European Union, even as the move might spread independence fever to other
groups in Spain, particularly the
Basques .
The British and the Catalans have delivered something like a prolonged one-two punch to the
EU, which until recently had been in continuous expansion: from six member states in 1957 to 28
today. Losing both Great Britain and Catalonia would mean kissing goodbye to more than
one-fifth of that organization's economic output. (According to
2016 numbers , the United Kingdom contributes 2.7 trillion euros and Catalonia 223
billion euros to the EU's 14.8 trillion euro gross domestic product.) That's the economic
equivalent of California and Florida peeling
off from the United States.
The question is whether the British and Catalan votes are the culmination of a mini-trend or
the beginning of the end. Although Brexit actually
gave a boost to the EU's popularity across its member states (including England), Brussels
continues to experience pushback from those states on immigration, financial bailouts, and the
process of decision-making.
Euroskeptic movements like the Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and the Freedom
Party in Austria have met with growing success and rising voter support, even in Euro-friendly
countries. In that continent's future lie: a possible
Czexit as a right-wing billionaire takes over as prime minister of the Czech Republic and
looks to create a governing coalition with a vehemently anti-immigrant and anti-EU partner; a
Nexit if Euroskeptic Geert Wilders succeeds in expanding his political base further in the
Netherlands; and even an Italexit as
voters there have bucked the "Brexit effect," with 57 percent now favoring a referendum on
membership.
... ... ...
Nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon. Prior to the consolidation of
the French nation in the nineteenth century, for instance, the inhabitants of the country
thought of themselves as Bretons, Provençals, Parisians, and the like. Contrary to
various founding myths, the nation didn't exist from time immemorial. It had to be conjured
into existence -- and for a reason.
The nineteenth century witnessed the first great modern shattering as people weaponized the
new concept of "nation" and companion notions of ethnic solidarity and popular sovereignty in
their struggles against empires. The revolutions of 1825 in Greece and Russia, the 1848 "spring
of nations" throughout Europe, the subsequent unification of Germany and Italy -- all were
blows against the empires presided over by the Habsburgs, the Romanovs, and the Ottoman
sultans.
World War I then dispatched those weakened empires to their graves in one huge
conflagration. After the war ended, a Middle East of heterogeneous nation-states and a new
group of independent Balkan countries emerged from the defunct Ottoman Empire. Imperial Russia
briefly fragmented into dozens of smaller states until the Soviet Union glued them back
together by force. The house of the Habsburgs fell and the Central European countries of
Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary crawled out from under the wreckage.
The second great shattering, which stretched across the middle span of the twentieth
century, accompanied the collapse of the colonial empires. The British, French, Dutch, Italian,
Portuguese, and German overseas colonies all achieved independence, and a new global map of
nation-states emerged in Africa, Asia, and to a lesser extent Latin America where
decolonization had largely occurred a century earlier.
... ... ...
Consider, for instance, the impact of economic globalization. The expansion
of trade, investment, and corporate activity has long had the effect of drawing nations
together -- into cartels like OPEC, trade communities like the European Union, and
international institutions like the International Monetary Fund. By the 1970s, however,
economic globalization was eating away at the exclusive prerogative of the nation-state to
control trade or national currencies or implement policies regulating the environment, health
and safety, and labor.
At the same time, particularly in industrialized countries like the United Kingdom and the United States ,
income inequality increased dramatically. The wealth gap is now worse
in the United States than in Iran or the Philippines. Among the top industrialized countries,
according to the
Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development, the gap between the richest 10 percent of
the population and the poorest 10 percent has grown appreciably larger.
Even among countries where inequality has dropped because of government efforts to
redistribute income, the perception has grown that globalization favors the rich, not the poor.
Fewer than half of French respondents to a 2016 YouGov poll
believed that globalization was a force for good -- even though income inequality has fallen in that country
since the 1970s. Having once reduced tensions among countries and strengthened the
nation-state, economic globalization increasingly pits peoples against one another within
countries and among countries.
Other forms of globalization have had a similar effect. Facebook and Twitter, for instance,
have connected people in unprecedented ways and provided a mechanism to mobilize against a
variety of societal ills, including dictators, trigger-happy police, and sexual harassers. But
the other side of the ability to focus organizing efforts within digital affinity groups is the
way such platforms Balkanize their users, not by ethnicity as much as by political perspective.
Information or opinions challenging one's worldview that once appeared in the newspaper or
occasionally on the evening news get weeded out in the Facebook newsfeed or the Twitter stream
of one's favorite amplifiers.
Ethnic cleansing by decree has been largely overtaken by ideological cleansing by consent.
What's the point of making the necessary compromises to function in a diverse nation-state when
you can effectively secede from society and hang with your homies in a virtual community?
Given the polarizing impact of economic and technological globalization, it's no surprise
that the politics of the middle has either disappeared or, because of a weak left, drifted
further to the right. Donald Trump is the supreme expression of this stunning loss of faith in
centrist politicians as well as such pillars of the institutional center as the mainstream
media.
Since these figures and institutions delivered an economics of inequality and a foreign
policy of war over the last three decades, the flight from the center is certainly
understandable. What's new, however, is the way Trump and other right-wing populists have
stretched this disaffection, which might ordinarily have powered a new left, to encompass what
might be called the three angers over: immigration, the expansion of civil rights, and
middle-class entitlement programs. Fueled by a revulsion for the center, Trump is not simply
interested in undermining his political opponents and America's adversaries. He has a twin
project, promoted for decades by the extreme right, of destroying the federal government and
the international community.
That's why the fourth great shattering is different. In the past, people opposed empires,
colonial powers, and the ideological requirements of the Cold War by banding together in more
compact nation-states. They were still willing to sacrifice on behalf of their unknown
compatriots -- to redistribute tax revenues or follow rules and regulations -- just on a
smaller scale.
Nationalism hasn't gone away. Those who want to preserve a unitary state (Spain) as well as
those who want out of the same state (Catalonia) appeal to similarly nationalist sentiments.
But today, the very notion of acting in solidarity with people in a territorial unit presided
over by a state is fast becoming passé. Citizens are in flight from taxes,
multiculturalism, public education, and even the guarantee of basic human rights for all. The
fourth great shattering seems to be affecting the very bonds that constitute the nation-state,
any nation-state, no matter how big or small.
Nationalism was used and will be used by Western powers to weaken opponents as "enhanced" divide
and conquer strategy. That's given. an interesting nuance is that several nationalist
movement (for example in Ukraine and Baltic countries) de-facto promote enlargement of
neoliberal empire led by the USA, which, in reality is the bitter enemy of any national
self-determination and will support them only until such support weakened their geopolitical
adversaries. The key political players in this empire are not nations but transnational
corporations. Such a paradox, that several nationalist movement fail to understand.
An interesting nuance with Crimea and Ukraine was that at the moment of Crimea referendum for
independence, Provisional government of Yatsenyuk-Turchinov in Kiev was form international legal
norms standpoint an illegitimate junta, as Yanukovich was still alive (despite attempts to kill him)
and did not pass the presidential power to Provisional government. The only claim to
legitimacy of Provisional government was the fact that it was supported by the USA and EU.
Putin refused to play this card, but in general he could announce Ukrainian government in
exile and occupy all Eastern and Southern Ukraine under the pretext of restoring legitimate.
there were two problems with this solution: Yanukovich was probably hated by most population for
corruption (which actually did not exceed the levels achieved under Poroshenko; so it is unclear
what Ukraine people gained here) and that might create problems with a few cities
with some sizable "nationalists" population (Dnepropetrovsk is one), but that's about it. In such
situation Western Ukraine and announce that it is legitimate Ukraine, with Western Ukraine simply
cut from the rest.
As new regime now dropped the standard of living of population to African level of
poverty, and population started to reject Western Ukrainian nationalism as a path to nowhere,
this scenario might still possible in case some major crisis in Kiev. The key issue here is
that new separate republic should be independent from both Russia and Western Ukraine. Of
couse the USA will try their best to block this scenario.
Notable quotes:
"... 'self-determination' ..."
"... Many of the prime movers of empire-building adopted the tactics of dividing and conquering adversaries – under the liberal pretext of promoting 'self-determination', ..."
"... 'central' ..."
"... 'national unity' ..."
"... 'self-determination' ..."
"... 'uneven and combined development' ..."
"... 'Nationalism', ..."
"... 'nationalism' ..."
"... 'nationalist' ..."
"... 'divide and conquer', ..."
"... 'regime change' ..."
"... In the case of Iraq in the 1990's, Kurds were sponsored, armed, funded and defended by the US and Israel in order to weaken and divide the secular-nationalist Iraqi republic. Kurds, again with US support, have organized regional conflicts in Turkey and more recently in Syria, in order to defeat the independent government of Bashar Assad. Leftist Kurds cynically describe their imperial allies, including the Israelis, as 'progressive colonialists'. ..."
"... In brief, the Kurds act as surrogates for the US and Israel: They provide mercenaries, access to military bases, listening and spy posts and resources in their newly ' liberated ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the US hailed the cause of self-determination when it engineered a violent coup to oust an elected regime, whose crime was its commitment to independence from NATO. The coup was openly funded by the US, which financed and trained fascist thugs committed to the expulsion or repression of ethnic Russian speakers, especially in the eastern Donbas region and Crimea with the aim of placing NATO bases on Russia's border. ..."
"... 'self-determination'. ..."
"... 'self-determination' ..."
"... 'We bombed the wrong side'. ..."
"... The US imperialist state, like all aspiring empire-builders, represses or supports movements for self-determination according to their class and imperial interests. To be clear: Self-determination is a class-defined issue; it is not a general moral-legal principle. ..."
"... Imperialism's selective use and abuse of self-determination is not a case of 'hypocrisy' or 'double standards', as their left-liberal supporters complain. Washington applies a single standard: Does this movement advance Empire by securing and buttressing vassal regimes and their supporters? The language of 'liberation' ..."
"... For decades, Eastern European, Balkan and Baltic countries were encouraged to struggle for 'self-determination' against the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, only to later embrace the yoke of vassalage under the command of NATO, the EU and Washington. In many cases their sovereignty and standard of living collapsed followed by ethnic cleansing, including the mass expulsion of Serbs from Croatia and Kosovo and the cultural-linguistic repression of ethnic Russians in Latvia and Ukraine. ..."
"... Beyond the immediate conflicts, many independent regimes, in turn, become oppressive rulers of their own minorities and native critics. 'Self-determination' ad infinitum can ultimately lead to schizoid individuals – extolling their mythical people while oppressing others. Today, Zionism is the ultimate parody of 'self-determination'. Newly independent countries and rulers frequently deny minorities of their own right to self-determination – especially those who sided with the previous power. ..."
"... As for "kleptocracy", that term would seem to describe both the Russian government and the US government, and its vast wasteful & crooked complex of "connected" military contractors, medical-insurance and pharma corporations, big union leadership, and the revolving door of think tanks and "media" outlets. ..."
Since World War II most of the world's conflicts have revolved around struggles for independence
against Western and Japanese colonial/imperial regimes
Following formal independence, a new type of imperial domination was imposed – neo-colonial regimes,
in which the US and its European allies imposed vassal rulers acting as proxies for economic exploitation.
With the rise of US unipolar global domination, following the demise of the USSR (1990), the West
established hegemony over the East European states. Some were subject to fragmentation and sub-divided
into new NATO dominated statelets.
The quest for a unipolar empire set in motion a series of wars and ethnic conflicts in the Middle
East, Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Baltic States, North Africa, Asia and Western Europe – leading
to ethnic cleansing and the global mass refugee crises.
The break-up of nation states spread across the globe as the rhetoric and politics of 'self-determination'
replaced the class struggle as the flagship for social justice and political freedom.
Many of the prime movers of empire-building adopted the tactics of dividing and conquering adversaries
– under the liberal pretext of promoting 'self-determination', without clarifying who and
what the 'self' represented and who really benefited
Sectional, regional, cultural and ethnic identities served to polarize struggles. In contrast
'central' regimes fought to retain 'national unity' in order to repress regional
revolts.
The purpose of this paper is to analyze and discuss the national and international forces behind
the slogans of 'self-determination' and the larger international and regional consequences.
Basic Concepts: Ambiguities and Clarification
One of the striking aspects of the process of globalization and national development is 'uneven
and combined development' (ICD). This takes several forms – uneven development between regions,
within and between countries, and usually both.
Imperial countries concentrate industries, commerce and banking while colonized/neo-colonized
countries are left with export-linked, resource-based enclaves and low-wage assembly plants. Frequently,
the capital cities of colonized and de-colonized countries concentrate and centralize political power,
wealth, infrastructure, transport and finance while their provinces are reduced to providing raw
material and cheap labor by subject people. Infrequently political power and administration – including
the military, police and tax collection agencies – are concentrated in economically un-productive
central cities, while the wealth-producing, but politically weaker regions, are economically exploited,
marginalized and depleted.
Combined and uneven development on international and national levels has led to class, anti-imperialist
and regional struggles. Where class -based struggles have been weakened, nationalist and ethnic leaders
and movements assume political leadership.
'Nationalism', however, has two diametrically opposing faces: In one version Western
backed regional movements work to degrade anti-imperialist regimes in order to subordinate the entire
nation to the dictates of an imperial power. In a different context, broad-based secular nationalists
struggle to gain political independence by defeating imperial forces and their local surrogates,
who are often ethnic or religious minority rent-collecting overlords.
Imperial states have always had a clear understanding of the nature of the different kinds of
'nationalism' and which serve their interests. Imperial states support regional and/or
'nationalist' regimes and movements that will undermine anti-imperial movements, regimes
and regions. They always oppose 'nationalist' movements with strong working class leadership.
Historical Experience
Imperial Perfidious Albion, the United Kingdom, slaughtered and starved millions of people who
resisted its rule in Asia (India, Burma, Malaya and China), Africa (South Africa, Kenya, Nigeria,
etc.) and Europe (Ireland).
At the same time, British imperialists promoted regional conflicts arming Muslims to fight Hindus,
Sikhs to fight Muslims, Gurkas to oppress Malays and create various warring religious, ethnic and
linguistic groups throughout the Indian subcontinent, Burma and Malaya. Likewise the UK promoted
conflicts among religious, secular nationalist and conservative groups throughout the Middle East.
The imperial powers naturally operate through the strategy of 'divide and conquer', labeling
their adversaries as 'backward' and 'authoritarian' while praising their surrogates as 'freedom fighters'
which they claim are 'in transition to Western democratic values'.
However, the strategic issue is how imperial states define the kind of self-determination to support
or repress and when to change their policies: Today's allies are dubbed 'democrats' in the Western
press and tomorrow they can be re-assigned the role of 'freedom's enemies' and 'authoritarian', if
they act against imperial interests.
The Two Faces of Self-Determination
In contrast to the imperial practice of shifting policies toward dominant regimes and separatist
movements, most of the 'left' broadly support all movements for self-determination and label all
opponents as 'oppressors'.
As a result the left and the imperialist regimes may end up on the same side in a massive
'regime change' campaign!
The libertarian left cover-up their own fake 'idealism' by labeling the imperial powers as 'hypocrites'
and using a 'double-standard'. This is a laughable accusation, since the guiding principle behind
an imperial decision to support or reject 'self-determination' is based on class and imperial interests.
In other words, when 'self-determination' benefits the empire, it receives full support. There are
no abstract historical, moral precepts, devoid of class and imperial content determining policy.
Case Studies: The Myths of the "Stateless Kurds" and "Ukraine's Liberation"
In the Twentieth Century, the Kurdish citizens of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Iran have made claims
of 'self-determination' and fought against established nation-states in the name of 'ethnic liberation'.
But who defines the real 'self' to be liberated?
In the case of Iraq in the 1990's, Kurds were sponsored, armed, funded and defended by the
US and Israel in order to weaken and divide the secular-nationalist Iraqi republic. Kurds, again
with US support, have organized regional conflicts in Turkey and more recently in Syria, in order
to defeat the independent government of Bashar Assad. Leftist Kurds cynically describe their imperial
allies, including the Israelis, as 'progressive colonialists'.
In brief, the Kurds act as surrogates for the US and Israel: They provide mercenaries, access
to military bases, listening and spy posts and resources in their newly ' liberated (and
ethnically cleansed) country ', to bolster US imperialism, which 'their warlord leaders'
have chosen as the dominant 'partner'. Is their struggle one of national liberation or mercenary
puppetry in the service of empire against sovereign nations resisting imperial and Zionist control?
In the Ukraine, the US hailed the cause of self-determination when it engineered a violent
coup to oust an elected regime, whose crime was its commitment to independence from NATO. The coup
was openly funded by the US, which financed and trained fascist thugs committed to the expulsion
or repression of ethnic Russian speakers, especially in the eastern Donbas region and Crimea with
the aim of placing NATO bases on Russia's border.
The overwhelmingly Russian-speaking people of Crimea opposed the coup and exercised their right
to self-determination by voting to rejoin Russia. Likewise the industrialized Donbas region of eastern
Ukraine declared its autonomy, opposing the oppressive and grossly corrupt US installed regime in
Kiev.
The violent US-EU sponsored coup in Kiev was a blatant form of imperial annexation, while the
peaceful vote in Crimea and the militant Eastern Ukraine (Donbas) exercise of self-determination
presented a progressive response by anti-imperialist forces. Thwarted in its project to turn Eastern
Ukraine and Crimea into NATO launching pads for aggression against Moscow, US/EU condemned this response
as 'Russian colonization'.
Tibet and the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province
Separatist groups have been actively engaged in armed uprisings for many decades in Tibet and
Xinjiang, Western China. While they claimed to be 'independent', their feudal warlords have long
been hostile to the positive advances of the Chinese revolution (including the abolition of slavery
in Tibet, as well as opium trade and bride price and the extension of universal education in feudal
Moslem regions). They collaborated with the US and expansionist India (where the Dalai Lama established
his palace and camps of armed supporters, trained and armed by Western imperial agencies).
While the West advertises the Dalai Lama as a peace-loving holy man giving platitudinous speeches
to adoring crowds, this saint never condemned the genocidal US wars against fellow Buddhists in Vietnam,
Korea or elsewhere.
The well-funded Western pro-Tibet and pro-Uighur celebrity/victim circuit has ignored the links
between the Dalai Lama and his imperial patrons, which ultimately defines the operational meaning
of 'self-determination'.
Kosova: Self-Determination by Terrorist White Slavers
After World War II, Yugoslavia, liberated from its vicious Nazi collaborators by the Communist
partisans, embarked on becoming a peaceful self-managed, multi-ethnic socialist society. But in the
1990's, the overt military intervention of NATO forces deliberately engineered the violent break-up
of Yugoslavia into 'independent' statelets. The experiment of a multiethnic socialist state in Europe
was destroyed. After massive ethnic cleansing of its non-Albanian populations, a new NATO puppet-state,
Kosova, came under the control of an internationally recognized terrorist, white slaver, narco-US
vassal Hashim Thaci and his Kosovo Liberation Army thugs.
With the massive US bombing campaign against Belgrade and other Yugoslav cities and with NATO
military support, Kosova achieved 'self-determination' – as a huge land-based US aircraft
carrier and 'R&R' center (Camp Bondsteel) with discounts at KLA-run brothels for the GI's. Because
Kosova serves as a mercenary outpost run by vassal thugs, Washington and Brussels endorsed its claims
as a 'liberated independent state'. It has also served as an international discount depot for the
gruesome trade in human organs for transplant. Viewing the ethnically cleansed mafia state of Kosovo,
then NATO commander, Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie, later admitted: 'We bombed the wrong side'.
The break-up of Yugoslavia, led to multiple separatist mini-states, each of which fell in line
with EU-economic domination and US military control. In Western jargon this was dubbed 'democratic
self-determination' – the ugly reality is that of massive ethnic cleansing, impoverishment and criminality.
Catalunya's Independence and Neo-Franco Spain
Spain is under the rule of a regime descended from the fascist dictator Francisco Franco. President
Mariano Rajoy and his misnamed 'Popular Party' (PP) and his royal sidekick, King Felipe VI, have
engaged in massive corruption scandals, money laundering and fraudulent multi-million euro public–private
building contracts. Rajoy's neo-liberal policies significantly contributed to a financial crash which
resulting in a 30% unemployment rate and an austerity program stripping Spanish workers of their
collective bargaining power.
In the face of Catalunya's pursuit of self-determination via free and democratic elections, Rajoy
ordered a police and military invasion, seizing ballots, breaking heads and asserting total control.
The Catalans' peaceful exercise of self-determination via free elections, independent of imperial
manipulation, was rejected by both the EU and Washington as 'unlawful'– for disobeying Rajoy and
his neo-Franco legions.
Self-Determination for Palestine and US Backed Israeli Colonization and Subjugation
For a half-century, Washington has supported brutal Israeli occupation and colonization of the
Palestinian 'West Bank'. The US consistently denies self-determination for the people of Palestine
and its millions of displaced refugees. Washington arms and finances Israeli expansion through the
violent seizure of Palestinian territory and resources as well as the starvation, incarceration,
torture and assassination of Palestinians for the crime of asserting their right of self-determination.
The overwhelming majority of US Congressional officials and Presidents, past and present, slavishly
take their cues from the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish (Israeli) Organization who add billions
to the coffers of colonial Tel Aviv. Israel and its Zionist surrogates inside the US government manipulate
the US into disastrous wars in the Middle East against the self-determination of independent Arab
and Muslim nations.
Saudi Arabia: Enemy of Yemen's Self-Determination
Saudi Arabia's despotic regime has fought against self-determination in the Gulf States and Yemen.
The Saudis, backed by US arms and advisers, have dispossessed millions of Yemeni civilians and killed
thousands in a merciless bombing campaign. Over the past decade the Saudis have bombed and blockaded
Yemen, destroying its infrastructure, causing a massive plague of cholera and threatening starvation
for millions of children in an effort to defeat the Houthi-led Yemeni liberation movement.
The US and UK have provided over a hundred billion dollars in arms sales and give logistical support,
including bombing coordinates to the Saudi tyrants while blocking any UN-sponsored diplomatic action
to relieve the immense suffering. In this grotesque war crime, Washington and Israel are the Saudi
Monarchy's closest associates in denying self-determination to the oppressed people of Yemen who
have long resisted Saudi control.
Conclusion
The US imperialist state, like all aspiring empire-builders, represses or supports movements
for self-determination according to their class and imperial interests. To be clear: Self-determination
is a class-defined issue; it is not a general moral-legal principle.
Imperialism's selective use and abuse of self-determination is not a case of 'hypocrisy' or
'double standards', as their left-liberal supporters complain. Washington applies a single standard:
Does this movement advance Empire by securing and buttressing vassal regimes and their supporters?
The language of 'liberation' is a mere gloss to secure the allegiance of vassals opposed
to independent states.
For decades, Eastern European, Balkan and Baltic countries were encouraged to struggle for
'self-determination' against the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact, only to later embrace the yoke of vassalage
under the command of NATO, the EU and Washington. In many cases their sovereignty and standard of
living collapsed followed by ethnic cleansing, including the mass expulsion of Serbs from Croatia
and Kosovo and the cultural-linguistic repression of ethnic Russians in Latvia and Ukraine.
The Kurdish 'freedom fighters', followed ethnic warlords who were funded by the US and Israel,
and took over town, cities, oil resources and territory to serve as imperial military bases against
the sovereign governments of Iraq, Iran and Syria.
In this context, the Kurdish warlords and oligarchs are loyal vassals and an integral component
of the long-standing US-Israeli policy aimed at dividing and weakening independent allies of Palestine,
Yemen and genuine liberation movements.
Clearly the criteria for deciding whose claims of self-determination are valid require identifying
whether class and anti-imperialist interests are advanced.
Beyond the immediate conflicts, many independent regimes, in turn, become oppressive rulers
of their own minorities and native critics. 'Self-determination' ad infinitum can ultimately lead
to schizoid individuals – extolling their mythical people while oppressing others. Today, Zionism
is the ultimate parody of 'self-determination'. Newly independent countries and rulers frequently
deny minorities of their own right to self-determination – especially those who sided with the previous
power.
To the extent that the 'national' struggle is limited to political independence it can lead to
a mere 'changing of the guard' – maintaining oppressive class exploitation and introducing new forms
of cultural-ethnic and gender oppression.
In some instances the new forms of class exploitation may even surpass their previous conditions
under imperial vassalage. Kurds, Tibetans, fascist Ukrainian nationalists, Uighurs and other so-called
freedom fighters turn out to be military Sepoys for aggressive US incursion against independent China,
Iran and Russia. Leftist backers of these dubious 'liberation movements' tag along behind the empire.
Capitalist 'globalization' is today's greatest enemy to authentic self-determination. Imperial
globalization supports fragmented statelets – all the better to convert them into new vassals with
their own flag and anthem!
I wrote months ago that the U.S, the EU, the Kiev provisional government and Russia should have
met and then proposed a solution to Ukraine. They could have suggested a poll of Ukrainian citizens
as to whether to split the country into East and West Ukrainian nations along the Dnieper, with
built in provisions for free movement of people, finance and goods between the two countries for
a specified period in order to ameliorate difficulties of transition. This would have maintained
both countries' access to the Black Sea and eliminated the cause of Russia's occupation of Crimea,
as well avoiding the subsequent trouble and bloodshed tearing the country apart and the increasing
international tension it's causing.
The Kiev government needs increased connection with the West, not the problem of governing
half a country's worth of Russophiles in the east. There would be no great threat to the West
by having an Eastern Ukraine bordering the Dnieper – the longer the East acceded to the mindset
and demands of the kleptocracy that is Russia, especially as greener forms of energy take over,
the worse it would look to both itself and others in comparison to West Ukraine, which would be
well rid of it, and accelerating its own progress aided by its connections with the West.
But this scenario would require political leadership instead of the standard bumbling and gamesmanship
in response to each daily event.
It would seem that the average Ukrainian would tend to benefit from increasing trade with both
Russia and the Western countries. Why mention only that "[t]he Kiev government needs increased
connection with the West" without mentioning the benefit of trade with the Russian Federation?
As for "kleptocracy", that term would seem to describe both the Russian government and
the US government, and its vast wasteful & crooked complex of "connected" military contractors,
medical-insurance and pharma corporations, big union leadership, and the revolving door of think
tanks and "media" outlets.
"Self-determination is a class-defined issue; it is not a general moral-legal principle."
-- Petras
That seems clear enough on its face, but then, in his conclusion, Petras introduces "authenticity"
into the mix:
Capitalist 'globalization' is today's greatest enemy to authentic self-determination.
So it appears that we are right back in the moral-legal realm after all, under the heading
of "authenticity." Or, perhaps, under the mind-numbing category of "class-defined issues"?
In effect, Petras does indeed apply a moral-legal principle: the principle of "authenticity."
Under this pretence, Petras essentially equates Kosovo and Tibet, going so far as to conflate
the Dalai Lama with whatever "warlords" perhaps exist anywhere in the western regions claimed
by the PRC.
Not only is Petras' BS an instance of guilt by association, the association exists nowhere
but in Petras' rhetoric -- certainly not any place on the ground in Asia. Ah, but this is where
Petras' arch-villain comes in handy for his argument! Who knows whether there may be CIA operatives
skulking around, spreading USD in places like Samarkand, setting up arms deals and the like? (Clearly,
the Dalai Lams is involved in that, eh?) Thus Petras would pull off a trick of shifting the burden
of proof: since the Dalai Lama never involved himself in Vietnam or Korea, then clearly the burden
of proof is on those like myself, who question Petras' grand narrative, to show that the Dalai
Lama is anything other than a stooge of the arch-villain USA.
Petras expects us to agree, categorically, that there is nothing authentic about "free Tibet"
or about objections that the PRC's occupation of Tibet is an instance of genocide, just as surely
as was the campaign of the Japanese Empire to annex vast regions of China in WW2. But the truth
is that the world doesn't know that the "free Tibet" meme is in any way inauthentic actually we
recognize something authentic about it! Perhaps we can condemn the occupation of Palestine by
Israel, but to also condemn the occupation of Tibet by China? No, no, no nothing "authentic" about
Tibetans' desire for freedom from Chinese imperialism?
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
Notable quotes:
"... casus belli ..."
"... To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history. ..."
"... That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action. Several high level Jewish officials, including Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer" or guardian in the U.S. Senate. ..."
"... The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. ..."
"... That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger. ..."
"... I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization", "development", blah-blah. ..."
"... I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation -- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby). ..."
"... Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been. ..."
"... Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though! ..."
"... And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out in the open. ..."
"... All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's 'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War. ..."
"... The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government "apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down. ..."
"... The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated. ..."
"... WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing heresy. ..."
"... You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.' ..."
"... The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby, but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence of Western man. ..."
"... That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed, you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too. ..."
"... Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent against war either .) ..."
One month ago, I initiated here at Unz.com a discussion of the role of American Jews
in the crafting of United States foreign policy. I observed that a politically powerful and well-funded
cabal consisting of both Jewish individuals and organizations has been effective at engaging the
U.S. in a series of wars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests. This misdirection of policy has not taken place because
of some misguided belief that Israeli and U.S. national security interests are identical, which is
a canard that is frequently floated in the mainstream media. It is instead a deliberate program that
studiously misrepresents facts-on-the ground relating to Israel and its neighbors and creates
casus belli involving the United States even when no threat to American vital interests exists.
It punishes critics by damaging both their careers and reputations while its cynical manipulation
of the media and gross corruption of the national political process has already produced the disastrous
war against Iraq, the destruction of Libya and the ongoing chaos in Syria. It now threatens to initiate
a catastrophic war with Iran.
To be sure, my observations are neither new nor unique. Former Congressmen Paul Findley indicted
the careful crafting of a pro-Israel narrative by American Jews in his seminal book
They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby , written in 1989. Professors
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's groundbreaking book
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy said much the same thing nine years ago and discussions
of Jewish power do emerge occasionally, even in the mainstream media. In the Jewish media Jewish
power is openly discussed and is generally applauded as a well-deserved reward bestowed both by God
and by mankind due to the significant accomplishments attributed to Jews throughout history.
There is undeniably a complicated web of relationships and networks that define Israel's friends.
The expression "Israel Lobby" itself has considerable currency, so much so that the expression "The
Lobby" is widely used and understood to represent the most powerful foreign policy advocacy group
in Washington without needing to include the "Israel" part. That the monstrous Benjamin Netanyahu
receives 26 standing ovations from Congress and a wealthy Israel has a guaranteed income from the
U.S. Treasury derives directly from the power and money of an easily identifiable cluster of groups
and oligarchs – Paul Singer, Sheldon Adelson, Bernard Marcus, Haim Saban – who in turn fund a plethora
of foundations and institutes whose principal function is to keep the cash and political support
flowing in Israel's direction. No American national interest, apart from the completely phony contention
that Israel is some kind of valuable ally, would justify the taxpayers' largesse. In reality, Israel
is a liability to the United States and always has been.
And I do understand at the same time that a clear majority of American Jews, leaning strongly
towards the liberal side of the political spectrum, are supportive of the nuclear agreement with
Iran and do not favor a new Middle Eastern war involving that country. I also believe that many American
Jews are likely appalled by Israeli behavior, but, unfortunately, there is a tendency on their part
to look the other way and neither protest such actions nor support groups like Jewish Voice for Peace
that are themselves openly critical of Israel. This de facto gives Israel a free pass and
validates its assertion that it represents all Jews since no one important in the diaspora community
apart from minority groups which can safely be ignored is pushing back against that claim.
That many groups and well-positioned individuals work hand-in-hand with the Israeli government
to advance Israeli interests should not be in dispute after all these years of watching it in action.
Several high level Jewish officials, including
Richard Perle , associated with the George W. Bush Pentagon, had
questionable relationships with Israeli Embassy officials and were only able to receive security
clearances after political pressure was applied to "godfather" approvals for them. Former Congressman
Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, referred to as Israel's Congressman and
Senator, while current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has described himself as Israel's "shomer"
or
guardian in the U.S. Senate.
A recent regulatory decision from the United Kingdom relates to a bit of investigative journalism
that sought to reveal precisely how the promotion of Israel by some local diaspora Jews operates,
to include how critics are targeted and criticized as well as what is done to destroy their careers
and reputations.
Last year, al-Jazeera Media Network used an
undercover reporter to infiltrate some U.K. pro-Israel groups that were working closely with
the Israeli Embassy to counter criticisms coming from British citizens regarding the treatment of
the Palestinians. In particular, the Embassy and its friends were seeking to counter the growing
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which has become increasingly effective in Europe.
The four-part documentary
released late in 2016 that al-Jazeera produced is well worth watching as it consists mostly of secretly
filmed meetings and discussions.
The documentary reveals that local Jewish groups, particularly at universities and within
the political parties, do indeed work closely with the Israeli Embassy to promote policies supported
by the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also confirms that tagging someone
as an anti-Semite has become the principal offensive weapon used to stifle any discussion, particularly
in a country like Britain which embraces concepts like the criminalization of "hate speech." At one
point, two British Jews discussed whether "being made to feel uncomfortable" by people asking what
Israel intends to do with the Palestinians is anti-Semitic. They agreed that it might be.
The documentary also describes how the Embassy and local groups working together targeted government
officials who were not considered to be friendly to Israel to "be taken down," removed from office
or otherwise discredited. One government official in particular who was to be attacked was Foreign
Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan.
Britain, unlike the U.S., has a powerful
regulatory agency that oversees communications, to include the media. It is referred to as Ofcom.
When the al-Jazeera documentary was broadcast, Israeli Embassy political officer Shai Masot, who
reportedly was a Ministry of Strategic Affairs official working under cover, was forced to resign
and the Israeli Ambassador offered an apology. Masot was filmed discussing British politicians who
might be "taken down" before speaking with a government official who plotted a "a little scandal"
to bring about the downfall of Duncan. Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who is the first head of
a political party in Britain to express pro-Palestinian views, had called for an investigation of
Masot after the recording of the "take down" demand relating to Duncan was revealed. Several Jewish
groups (the Jewish Labour Movement, the Union of Jewish Students and We Believe in Israel) then counterattacked
with a complaint that the documentary had violated British broadcast regulations, including the specific
charge that the undercover investigation was anti-Semitic in nature.
On October 9 th , Ofcom ruled in favor of al-Jazeera, stating that its investigation
had done nothing improper, but it should be noted that the media outlet had to jump through numerous
hoops to arrive at the successful conclusion. It had to turn over all its raw footage and communications
to the investigators, undergoing what one source described as an "editorial colonoscopy," to prove
that its documentary was "factually accurate" and that it had not "unfairly edited" or "with bias"
prepared its story. One of plaintiffs, who had called for critics of Israel to "die in a hole" and
had personally offered to "take down" a Labour Party official, responded bitterly. She
said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy of any
Jewish person involved in public life."
The United States does not yet have a government agency to regulate news stories, though that
may be coming, but the British tale has an interesting post script. Al-Jazeera also had a
second undercover reporter inserted in the Israel Lobby in the United States, apparently a British
intern named James Anthony Kleinfeld, who had volunteered his services to The Israel Project, which
is involved in promoting Israel's global image. He also had contact with at least ten other Jewish
organizations and with officials at the Israeli Embassy,
Now that the British account of "The Lobby" has cleared a regulatory hurdle the American version
will reportedly soon be released. Al-Jazeera's head of investigative reporting Clayton Swisher commented
"With this U.K. verdict and vindication past us, we can soon reveal how the Israel lobby in America
works through the eyes of an undercover reporter. I hear the U.S. is having problems with foreign
interference these days, so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in
America as seriously as the British did, unless of course Israel is somehow off limits from that
debate."
Americans who follow such matters already know that groups like the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee (AIPAC) swarm over Capitol Hill and have accomplices in nearly every media outlet. Back
in 2005-6 AIPAC Officials Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman were actually tried under the Espionage
Act of 1918 in a case involving obtaining classified intelligence from government official Lawrence
Franklin to pass on to the Israeli Embassy. Rosen had once boasted that, representing AIPAC and Israel,
he could get the signatures of 70 senators on a napkin agreeing to anything if he sought to do so.
The charges against the two men were, unfortunately,
eventually dropped "because court rulings had made the case unwinnable and the trial would disclose
classified information."
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement of Mitt
Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less carried out
in the open. And ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
and, most recently, Cynthia McKinney, what happens to your career when you appear to be critical
of Israel. And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a
cabal of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Philip Giraldi is a rare American treasure. A voice of integrity and character in a sea of moral
cowardice and corruption. If there is any hope for this nation, it will be due specifically to
the integrity of men like Mr. Giraldi to keep speaking truth to power.
When the Jewish Messiah comes, all of us goyim (Black, White, Yellow, brown or Red) will be living
like today's Palestinians. Our slave descendant will be scurrying around in their ghettos afraid
of the Greater Israeli Army military andriod drones in the sky.
But if I was a Westerner, I would support Israel any day. Because if the Israeli state were
to be ever dismantled, all of them Israelis would go to the West. Why would you want that?
My admittedly subjective impression is that your UR reports are becoming more open/unbounded
after your release from the constraints of the American Conservative . In other word, you're
now being enabled to let it all hang out. In my book that's all to the good.
Of course your work and those of the other UR writers are enabled by the beneficence
of its patron, Ron!
There may be limits to their power in Britain. Jeremy Corbyn is hated by them, and stories are
regularly run in the MSM, in Britain and also (of course!) in the New York Times claiming
that under Corbyn Labour is a haven of anti-Semitism. Corbyn actually gained millions of votes
in the last election. Perhaps they will nail him somewhere down the road but they have failed
so far.
" . . . [W]ars in the Middle East and North Africa that benefit only Israel and are, in
fact, damaging to actual American interests (emphases mine).
That's the money shot, Phil. I'm okay with Jews, okay with the existence of Israel, all
that, but I think we were massively had by Iraq II. When Valerie Plame spoke in my area, she talked
disgustedly about a plan to establish American military power throughout the Middle East. She
used the euphemism "neocons" for the plan's authors, and seemed about to burst with anger.
I looked up the plan, but don't recall the catch phrase for it.
I recall the basic idea was for the U. S. to do Israel's dirty work at U. S. expense and
without a U. S. benefit, and I think there was the usual "God talk" cover in it about "democratization",
"development", blah-blah.
I remain skeptical that the Al-Jazeera undercover story in the US will be able to be viewed. I
anticipate a hoard of Israel-firster congress critters to crawl out from under their respective
rocks and deem Al-Jazeera to be antisemitic and call for it being banned as a foreign propaganda
apparatus, much as is being done with RT and Sputnik.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch with
sorrow as this great nation crumbles under the might of Jewish power – impotent in our ability
to arrest its fall.
ask Congressmen like Paul Findley, Pete McCloskey, William Fulbright, Charles Percy
I'd also add Adlai E. Stevenson III and John Glenn. Stevenson was crucial in getting compensation
-- paltry sum though it was– payed to "Liberty" families for their loss. The Israelis had been
holding out. Something for which the Il Senator was never forgiven (especially by The Lobby).
Netanyahu should not have been allowed to address the joint session. No foreign leader
should be speaking in opposition to any sitting President (in this case Obama). It only
showed the power of "The Lobby." Netanyahu who knew that Iran didn't have the weapons the Bush
Adm. had claimed, was treated like a trusted ally. He shouldn't have been.
And the point is that while Israel calls the shots in terms of what it wants, it is a cabal
of diaspora American Jews who actually pull the trigger. With that in mind, it will be very
interesting to watch the al-Jazeera documentary on The Lobby in America.
Maybe, instead of Russia-Gate, we have is Israel-Gate. This time Netanyahu discreetly interfering
in US Presidential Election ..Chilling thought though!
And Israeli interference in U.S. government and elections is also a given. Endorsement
of Mitt Romney in the 2012 presidential election by the Netanyahu government was more-or-less
carried out in the open.
London's Mayor, Sadiq Khan, actually went to America to campaign for Hillary. Numerous European
leaders endorsed her, while practically all denounced Trump. Exactly the same can be said of the
Muslim world, only more so.
The problem with criticism of Israel is not that it lacks basis in truth. It is that it is
removed from the context of the rest of the world. Israel's actions do not make Israel an outlier.
Israel fits very much within the norm. Even with the recording this is the case.
All embassies try to further their national interest through political machinations and
all people in politics tend to use hyperbolic language to describe what they are doing. I don't
know if your shock is just for show or you are just a bit dim. The same applies to Buzzfeed's
'expose' of Bannon and the gasps the article let out at his use of terms like #War.
Unfortunately, contemporary idiots of all stripes seem to specialise in removing context so
that they can further their specious arguments.
"so I see no reason why the U.S. establishment won't take our findings in America as seriously
as the British did"
Sadly, Clayton Swisher is probably correct that the US establishment will take their findings
in America just as "seriously" as the British media and political establishment, and government,
did.
The British government attitude was that everything was fine because the Israeli government
"apologised" and the "rogue individual" responsible was taken out of the country, and the British
media mostly ignored the story after an initial brief scandal. Indeed the main substantive response
was the Ofcom fishing expedition against Al Jazeera looking for ways to use the disclosure of
these uncomfortable truths as a pretext for shutting that company's operations down.
But there's no "undue influence" or bias involved, and if you say there might be then you are
an anti-Semite and a hater.
The supreme irony behind all this is that Trump has been prevented by his own personal
and family/adviser bias from using the one certain way of removing all the laughably vague "Russian
influence" nonsense that has been used against him so persistently. All he had to do was to, at
every opportunity, tie criticism and investigation of Russian "influence" to criticism and investigation
of Israel Lobby influence under the general rubric of "foreign influence", and almost all of the
high level backing for the charges would in due course have quietly evaporated.
And in this rare company I would place former congressman, Ron Paul.
Here's an excerpt from his latest article, President Trump Beats War Drums for Iran
:
Let's be clear here: President Trump did not just announce that he was "de-certifying" Iran's
compliance with the nuclear deal. He announced that Iran was from now on going to be in the
bullseye of the US military. Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another Middle
East war?
This state of affairs, where the Zionist tail wags -- thrashes -- the US dog is bizarre to the
point of laughter. Absent familiarity with the facts, who could believe it all? Is there a historical
parallel ? I can't think of one that approaches the sheer profundity of the toxic embrace the
Zionists have cover the US & west generally.
So how is using money we give them as foreign aid (it's fungible by any definition of the US Treasury
and Justice Department) to lobby our legislators not a form of money laundering? Somebody ought
to tell Mnuchin to get FINCEN on this yeah, I know, it sounded naive as I typed it. FINCEN is
only there to harass little people like you and me.
I fear that we are long past the point of being redeemed as a nation. We can only watch
with sorrow as this great nation crumbles
We are long past that point.
I myself am watching with joy, because this supposedly "great nation" was corrupt to the core
from its inception.
For evidence, all one has to do is read the arguments of the anti-federalists who opposed the
ratification of the constitution* such as Patrick Henry, Robert Yates and Luther Martin. Their
predictions about the results have come true. Even the labels, "federalist" and "anti-federalist"
are misleading and no doubt intentionally so.
Those who spoke out against the formation of the federal reserve bank* scheme were also correct.
The only thing great about the US in a moral sense are the high sounding pretenses upon
which it was built. As a nation we have never adhered to them.
*Please note that I intentionally refrain from capitalizing those words since I refuse to show
even that much deference to those instruments of corruption.
Philip, glad to see you undaunted after the recent attacks on you. We can maybe take solace in
the fact that their desire for MORE will finally pass a critical point, and dumbass Americans
will finally wake up.
"She said that the Ofcom judgment would serve as a "precedent for the infringement of privacy
of any Jewish person involved in public life."
I have news for that twister of words.
In my opinion, if you choose to put yourself in the limelight, you have no private life. That
is especially true for those who think they're entitled to a position of power.
In other words, if you think you're special, then you get judged by stricter standards than
the rest of us.
It's called accountability.
BTW, speaking of Netanyahu, why do we hear so little about the scandal involving the theft
of nuclear triggers from the US?
"The Israeli press is picking up Grant Smith's revelation from FBI documents that Benjamin
Netanyahu was part of an Israeli smuggling ring that spirited nuclear triggers out of the U.S.
in the 80s and 90s."
When you listen to Abby Martin describe her experience regarding this brutal apartheid system
in Israel and the genocide of the Palestinian people, remember, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief
of The Atlantic , was a prison guard in the Israeli Defense Forces guarding the West Bank
death camp. And David Brooks, political and cultural commentator for The New York Times
and former op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal , has a son in the Israel Defense Forces
helping to perpetuate this holocaust of the Palestinian people. I hope I live to see the day when
some Palestinian Simon Wiesenthal hunts these monsters down and brings them to trial in The Hague.
The lobby is not as powerful in Britain as it is the US, we can talk about it and someone like
Peter Oborne is still a prominent journalist, but I don't see that it makes that much difference.
We seem to end up in the same places the US does.
I had my meeting with the Rothschilds, Goldman Sachs and the Israeli Department of Hasbara last
week and we discussed how our plan to suppress both the US and British governments is progressing.
Apparently we are meeting our targets and everything is going according to plan.
Speaking about how greatly rare a treasure are the P.G.'s words, below is linked a deliberately
rare letter written by Congressman Donald Rumsfeld on behalf of the AZC.
Also, re, "Will Americans allow themselves to be lied into another M.E. war?"
(Sigh)
History shows that, in order for ZUSA to start M.E. wars, Americans are routinely fed Executive
Branch / Corporate Media-sauteed lies. Such deceit is par-for-the-course.
At present, it would be foolish for me to not realize there is a False Flag Pentagon plan "on
the table" & ready for a war with Iran.
What is playing out in the UK, and is in early stages in America, is the fight between the two
side of Victorian WASP pro-Semtiism.
WASP culture has always been philo-Semitic. That cannot be stated too much. WASP culture
is inherently philo-Semtic. WASP culture was born of Anglo-Saxon Puritanism, which was a Judaizing
heresy. Judaizing heresy naturally and inevitably produces pro-Jewish culture. No less than
Oliver Cromwell made the deal to get Jewish money so he could wage culture war to destroy British
Isles natives were not WASPs.
WASP culture has always been allied with Jews to destroy white Christians who are not WASPs.
You cannot solve 'the Jewish problem' unless you also solve 'the WASP problem.'
By the beginning of the Victorian era, virtually all WASP Elites in the Empire – who then had
a truly globalist perspective – were divided into two pro-Semitic camps. The larger one was pro-Jewish.
It would give the world the Balfour Declaration and the state of Israel.
The smaller and growing one was pro-Arabic and pro-Islamic. It would give the world the people
who backed Lawrence of Arabia and came to prop up the House of Saud.
Each of these philo-Semitic WASP Elites groups was more than happy to keep the foot on the
pedal to destroy non-WASP European cultures while spending fortunes propping up its favorite group
of Semites.
And while each of those camps was thrilled to ally to keep up the war against historic Christendom
and the peoples who naturally would gravitate to any hope of a revival of Christendom, they also
squabbled endlessly. Each wished, and always will wish, to be the A-#1 pro-Semitic son of daddy
WASP. Each will play any dirty trick, make any deal with the Devil himself, to get what he wants.
The Israeli lobby is more powerful throughout the Anglosphere than the Saudi/Arabic lobby,
but the Saudi lobby is equally detestable and probably even a more grave threat to the very existence
of Western man.
It is impossible to take care of a serious problem without knowing its source and acting to
sanitize and/or cauterize and/or cut out that source. The source of this problem is WASP culture.
That the intelligence services of many countries engage in such conduct is not really news. Indeed,
you could say that it's part of their normal job. They usually don't get caught and when accused
of anything they shout "no evidence!" (now, where have I heard that recently?) Of course, if the
Israelis engage in such conduct, then, logically, other countries' services do so too.
Thus, Mr Giraldi's argument lends credibility to the claims that Russia interfered in the US
election and to the proposition that US intelligence agents are seeking to undermine the EU.
Since those two operations are part of the same transaction, i.e. maintain US global hegemony
by breaking the EU up into its constituent Member States or even into the regional components
of the larger Member States, using Putin as a battering ram and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting
plethora of small and largely defenseless statelets back under cold war-era American protection,
could it be that US and Russian intelligence services collaborated to manipulate Trump into the
White House? If that were true, it would be quite a scandal! Overthrowing foreign governments
is one thing, collaborating with a foreign power to manipulate your own country's politics is
quite another! But of course, there's "no evidence"
Not surprising that the Jewish public gets gamed by Israeli political elites, just as the
American public keeps getting gamed by our own cabal of bought politicians. Trying to fool enough
of the people, enough of the time, contra Lincoln (who was not exactly a friend of critical dissent
against war either .)
It becomes complicated. If the question of secession -- and not just secession of, as in the
case of California, but of any entity -- really be examined, then wide variations in culture,
history, ethnicity, economics and politics should be considered, taken into consideration.
While secession can be a viable and satisfactory solution to insoluble national problems, it
is not always in every case advisable. There may be good reasons for a region, or a state, or a
province to depart from a larger entity. I would argue strongly that the painful decision by
the Southern states of the United States to secede from the American union in 1860-1861 was
largely justified on historical, cultural and economic reasons, not to mention the politics
involved.
Actually, the departures of those eleven states (or, actually, thirteen if you count the
illegally thwarted departures of Kentucky and Missouri) came in two waves: the first began with
South Carolina and continued with the exit of several Deep South states. Lincoln's call in
April 1861 for troops to suppress South Carolina shocked the constitutional sensibilities of
additional states in the Upper South, several of which had resisted the initial impulse to join
the secession. And by early summer the Confederate States of America was a functioning nation,
albeit a country facing invasion from its powerful former co-citizens.
But, I can think of instances when secession -- that is, the break-up of larger nations or
empires -- is not only inadvisable, but positively injurious not only to the whole, but also to
the respective seceding parts. The dissolution of the old Austria-Hungarian Empire in 1918, for
instance, was not only a tragic mistake geopolitically, but made little sense economically,
ethnically or historically. What was produced by the Treaties of Saint-Germain and Trianon was
a succession of angrily dissatisfied, uber-nationalist states and displaced ethnic minorities
imprisoned in new, arbitrary and irrational geographical expressions, waiting for the next
powder keg to explode.
Interestingly, it was the heir to the wizened old Kaiser, Franz Josef, the Archduke Franz
Ferdinand, who advocated additional decentralization of the old empire, with a third, Slavic
kingdom, to join Austria and Hungary in a tripartite monarchy. That he and his wife, Sophie,
were cruelly assassinated in Sarajevo in July 1914 by a Serbian nationalist, not only put into
motion the coming of the First World War, but stymied what might have been a revitalized,
regionalist future for the creaky old Habsburg Empire.
The castration of the ancient Russian homeland more recently is another case of good
(American) intentions gone awry: the creation of new artificial states such as Byelorussia and
Kazakhstan was not only historically and politically wrongheaded, but economically ill-advised.
President Vladimir Putin's statement -- rightly understood -- that the break-up of the Soviet
Union was one of the greatest disasters of the 20 th century was intended in this
sense (and not , as some Russophobic Neocons attempt to construe it, as a lament for
Communism!).
Talking to a friend recently, I expressed some serious skepticism about the recent
plebiscite in Catalonia on the question of secession from Spain. My friend, knowing of my
longstanding defense of secession historically when it concerns the South, was surprised. I
attempted in a very brief discussion to explain why I demurred in the Catalan case, but the
conversation was cut short.
What I would suggest is that the simple slogan that secession is always good policy
is not really defensible, historically, culturally, economically, ethnically, or
politically.
In the case of Catalonia, my arguments against secession are multiple, and range from the
very practical and statistical, to the historical and cultural.
Let's start with the historical and cultural. Basically, the medieval County of Barcelona
was united under the crown of Aragon in the mid-12 th century. The de facto
dynastic union of Aragon and Catalonia (ruled by the Counts of Barcelona) became a de
jure one, a legal one, in 1258. Thus, for eight centuries the region has been united with
Spain. While the Catalan language, which while distinct from Spanish, is also similar to it,
remained the lingua franca of rural areas, Castilian Spanish began to be spoken in more urban
areas. But like the other kingdoms and principalities that came together to create Spain,
Catalonia retained many of its customs, and regional and historic rights, within the
new Spanish monarchy.
Historically, Spain was a composite, a dynastic federation and union of the ancient kingdoms
of Castile and Leon, Aragon, Valencia, and then, the Kingdom of Navarra and the Basque
territories in the north of the country, plus the formerly Muslim Kingdom of Granada in the
South. Indeed, even at the time of the great monarch, Philip II -- supposedly, according to
Anglophile and Protestant propagandists of the 16 th century, that all-powerful
authoritarian monarch of the early modern era -- Spain was known as "las Espanas," that is,
"the Spains," to indicate that King Philip was not actually the absolute king of a unitary,
centralized royal state, but rather the monarch over a collection of fiercely regionalist
states, each with its own traditions, history and parliaments (or "cortes"), but all together
composing a country. Philip was dependent on them for financing his government. Each of those
regions, those ancient components, of Spain had legal codes ("recopilaciones de leyes") which
guided jurisprudence; those historic and regional rights were called "fueros," which we would
render in English to mean "states' rights." Eventually portions of those statutes and
legislated customs were cobbled together in a common law for the entire country. Nevertheless,
the historic regions jealously guarded their respective traditions, languages, customs and
fueros, and continued to do so throughout the remainder of Habsburg Spain into the early 19
th century.
Not only because of the dynastic question, but precisely over those fueros much of Spain
underwent a series of bloody civil wars in the 19 th century. And what many
foreigners find ironic and incomprehensible is that it was the so-called royalist
"absolutistas," the defenders of the ancient regime and the old monarchy, the traditionalists
who took the name "Carlists" after the dispossessed rightful heir to the throne, Don Carlos V
("de jure" king of "las Espanas") in 1833, who actually defended the historic
regionalism and subsidiary of the old regime. For them it was a powerful king who ruled from
Madrid, but who was also limited in his powers by the historic, unbridgeable rights of the
"kingdoms" that made up the country, which guaranteed more essential and more local liberties
to the citizens. Like the martyred King Charles I of England, who declared at his illegal trial
that he was more the defender of the "rights of the good people of England" than the rump
parliamentarians, the traditional monarchs in Spain, with the legacy of the patchwork of
historic states and their sacralized customs and legal "recopilaciones,"offered far more
self-government, far more "liberties" than any centralizing liberal state could or ever
would.
During those several civil wars in the 19 th century, Catalonia stood, by and
large, with the traditionalist defenders of the ancient regime, the Carlists. It was the
Carlists who defended the fueros and who advocated the return of a strong king who actually had
power, but whose powers were also circumscribed by the historic regions and traditions of the
country. It was the Carlists -- and some of their most perceptive political philosophers (e.g.,
Jaime Balmes, Francisco Navarro Villoslada, Juan Vazquez de Mella) -- who understood that 19
th century liberalism, despite it slogan of "liberty and equality," would actually
do away with and suppress those old regionalist statutes and protections, those intermediate
institutions in society, that secured more liberties for the citizens.
Only 40% of the eligible voters in Catalonia participated in the recent plebiscite on
possible independence; of those around 90% voted "Si." But that means that approximately just
30% of the electorate truly favors independence. And those political groups that most zealously
support such a move are on the Left politically. They see the region, which is the most
economically successful area of Spain and the most "Europeanized," as able to get a better deal
economically within the European Union. They welcome globalism and a unitary European
government with themselves also at the helm sharing power.
Of course, it is always good to hit the bloated central government in Madrid in the eye, but
at what price?
The present-day proponents of independence do not represent the ancient and best traditions
and historic legacy of Catalonia. Their advocacy of Catalan independence is not a comfortable
fit with the long history of that region. The nationalism they advance owes far more to the
liberal statism of the 19 th century than to the Catalan heritage of local and
regional self-rule. Catalonia is not a nation-waiting-to-be-born; its association as one of the
integral and historic, largely autonomous regions within Spain is its tradition. Catalonia can
best find its destiny in reasserting its role as a largely self-governing region -- but within
the historic federation of the Spanish kingdom.
Good time to address the issue of secession. Krugman was just talking about this at the
NYT and like most liberals he assumes that secession is a threat that the coastal
states can wield over the benighted interior states. But is this truly a real threat?
I don't think so. First, when the South seceded, the North dragged them back. Today, if
every county that voted Trump were to break away from Hillary voters they would take with
them the most productive farming, manufacturing, mining, electricity generating sectors of
the economy. The coastal Hillary voters are the banking, information sectors of the economy.
Now which of the two is independent? Which is dependent?
Right. That's why secession by the heartland would no more be tolerated today than
secession was in 1860. The coastal "Elite" are entirely dependent on the heartland for their
basic commodities and yet they have no loyalty to the people who dwell there and further,
want to displace them with outsiders and can't wait for them to die (even gunning them down
in public spaces).
The coastal "Elite" are entirely dependent on the heartland for their basic commodities
and yet they have no loyalty to the people who dwell there and further, want to displace
them with outsiders and can't wait for them to die (even gunning them down in public
spaces).
True. Most of them also have no significant real life skills which matter, bar some
hipsters obsessed with organic food–many of them are trying, actually, to grow it and
that is a plus. But yes, most people you describe here never spent a day on manufacturing
floor, or in the uniform, or anywhere which requires serious labor and uncomfortable
existence.
@Andrei
Martyanov But more, Andrei. All the hydroelectric dams are locate inland, the mineral
deposits, the fertile soil and so on. The coastal are to the people of the heartland as an
absentee landlord is to his tenant farmers.
Before 1965, virtually every business located in the downtown of cities of under say,
250,000 citizens was locally owned (some exceptions, Sears, Penny's, Montgomery Ward). Now,
every business is a franchise whose central office is in New York City et al. The coastal
elite, having financialized everything in the American economy worth financializing, now own,
via money loaned into existence by the Central Bank, America's small town economies. That
this doesn't have to be so is proved by the fact that it wasn't always so.
America was a better place to live before the local economies were destroyed and displaced
by the global one. We are currently suffering from a plague like the ones imported from the
East during the dark days of the Black Death and for the same reason. We are being exposed to
the toxic effects of moving people and goods around the world with no regard for the effect
this has on local ecologies–cultural or natural. That this is literally killing us is a
matter of indifference to our coastal elites.
The coastal elite, having financialized everything in the American economy worth
financializing
Agree. But then again, we live in the world where Facebook "capitalization" is several
times larger than that of Boeing, which provides half of the world with needed actual
high-tech products. B-787 is a marvel. We have Tesla which is one of the most outstanding
(together with Musk's "Mars mission") frauds in history. A madhouse. But while agreeing with
you in principle, I also have to make some clarifications, I also observed how many, namely
from logging industry on the West Coast didn't want to take new opportunities, granted paying
less than their logging professions, to turn their life around. The opportunities were there,
they just refused. Opportunities were in aerospace, in excellent Air Washington Program (I
took advantage of it to get some CNC courses for general horizons expansion) , granted that
it required math and more brain-work than usually is required from logging. But no, they just
wanted it the way they wanted it. Knowing how logging worked on the West Coast I kinda see
why they wanted it back but it will never be back the way it was. Next step for them once it
doesn't come back? Well, we have here a massive growth of pot dispensaries, that will take
care of the labor force (bitter sarcasm).
Catalonia can best find its destiny in reasserting its role as a largely self-governing
region -- but within the historic federation of the Spanish kingdom.
One of the best articles ever on Unz, with a great presentation of the historical roots of
modern Spain. Maybe it underplays the role of 20th Century leftist internationalism (i.e.
Bolshevism light or otherwise) but still , it would correctly see radical international
leftism as a new arrival on the scene, mostly burning itself out with the exit of Spanish
feudalism .
But, I can think of instances when secession -- that is, the break-up of larger nations
or empires -- is not only inadvisable, but positively injurious not only to the whole, but
also to the respective seceding parts. The dissolution of the old Austria-Hungarian Empire
in 1918, for instance, was not only a tragic mistake geopolitically, but made little sense
economically, ethnically or historically.
I'm not so sure about this.
Austria-Hungary, prior to its collapse, wasn't a respectful alliance of largely
self-governing regions. There were a lot of other things going on – most notably
hopeless race wars focused on Vienna.
Just as an example:
"In the old Austria, nothing could be done without patronage. That's partly explained by
the fact that nine million Germans were in fact rulers, in virtue of an unwritten law, of
fifty million non-Germans. This German ruling class took strict care that places should
always be found for Germans. For them this was the only method of maintaining themselves in
this privileged situation. The Balts of German origin behaved in the same way towards the
Slav population."
"Hitler's Table Talk". Conversation Nº 109 15th-16th January 1942
and,
"The rise of the Jews in Austria-Hungary may well have been the most sudden , impressive
rise of Jews in modern history."
" .all public life was dominated by Jews. The banks, the press, the theater, literature,
social organizations, all lay in the hands of the Jews . The aristocracy would have nothing
to do with such things . The small number of untitled patrician families imitated the
aristocracy; the original upper-middle class had disappeared .. The court, the lower middle
class and the Jews gave the city its stamp. And that the Jews, as the most mobile group,
kept all the others in continual motion is, on the whole, not surprising."
Albert Lindeman, "Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews"
@Anonymous
The interior has very little population though and would have trouble holding territory. The
interior's farmland could be sabotaged and destroyed and its access to major waterways and
water traffic would be cut off. The coasts have extensive global trade networks and would
effectively lay siege on the interior.
The coasts have extensive global trade networks and would effectively lay siege on the
interior.
Actually, it is the other way around. What coasts? If in the East it could be viewed as a
somewhat continuous urban chain in the North-East, the West Coast "elites" reside mostly in
Seattle, Portland, SF urban areas, which, while large, are in effect the places of compact
residence. As such, they are fairly easily isolated, not to mention the fact of undeniable
emasculation of their male residents. They can not find often their own ass with their two
hands in a brightly lit room, let alone "lay siege" to anything. This is not to speak of the
fact that all, without exception, urban centers depend entirely on "interior" for food. As
per interior main cities–as latest elections showed, Ohio or Indiana, which are
interior and do contain serious urban centers are not "elitists" states. Neither is Texas,
which is also a major urban and port state. In other words, it is a very complex picture.
Although I agree that this historical overview of Catalonia since the 1200′s is
quite good, I still have a few quibbles and one big caveat. First quibble: Catalonia was
joined to the kingship of Aragon, but was functionally separate from the State of Aragon and
generally left alone by the various kings over the next several centuries. Second quibble:
Catalonia rebelled quite regularly since the 1400′s when its neighbours sought to
encroach on traditional Catalan rights and prerogatives. It has never been long an easy
member of what became the Spanish nation following the reconquest.
My caveat is the part of the history that has been left out. Catalonia existed as a
distinct entity or one allied with its (now) French neighbour. Catalonia has had strong ties
with its Mediterranean neighbours and with France during its long historical period of
development following the fall of Rome in the West. During the existence of El Andelus under
caliphate rule and later after various statelets splintered off of the caliphate, Catalonia
often allied with the muslim states as well as having strong ties northward. Many of its
feudal rulers were descendents of Visigoths who descended out of the decaying Roman Empire
and set up rule in many parts of Iberia. This long formative period of Catalan history can
still be felt in many Catalan customs and in the Catalan language.
So, is it surprising that a large portion of the people of Catalonia might have a strong
independent spirit and outlook. However, I agree that independence in today's context needs
more than a vibrant history, language and customs. It needs a strong and functioning
administration, government and military to defend itself and its borders. It needs to
preserve and protect and grow its economy. It also needs international recognition.
The media constantly pumps out the lie that there is a silent anti-independence majority
in Catalonia, which is merely curiously invisible.
Consider this. The highest turnout ever at an election in Catalonia was the 74.9% in the
2015 Regional Election, with 4,130.196 people casting their vote. At Spanish general
elections turnout is even lower, at 69%. A minimum of 25.1% of the population never vote at
all. Of that 25% who do not vote, some will be dead, or moved away, but most are probably
just not civilly engaged.
The trick of the pro-Spanish lobby is to boycott polls on Independence, and then claim
that this minimum 25% of the electorate who never vote at all anyway, are anti-Independence
and participating in the boycott. In truth there are absolutely no grounds to attribute the
minimum 25% habitual non-voters as anti-independence. Particularly the dead ones.
So in fact the 2,044,038 votes cast in favour of Independence on Sunday, that survived the
police and could be counted, already amounted to 49.6% of the highest number of votes ever
cast in any election in Catalonia. When you add in the hundreds of thousands of votes
confiscated by the police, and the voters who were deterred by the terrible violence, there
is no doubt whatsoever that Sunday's referendum would have seen a healthy majority for
Independence on any probable turnout figure ..
Most participants here will know virtually nothing about Spain, Catalonia, or even
successful confederal models in Europe. Long, complicated topics, so I will make only a few
short comments here.
1. The present spanish monarchy essentially involved a murderous dictator designating a
king. A poisonous contradiction (restoring a monarchy) was mostly accepted to escape from the
murderous dictatorship. There are "republicans" who would like to end the monarchy throughout
Spain, including Catalonia. The issue of constitutional reform is now on the table and the
Spanish would be wise to get rid of such an anachronism. The country has suffered every time
that it has had foreigners as kings, starting with the "germans" Carlos I and Carlos II who
bled Spaniards for numerous wars in Europe. The present royal family is of French (the
Borbons) and German (Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg-Glücksburg) ancestry. The grandmother
of the present king (Felipe VI) can be seen (together with her brothers) dressed in the
uniform of the Hitler Youth in numerous web sites.
2. Cataluña is not the only area of Spain that "rebels" against right-wing,
centralized control. Similar sentiments are present (to more or less degree) in Pais Vasco,
Galicia, Valencia, Baleares, Canarias, . Spain has a centuries long history of failing to
deal with the pluri-national nature of the country and seems to be failing once again.
3. There are models of pluri-national confederations/nations that are exemplary instances
of how to deal with such problems. Switzerland is perhaps the best known. The
"Eidgenossenschaft" (confederation) of the german-speaking areas dates from about 1250 and
initially involved seven independent countries, each of which retained its own sovereignity.
The model was soon after copied in the french- and italian-speaking areas of modern
Switzerland. The present confederation includes 27 kantons (the federal constitution
guarantees that they remain sovereign nations, i.e. in principle can withdraw) and 4
different languages. The Kantons retain power over taxes, education, welfare, citizenship, ..
Direct democracy reigns at both the national and kantonal level, i.e. citizens can
reject/initiate laws by referendum, including kantonal/national taxation/expenditure.
4. Spain actually has a mixed system in which certain "autonomia" (states – Pais
Vasco, Navarra, Aragon) have a status somewhat like Kantons in Switzerland, e.g. a separate
status with regard to taxation.
Probably the best thing that Spain could do would be to copy the Swiss model and get rid
of the monarchy. Probably even Cataluña could be convinced to join such a model.
Only 40% of the eligible voters in Catalonia participated in the recent plebiscite on
possible independence; of those around 90% voted "Si." But that means that approximately
just 30% of the electorate truly favors independence.
1. The 40% is because the Madrid government interfered with the vote.
2. In the 2016 American election, turnout was 54.7% of whom 46.1% voted from Trump. That's
25.2% of the electorate favoring Trump. In the 2012 election, turnout was 54.9%, 51.1% of
whom voted for Obama. That's 28% of the electorate favoring Obama. A higher percentage of
Catalonia's electorate favor independence than American electorate favored the last two US
presidents.
.. Macron's victory was both overwhelming and underwhelming. All records of abstention
were broken; for the first time in over a century, a majority of eligible voters stayed away
from the polls in the first round of the parliamentary elections, and abstention rose to 57%
in the second round. He owes his landslide to less than 20% of registered voters ..
@ThreeCranes
But more, Andrei. All the hydroelectric dams are locate inland, the mineral deposits, the
fertile soil and so on. The coastal are to the people of the heartland as an absentee
landlord is to his tenant farmers.
Before 1965, virtually every business located in the downtown of cities of under say,
250,000 citizens was locally owned (some exceptions, Sears, Penny's, Montgomery Ward). Now,
every business is a franchise whose central office is in New York City et al. The coastal
elite, having financialized everything in the American economy worth financializing, now own,
via money loaned into existence by the Central Bank, America's small town economies. That
this doesn't have to be so is proved by the fact that it wasn't always so.
America was a better place to live before the local economies were destroyed and displaced
by the global one. We are currently suffering from a plague like the ones imported from the
East during the dark days of the Black Death and for the same reason. We are being exposed to
the toxic effects of moving people and goods around the world with no regard for the effect
this has on local ecologies--cultural or natural. That this is literally killing us is a
matter of indifference to our coastal elites. A cogent analysis by all Three Cranes (Martin,
Niles, and Fraser?
Seriously, I would offer a partial counter-argument, but only a partial one. The rest of
the country buys enormous quantities of fruits, vegetables, and nuts (the jokes write
themselves) from California, right? I assume CA would be glad to keep selling to the rest of
the USA, but with the farther-left, more anti-white government that would come to power in an
independent CA, who knows. They might elect to sell only to other countries, and China and
India can buy up anything CA can produce in that regard.
On the other hand, as California grows ever more over-populated, it further exceeds the
carrying capacity of this territory. Among other baleful effects, we see that California
droughts become more common, more prolonged, and more severe.
There are increasing battles over agricultural producers' access to the scarce water
supplies of this State. Dire results seem almost inevitable as the population is allowed to
keep growing without an end in sight.
In fact, the loons who run Cali now -- and the even loonier loons who will run an
independent Cali -- will make it a badge of honor to show how many Mexicans they can admit to
settle on their land, and how fast. That will intensify the drought and hasten the day when
Cali can no longer maintain anything like its current ag output. God help them, and us, when
that day comes.
The coasts have extensive global trade networks and would effectively lay siege on the
interior.
Actually, it is the other way around. What coasts? If in the East it could be
viewed as a somewhat continuous urban chain in the North-East, the West Coast "elites" reside
mostly in Seattle, Portland, SF urban areas, which, while large, are in effect the places of
compact residence. As such, they are fairly easily isolated, not to mention the fact of
undeniable emasculation of their male residents. They can not find often their own ass with
their two hands in a brightly lit room, let alone "lay siege" to anything. This is not to
speak of the fact that all, without exception, urban centers depend entirely on "interior"
for food. As per interior main cities--as latest elections showed, Ohio or Indiana, which are
interior and do contain serious urban centers are not "elitists" states. Neither is Texas,
which is also a major urban and port state. In other words, it is a very complex picture.
This is going to be a bitter pill for Steve Sailer to swallow, but his beloved California is
not the preeminent region in America's economy.
"According to the Brookings Institution, if it stood alone as a country, the Great Lakes
economy would be one of the largest economic units on earth (with a $4.5-trillion gross
regional product). It contains most of an area urban planners have viewed as an emerging
Great Lakes Megalopolis which has an estimated 54 million people."
"If the state were considered separately, it would rank as the sixth largest economy in
the world, behind rest of the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom.
The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis reported that California's GDP was $2.5 trillion in
2015, up 4.1 percent from a year earlier."
Let California go. We don't need them with their mealy, inedible vegetables.
@Anonymous
You make a great point about the prospect of economic blockade, in effect, by coastal
independent Cali against the inland portion of the State that presumably remains with the
USA.
First of all, the inland and more rural-to-suburban counties must demand to leave Cali
before Cali secedes. They could comprise the new U.S. States of, say, East California and
North California.
Second, the non-seceding States -- and by extension the USA -- MUST keep territory leading
to the coast, and significant frontage on the Pacific Ocean in northern, central, and
southern California, for reasons economic and military above all.
If merely the LA and SF metroplexes, broadly construed, secede, leaving the majority of
the State's counties to stay in the USA, that might not be so bad for the rest of the
USA.
Here is the website of a California political party advocating eventual negotiated
independence:
They are waaaaaay too far left for me, but then, (1) that's why they want to leave the
USA, and (2) that's why my wife and I would almost certainly have to pick up stakes and leave
LA if Cali seceded, because something like the Cali National Party platform would surely
garner a BIG supermajority of support in many of Cali's coastal counties.
P.S. But would the rest of the USA have the balls to prohibit all immigration from the new
Third World coastal "Republic" of California? That would need to happen for it to benefit
(and not continue gradually balkanizing and destroying) the rest of the USA longer-term.
@Andrei
Martyanov Texas may not be nearly as much a home to America-hating elites as LA, SF, NY,
and DC, to be sure, but politically it will become part of that coalition seeking to replace
and subjugate European-Americans nationwide. As you know, Texas is going Mexican, and its
politics are about to change drastically.
In its current size and form, much of Texas even ten years from now cannot be counted as a
reliable ally or as a place for Americans to seek refuge from violence, discrimination,
etc.
Perhaps Texas, too, is in need of a peaceful, negotiated break-up into smaller, more
manageable, more culturally / socially cohesive States. This needn't entail secession, just
new U.S. States whose people are allowed the broad autonomy guaranteed them by the Tenth
Amendment. (yeah, I know, cue the laugh track)
I often think that simply adhering to our Constitution would greatly dampen the ardor and
perceived need for secession. The Constitution called for very limited powers for the federal
government, and conversely very broad autonomy for the people of each State to decide almost
everything except national monetary and foreign policy. Why would California "need' to secede
if they were allowed to have whatever laws they want on abortion, homosexual marriage,
universal government-funded or government-provided healthcare, etc.? Why would Texas need to
secede if they were allowed to have quite the opposite laws, without interference or threat
from the fed gov (including the un-elected legislators known as the federal judiciary).
@Andrei
Martyanov P.S. There are entire counties in south Texas where the population is almost
100% Mexican. Not just right on the border, either.
This phenomenon of immi-vasion keeps spreading northward while we Americans focus on the
REALLY important issues like preventing Russians in Crimea from reuniting with Russia &
demanding more "rights" for mentally ill people ("transgenders").
@hyperbola
Most participants here will know virtually nothing about Spain, Catalonia, or even successful
confederal models in Europe. Long, complicated topics, so I will make only a few short
comments here.
1. The present spanish monarchy essentially involved a murderous dictator designating a
king. A poisonous contradiction (restoring a monarchy) was mostly accepted to escape from the
murderous dictatorship. There are "republicans" who would like to end the monarchy throughout
Spain, including Catalonia. The issue of constitutional reform is now on the table and the
Spanish would be wise to get rid of such an anachronism. The country has suffered every time
that it has had foreigners as kings, starting with the "germans" Carlos I and Carlos II who
bled Spaniards for numerous wars in Europe. The present royal family is of French (the
Borbons) and German (Schleswig-Holstein Sonderburg-Glücksburg) ancestry. The grandmother
of the present king (Felipe VI) can be seen (together with her brothers) dressed in the
uniform of the Hitler Youth in numerous web sites.
2. Cataluña is not the only area of Spain that "rebels" against right-wing,
centralized control. Similar sentiments are present (to more or less degree) in Pais Vasco,
Galicia, Valencia, Baleares, Canarias, . Spain has a centuries long history of failing to
deal with the pluri-national nature of the country and seems to be failing once again.
3. There are models of pluri-national confederations/nations that are exemplary instances
of how to deal with such problems. Switzerland is perhaps the best known. The
"Eidgenossenschaft" (confederation) of the german-speaking areas dates from about 1250 and
initially involved seven independent countries, each of which retained its own sovereignity.
The model was soon after copied in the french- and italian-speaking areas of modern
Switzerland. The present confederation includes 27 kantons (the federal constitution
guarantees that they remain sovereign nations, i.e. in principle can withdraw) and 4
different languages. The Kantons retain power over taxes, education, welfare, citizenship, ..
Direct democracy reigns at both the national and kantonal level, i.e. citizens can
reject/initiate laws by referendum, including kantonal/national taxation/expenditure.
4. Spain actually has a mixed system in which certain "autonomia" (states – Pais
Vasco, Navarra, Aragon) have a status somewhat like Kantons in Switzerland, e.g. a separate
status with regard to taxation.
Probably the best thing that Spain could do would be to copy the Swiss model and get rid
of the monarchy. Probably even Cataluña could be convinced to join such a model. I
need to learn more about the structure of the government in Spain, and its recent history.
Your comment was VERY helpful, thank you
@AP
And imagine if the US had a two-round system for our presidential elections, i.e., top two
vote-getters from the first round advancing to a run-off.
We could have seen MILLIONS more people voting Green or Libertarian instead of Trump or
Clinton. That system would tell us the real popularity of these "major-party" candidates,
which is pitifully low when people feel that they have a realistic alternative and a way to
express it through their vote.
Trump and Clinton probably wouldn't get even 30% of the votes each in such a first round.
Even farther below the support that Catalonian voters just showed for independence.
Go Catalonia!
Go Scotland!
And while we're at it, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out, LA and San
Francisco, Portland and Seattle."
@hyperbola
I don't consider Spain v Catalonia any of my business so I'm neutral but Murray seems to be
an ideologue more interested in narrative than truth. He even claims today's Spaniards had
Muslim ancestors, a typical leftist talking point. He's not very credible.
The Constitution called for very limited powers for the federal government, and
conversely very broad autonomy for the people of each State to decide almost everything
except national monetary and foreign policy.
Very broad autonomy to decide means that they would have to use this autonomy
– which is a shockingly different mindset from what exists at present. Each citizen
would have to be personally involved in evaluating issues, attending meetings and voting
– and the only way I could see this happening is if Civic Democratic participation was
compulsory.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -George Bernard Shaw
My assumption is that most citizens would be too busy or too lazy and disinterested to
participate, so it would have to be mandatory, with a penalty of loss of voting rights or
even loss of citizenship. The idea is that you are only a citizen as long as you act as a
citizen, and it would almost certainly need to combine with a period of compulsory military
service for all male citizens to concretize the idea.
the people of each State to decide almost everything except national monetary and
foreign policy.
Monetary and foreign policy would have to come back to the states as well. Foreign policy
needs to be firmly rooted in full participative state decision making, and FED/Treasury
national level credit creation completely halted (we know where that money goes).
With respect to Northern California, the author misses the obvious precedent of West
Virginia, which in 1861 was carved out of the western parts of a recently seceded
Virginia.
@RadicalCenter
Then there's the issue of what to do with the launch facilities of Vandenberg AFB. Will this
relationship be like Russia leasing Baikonur from Khazakhstan? Do we have any reason to fear
a nuclear armed Southern California with Ballistic Missile Technology? Should Mr. Trump start
a pre-emptive bombing campaign now?
The idea is that you are only a citizen as long as you act as a citizen, and it would
almost certainly need to combine with a period of compulsory military service for all male
citizens to concretize the idea.
Also, out-of-state military service would help Americans to get to know each other
(Californians to Ohio, Texans to California, Alabamians to Washington State, New Yorkers to
Montana or Hawaiians to Alaska).
The dissolution of the old Austria-Hungarian Empire in 1918, for instance, was not only
a tragic mistake geopolitically, but made little sense economically, ethnically or
historically.
Of course the dissolution of A-H was necessary and it's further existance would be absurd
– it woudl also destablize the Europe, because of constant frictions within it.
Historically, Poland, Czechia etc were historic nations, who were unwilling to be ruled by
Austrians (even though in 1914 Austrians were the best from the three partitioners). I don't
know why double standards with respect to southern states and my own country. Don't Poles
deserve the same right to live in their own country as southerners?
Interesting point of view, though I beg to differ on a point or two.
It would seem that your presentation of Catalan claims to independence lacks a few key
observations. The union of Spanish crowns actually dates from the late 15th century with the
marriage of Queen Isabel of Castile to King Ferdinand of Aragon. While they each continued to
rule over their own kingdom, they did coordinate some key policies. Their daughter Juana "la
Loca" was the first to rule over the two kingdoms together. "Spain" became a Habsburg land
when Juana's son Charles I succeeded in 1517. Spain continued to be ruled by Habsburgs until
1700, when Charles II died without leaving an heir. The heir apparent was Louis XIV's
grandson Philip, a Bourbon. However, the Netherlands and England did not want him to succeed
and therefore they recognized Charles VI, son of the German Emperor, as King of Spain. In the
ensuing War of the Spanish Succession (1700-1713/4), the Dutch and English conquered
Gibraltar and occupied Catalonia. In the end they had to accept that while Catalonia
supported Charles VI, most of the rest of Spain preferred Philip. Once firmly on the throne,
the new monarch did not exactly favor Catalonia, to put it mildly. However the seeds for
Catalan separatism had now been planted in fertile soil.
As for the point of what constitutes a nation, the answer is simple: anything at all,
whether geographic location, language (which really is a "dialect with an army"), wealth,
economic specialization, religion (Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks all speak the same language,
but Serbs are Orthodox, Croats Roman Catholic and Bosniaks Mohammedan), etc.
Basically, the key elements for constituing a nation are money, time, perseverance,
violence and propaganda.
The tyrannical actions of Madrid against a referendum that probably would have failed
otherwise, fully justify secession (at least as a threat) at this point. Another point,
misunderstood by the author, is that the Catalan language is the primary language spoken in
Barcelona and the region around it, and is the official language of the universities and
Government. The Basques, who are the most creative group in Spain, also are chafing under
Madrid's rule .
"1258. Thus, for eight centuries the region has been united with Spain".
This is completly false, Spain simply HAS NOT 8 centuries of existence, learn History first,
wright after. americans and History, what a difficult relation.
@Miro23
Yes, an excellent article from Prof Cathey.
And you are right, Miro23, about the role of C 2oth "leftist internationalism" which
continues to envelope Barcelona. People living very bourgeois lifestyles would come up to you
and spout often very extreme left wing opinions, which you knew they had no intention of
following in real life.
My brother, a Post Grad in Spanish History, had to teach in Barcelona for a year as part of
his course. I visited him several times. He came to despise Barcelona and its phony Toytown
anarchists and other leftists. Neither he nor I have ever felt the desire to return.
Without these Toytown leftists, I doubt there would have been a Referendum at all. Puigdemont
needed their support and this was his bribe.
@hyperbola
You are spot on hyperbola. The author here tries to "stick his thumb on the scale"
" Only 40% of the eligible voters in Catalonia participated in the recent plebiscite
on possible independence; of those around 90% voted "Si."[my emphasis]
His conclusion ? The plebiscite/referendum lacks popular validity.
Absent, of course, is Madrid's direct sabotage of the vote: ballots "stolen", & voters
obstructed from voting (sometimes violently, also psychologically).
Nor, if memory serves, is the 40% that much less than the voter turn- out for some other
countries, such as the US.
The story that the WWI is the direct result of the assassination of the Austrian Archduke
is an example of Fake News at its best.
In reality, the English planned to take down Germany long before WWI. The Entente Cordiale
with France had secret clauses that neither the British parliament nor most of the Cabinet
knew anything about.
Winston Churchill switched from Conservatives to Liberals in order to get the Liberals to
start the war. As First Lord of the Admirality, he agreed with the French that their fleet
should stay in the Mediterranean and the Royal Navy would defend their Atlantic coast.
The British public were in favour of the Prussians and against the Russians and French.
All of that was changed in a concerted propaganda campaign that went on for more than 10
years.
Belgium was not a neutral country – the main pretext for getting the UK into the war
– as it planned with the British the details of how a large British expeditionary force
should deploy into Belgium to fight the Germans – long before 1914.
Lastly, Germany was the last country to mobilise. So much for "German Aggression".
I spent much of September in Spain, often trying to reconcile my conviction that Catalan
separatists were wrongheaded provincials heading down a dangerous path with my past
sympathies for some secessionist movements elsewhere. This article, with its compact history
review, was helpful in describing some of the nuances differentiating diverse separatist
movements. It shows that different conclusions about which ones are justified need not
reflect a double standard.
@Matra
"I'm neutral but Murray seems to be an ideologue . He even claims today's Spaniards had
Muslim ancestors, a typical leftist talking point."
Maybe he is an ideologue, but you certainly are.
Although I guess the practice of history is itself typically leftist.
Imagine claiming that modern Spaniards may have Muslim ancestors when Muslim's controlled
much of Spain (in ever decreasing area) from 711AD to 1492. I wonder whether a few drops or
more of Muslim/Arabic blood my snuck into all that European blood over the course of
100′s of years ?
Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks all speak the same language
It's more complicated than that. There are several dialects in ex-Yugoslavia, crossing
through the ethnic lines. The are three dialects in Croatia, and I was told that one
(official language) is almost same as Serbian, while two others are as different as almost a
different language. If some Croat is here, he could confirm.
I tend to support popular secessionist movements reflexively, since the ability to opt out
is the only thing that gives real meaning to consent of the governed. But if Spain is
determined to drown this attempt in a Lincolnesque bloodbath, the Catalans better ask
themselves if it is really worth it. Some of us onlookers will wish them well, most won't
care, but no one will ride to their rescue.
The brief synopsis of Spanish history is helpful, and Catalonia is the issue. But the
article opens with California, which is the primary interest of almost all of us in terms of
secession. Not necessarily CA, but the USA Empire.
Yes, if California secedes, its many 'conservative' peoples and their towns and counties
will be even more at the mercy of the ultra looney Left of Hollywood and San Francisco. But
that is not a deal-breaker of the idea. The secession of 13 colonies of the British Empire
meant that in each of those 13 colonies sizable numbers of pro-Empire people were made very
unhappy at losing their concept of nation.
The fact is that there will be no classic secession within the current USA Empire, no
state or 2 or 13 will leave with the rest remaining as the USA. If anything comes, it will be
a divorce. The entire compact will be abolished, with property divided.
And yes, that splitting of states will mean that we will see movements out of one into the
other. We will see more conservative people living in, say, CA or MA or MN, moving to NC or
MO or TX. We will see Liberals living in VA and FL and AR fleeing to NY or Chicago or
Portland or Seattle.
@ThreeCranes
'Elite' states secede? Could be interesting.
- 45% of California, for example, is Federal land.
- Without US taxpayers money CA would be a 3rd world country completely filled with
unemployable & dumb illegal immigrants.
- Think about this brief list made possible by the US taxpayers / federal government,
money CA would not get and then tens of thousands of CA people would lose their jobs (= lost
CA tax revenues):
aerospace contracts, defense contracts, fed gov, software contracts, fed gov airplane
orders, bases, ports, money for illegal aliens costs, federal monies for universities,
'affirmative action monies, section 8 housing money, monies for highways, monies for 'mass
transportation', monies to fight crime, monies from the EPA for streams & lakes, monies
from the Nat. Park Service, monies for healthcare, monies for freeloading welfare recipients,
and all this is just the tip of the iceberg
- Not to mention the numerous counties in CA which will not want to be part of the
laughable 'Peoples Republic of California'.
- And imagine the 'Peoples Republic of California Army', hilarious.
"... "Behind the assault on the working class in Spain is a European and indeed global crisis of capitalism. After a quarter century of social cuts and escalating imperialist wars across the Middle East since the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, European capitalism is in an advanced state of collapse. Particularly since the 2008 Wall Street crash and global economic crisis, the ruling elites in Europe and America all sought to strengthen the military and police agencies, while imposing devastating austerity on the workers. ..."
"... Spanish capitalism is economically moribund. Spain's unemployment rate stands at a massive 17.8 percent and at 38.6 percent for the under-25s. One in four unemployed have not had a job for at least four years. 2.5 million workers came off the unemployment rolls not because they found jobs in Spain, but because they emigrated to find work elsewhere." ..."
Profoundly illuminating analysis of the Catalonia situation the observation that national
balkanization is very problematic in the context of bringing substantially enhanced economic
rights and opportunities to a broad spectrum of the oppressed in a nation's population is
consistent with recent history elsewhere, e.g the former Yugoslavia.
"Behind the assault on the working class in Spain is a European and indeed global crisis
of capitalism. After a quarter century of social cuts and escalating imperialist wars across
the Middle East since the Stalinist bureaucracy dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991, European
capitalism is in an advanced state of collapse. Particularly since the 2008 Wall Street crash
and global economic crisis, the ruling elites in Europe and America all sought to strengthen
the military and police agencies, while imposing devastating austerity on the workers.
This left Spain -- like Greece, Portugal, Italy, and much of Eastern Europe -- in ruins.
Spanish capitalism is economically moribund. Spain's unemployment rate stands at a massive
17.8 percent and at 38.6 percent for the under-25s. One in four unemployed have not had a job
for at least four years. 2.5 million workers came off the unemployment rolls not because they
found jobs in Spain, but because they emigrated to find work elsewhere."
He makes a point that by banning the referendum, the Spanish Government unwittingly
promotes the cause for independence of Catalonia. Since the referendum is deemed to be
illegal, the only ones to attend it would be pro-independence-minded people, which would
result in the high percentage of vote for the independence. Consequently, pro-independence
leaders would be able to capitalize on that result by claiming that it reflects the will of
the people (despite the low voter turnout).
"... How Catholicism fell from grace in Ireland , Chicago Tribune, ..."
"... coup d'état ..."
"... Men of 1916 had much in common with Bolsheviks | But October Revolution and Easter Rising had radically diverging ideologies , ..."
"... on all sorts of subjects ..."
"... for all kinds of outlets. (This ..."
"... no longer includes ..."
"... National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and ..."
"... and several other ..."
"... . He has had two books published by VDARE.com com: ..."
"... ( also available in Kindle ) and ..."
"... People who are impoverished proclaim their allegiance to their community, because they are looking for help . Hence nationalism and especially religion. ..."
"... I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and EVIL. ..."
"... I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades. ..."
"... "Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -George Bernard Shaw ..."
Nationalism isn't hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other
people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners in
some distant city who don't understand them.
It is of course the case that our co-ethnics may be crazy beasts -- North Korea 's a nation ; Khmer
Rouge Cambodia was a nation -- while the foreigners in that distant city might be benign and wise , or at
any rate not life-threatening.
The Middle East under the Ottoman Empire was not an exemplar of peace and justice, but it
doesn't compare badly with today's Middle
East.
I'm basically on the same page with these nationalists, but with reservations. When the
Vietnamese army put an end to the Khmer Rouge government by invading Cambodia, most Cambodians
hailed them as liberators. Perhaps I would have, too; perhaps even Enoch Powell would have.
So there are qualifications to be made about nationalism, especially small-country
nationalism or sub-nationalism. You're not drawing from a big pool of political talent there. I
have mixed occasionally with Scottish and Welsh nationalists; let's just say I wasn't
impressed.
Sub-nationalism like Catalonia's is also in contradiction to nationalism proper. Who's the
truer nationalist: the Spanish citizen who would fight and die for Spain, or the Catalan
separatist who feels the same way about his province?
Here you're in the zone of differences that can only finally be decided by force of
arms.
You don't have to recall horrors like Cambodia or North Korea to develop
some caution about nationalism. Growing up in mid-20th-century
England, we had an instance of passionate nationalism -- or sub-nationalism, depending on
your point of view -- right on our doorstep . That was
of course Ireland.
The Irish had been
struggling for centuries to attain self-government. In 1921, after some
revolutionary violence
, they got autonomy ; then in
1937, full independence.
Having won their independence, the Irish signed on to every trans-national organization that
came along. When I took my wife on a tour of the United Nations headquarters in 1987, our tour
guide was an Irishman, and we heard a lot of Irish accents around the building.
Likewise with the European Union, on which the Irish are very keen. The sour joke in Britain
thirty years ago was that having fought eight hundred years for their independence , the
Irish had then sold it for a package of EU agricultural subsidies.
You may say that the right to national independence includes the right to national suicide.
I suppose it does. Still, as a fan of Alexander Solzhenitsyn's observation
that "Nations are the wealth of mankind, its collective personalities," I lament the
transformation of Ireland, the Land of Saints and Scholars, into an airport departure lounge --
with the rest of Britain not far behind, indeed in some respects ahead .
"What was long divided must unite, what was long united must divide." Hearing that now we
Americans of course think of the secession talk that seems to be getting more and more common
on the blogs, including very smart and sensible ones like the Audacious
Epigone .
If Catalonia, why not California, or Texas, or New England?
All right; history has its ebbs and flows, to be sure, and to stand athwart them crying
"Stop!" is most likely futile. As a conservative, though, I rather strongly favor leaving the
big old nations as they are, absent some obvious and pressing need to break them up.
So without knowing much about Catalonia or its independence movement, I'll register myself
as guardedly skeptical, on general grounds. America for Americans; Spain for Spaniards;
nationalism over trans-nationalism and sub-nationalism both .
The tension between nationalism and imperialism was a factor in Lenin's revolution. Tsarist
Russia was an empire; it included numerous non-Russian nationalities. What plan did the
Bolsheviks have for them?
Irish historian Frank Armstrong had a thoughtful op-ed on this in Wednesday's Irish
Times , contrasting the Bolshevik coup of 1917 with the Easter Rising in Ireland
the previous year.[ Men
of 1916 had much in common with Bolsheviks | But October Revolution and Easter Rising had
radically diverging ideologies , October 5, 2017] . He points out the tension among
Bolsheviks, notably Stalin, between, on the one hand, the orthodox Marxist line that "the
proletariat has no homeland" and nationalism is a reactionary bourgeois impulse, and on the
other hand, admiration for revolutionary violence like that practiced by the Irish rebels.
Armstrong doesn't go anywhere much with his op-ed, but it's a useful reminder that
nationalists and trans-nationalists can find themselves thinking the same thoughts.
Here's where I renew my call for a worldwide alliance of nationalists along the lines of the
old Comintern, the Communist International.
We can call this alliance the Natintern, the Nationalist International. I'm still waiting
for someone to come up with a suitable anthem, to be called of course The Nationale
.
A good discussion of a complex topic. Touches on conservatism versus radicalism as well,
which I think affects whether one is likely to support sub-nationalism against an established
nation, even one's own.
Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism versus "citizenist"
(to use I think Sailer's term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists
lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part
because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they
are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be "racist".
I noted recently that there is an interesting contrast between the British government's
concession, in the case of Scotland, to the sub-nation of the inherent right to unilateral
independence based merely on a majority of the sub-nation's population supporting it, and
Spain's adherence to the opposite (and much more widespread) principle that secession is a
matter for the nation as a whole, or simply treasonous sedition.
Someone has pointed to Quebec as another case where the point was conceded to the popular
will of the sub-nation, and the whole process of the British withdrawal from colonial empire
could be viewed as being the same (although there was a deal of US coercion and implicit
threats of secessionist violence involved, along with the basic fact that thanks to WW1 &
WW2 the British elites knew they lacked the strength to hold onto their colonies).
Clearly the constitutional positions of Scotland and of Catalonia are very different, but
I think the governments of both Spain and Britain could have found ways to rationalise making
the opposite choice to the one they took, if they had wanted to. Perhaps it comes down to the
British government being confident they would win a referendum, but the Spanish government
fearing they would not.
It seems to me you are countering the "What was long divided must unite, what was long
united must divide," philosophy with one of "This far but no farther." You even recognize
that your point of view cannot prevail but prefer it anyway. Well here's to you Don Quixote!
May separaratism never come to La Mancha.
I have recently been thinking that one of the strongest and most consistent geopolitical
trends of the past one hundred years has been an explosion in national entities. We went from
around 50 in 1900 to around 200 today.
But it wasn't always like this. I haven't seen any data on this, but the number of states
or state-like entities must have exceeded a thousand during the medieval period, before the
rise of the great gunpowder empires.
And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long as
the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small
(i.e. militarily weak) states. As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could
be looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to
1000 (if projecting exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism,
can this even be stopped?
And there's no logical reason for this fragmentation not to continue, at least so long
as the world remains generally peaceful with the associated lack of selection against small
(i.e. militarily weak) states.
But is there any reason to expect it necessarily to continue, given that it appears to be
an aggregate function of a number of different processes, some of which are no longer in
force, some of which are countervailing and might well become more dominant in future?
It certainly isn't just a function of the world becoming more peaceful and therefore
smaller states being more viable – after all the process you describe began before the
two world wars. The breakup of the big continental European empires is a different process
from the later breakup of the colonial overseas empires, which again is a different process
from the collapse of the Soviet empire or of Yugoslavia. They all have in common that they
represent the loss of central authority over sub-nations, but they all result from different
causes.
Then you have the much vaunted general loss of real sovereignty in the modern globalised
world. Many of the newly "independent" entities probably have less freedom of action than
many vassals of the Holy Roman Empire. And you have the rise of the EU. How genuinely
sovereign will the constituent nations be as the EU develops further towards a United States
of Europe?
For all the effort expended, there are few real examples of the long established nations
of Europe fragmenting other than as the result of military defeat. Scotland, Wales, the
Basque Country, Catalonia, Lombardy, etc, are all still part of the larger states of which
they are sub-nations.
Enoch Powell said the European community was the economic wing of a
military alliance (Nato). A couple of countries (Greece for one) were told they could not join
the EC unless they were in Nato.
As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be looking at something
like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000 (if projecting
exponentially). Much like the inexorable forwards march of liberalism , can this
even be stopped?
Oooooh, did someone screech a boogeyman term? Who cares? Let it fragment. Reduce the size of the state -- always a good thing. The
higher the ratio of citizens to wannabe rulers, the better.
Catalonian like Scottish nationalism is largely motivated by resentment by region that
perceives itself as being used by a milch cow. Ireland was more authentically nationalist.
Powell said the British state was always keen to divest itself of Ireland , but originally
wanted the fig leaf of home rule.
According to Paul Johnson in the Offshore Islanders,
Ireland was a net drain of Britain (that might also have been true of the Empire be the
beginning of the 20th century. Arthur Balfour was right their could be no halfway house.
Nationalism isn't hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other
people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners
in some distant city who don't understand them.
People who are impoverished proclaim their allegiance to their community, because they are
looking for help . Hence nationalism and especially religion.
.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nigel-barber/atheism-to-replace-religion-by-2041-a-clarification_b_3695658.html
Research has shown that religion declines not just with rising national wealth but with all
plausible measures of the quality of life, including length of life, decline of infectious
diseases, education, the rise of the welfare state, and more equal distribution of income.
Clearly there is less of a market for religion in societies where ordinary people feel
secure in their daily lives. In the most developed countries, such as Japan and Sweden, the
quality of life is so good that the majority is already secular.
Religion in an affluent society has not a snowball's chance in hell . When it was the
poorest country in Europe, Scotland was a byword for religious fanaticism. A crypto-clerical
Irish state had economic growth that was the poorest in western Europe and possibly all
Europe. But once hyper-capitalism transformed Ireland, it became like everywhere
else–only worse. They don't need the Church now–or nationalism. With war you
would see nationalism. It is not nationalism that produces war but more the other way about.
Germany got tired of great powers marching across it. Cambodia and North Korea too. For a
resurgence of worldwide nationalism, a global war more true in the Clausewitz sense (ie
unlimited) than anything imaginable would be needed.
"Nationalism isn't hard to understand. People want to live among and be governed by other
people mostly like themselves, with the same language and shared history, not by foreigners
in some distant city who don't understand them."
I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends in
universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing. But
neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign and
EVIL.
I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a
referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the
upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades.
Some things expand – others decline. For example the total number
of languages is dropping quickly I'm told. Every now and then there will be a media story
about some old tribesman who dies and with him some language. The tone is always "Og was the
last person on earth to speak (some obscure language)". When I read that I always wonder if
he was the last speaker- who was he conversing with? It seems to me that a language is truly
dead when the second to last speaker dies.
But if one of the root causes for nationalism and splitting off from the old country is
language, with fewer languages shouldn't we have less nationalism?
There is also the 700 channel phenomenon. I have 700 TV channels (I think). The people who
purport to understand such things tell us that newscasters are killing off regional dialects.
Surely if we all speak the same more or less same language in more or less the same way, that
will lessen the pressures to split off and form your own country. No?
Chinese shopping malls I see on the web look a lot like the malls in California. South
Korea might give up the Korean language and adopt Chinese or Japanese. But they could adopt
English. If they wanted to become the 51st state that would help.
As local, pre-imperial identities are rediscovered, we could be
looking at something like 400 states by 2100 (if projecting linearly) or even close to 1000
(if projecting exponentially).
The US could (and maybe should) break up into 50 different nation-states, while the entity
known as the "United States" could evolve from a unitary nation into a transnational
organization, similar to the evolution of the European Union except in reverse.
Meanwhile the EU could easily grow into 50 or more states, the former Soviet Union another
50, India a couple dozen, Africa an unknowable number etc. But even if the fringe areas of
China broke away, that would still leave a homogeneous Han core of more than 1 billion
people.
So in any widespread international fragmentation scenario, China probably wins. And that's
OK, as long as Europeans/whites are allowed to maintain sovereignty over at least parts of
Europe and North America.
On the other hand, if open-borders Spain and other suicidal Western countries (including
the US and Russia) are allowed to survive in their present form, then they are all
demographically doomed as white-majority nations.
@Randal A good discussion of a complex topic. Touches on conservatism versus radicalism
as well, which I think affects whether one is likely to support sub-nationalism against an
established nation, even one's own.
Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism versus "citizenist"
(to use I think Sailer's term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan secessionists
lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start one, in part
because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic solidarity, because they
are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that would be "racist".
I noted recently that there is an interesting contrast between the British government's
concession, in the case of Scotland, to the sub-nation of the inherent right to unilateral
independence based merely on a majority of the sub-nation's population supporting it, and
Spain's adherence to the opposite (and much more widespread) principle that secession is a
matter for the nation as a whole, or simply treasonous sedition.
Someone has pointed to Quebec as another case where the point was conceded to the popular
will of the sub-nation, and the whole process of the British withdrawal from colonial empire
could be viewed as being the same (although there was a deal of US coercion and implicit
threats of secessionist violence involved, along with the basic fact that thanks to WW1 &
WW2 the British elites knew they lacked the strength to hold onto their colonies).
Clearly the constitutional positions of Scotland and of Catalonia are very different, but
I think the governments of both Spain and Britain could have found ways to rationalise making
the opposite choice to the one they took, if they had wanted to. Perhaps it comes down to the
British government being confident they would win a referendum, but the Spanish government
fearing they would not.
Perhaps light on the aspect of ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism versus
"citizenist" (to use I think Sailer's term) nationalism. I would propose that the Catalan
secessionists lack the stomach to win a fight for independence and will lose if they start
one, in part because their nationalist movement is not strongly based upon ethnic
solidarity, because they are indoctrinated in the modern globalist dogma which says that
would be "racist".
Well .a little correction if I may.
Ethnic and "blood and soil" nationalism is definitely much stronger in self-sacrifice and
will to fight.
Definitely.
But, in this case, I am not quite sure that Catalan seccseionists aren't actually exactly
that.
I have a feeling that underneath that "citizenist' veneer there is that "ethnic and blood and
soil" element.
If if that is the case you actually, secession wise, have a perfect combination: ethnic
solidarity and open mind; open mind technically, technologically and, of course,
tactically.
You probably visit ARRSE.
Take a look as some of posts by Brits (and ex-military most likely) who live there. Those
hint, strongly, at "ethnic element" in this move. I mean, really, at the end of the day, why this can't be as Slovakia and Czech
Republic?
Or Baltic states?
Or Macedonia (before Kosovo, that is .)? If it goes shooting it could be Slovenia. Short and effective for secession.
Of course, from there it can go through Croatia into, even, Bosnia. Uglier and much
uglier.
I doubt it can go Chechnya or Kosovo. Just not the environment, IMHO.
I see the problem here as deeply emotional and irrational element (by secessionists)
versus modern, soft, civilized logic of Western world (by EU, NATO, US).
The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic
aside.
If .if ..that's that "real" nationalism.
I don't see any good reason why Texas should not have independence if the people who live
there want it. It is bigger than many independent nations like Lithuania or Moldovia that
were once parts of the USSR.
If even tiny places like St. Kitts and Nevis can be independent nations, why shouldn't
constituent United States disunite if they want to, or form new groups of United States? The
constituent states of the US at present time are growing so that they all look the same, so I
would like to see more diversity of lifestyles.
If Catalonia, Why Not California, Texas, or New England?
Don't quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.
Don't quote me on this, but I think we already had a war over this, Old Sport.
On the other hand, if a defined population holds a referendum and votes by, say 3/4
majority to separate the political bonds that bind, why not? Is the Constitution a suicide
pact? Is it forever and ever, no matter what?
@John Jeremiah Smith "Defending the Constitution" during the American Civil War almost
turned it into a suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South
impoverished for the next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.
There are quite a few Americans now whom one could call Neo-Confederates. They argue for
what they claim was the right and rightness of the historic Southern secession. Some speak of
doing it again. I wonder what Derb would say to them?
Ireland was English ruled for centuries, and part of the United Kingdom for about a
century and a quarter (Six counties still are.), but it was never part of Britain. Hibernia
and Brittania are two separate islands, a fact of geography apart from politics, culture,
etc.
I'm currently residing in Texas which is at least a big as Spain. If Texas holds a
referendum on secession I know how I will vote. I don't even care about the downside if the
upside is the removal of Washington's boot from between my shoulder blades.
You wouldn't win a vote on secession (too complicated with borders, currencies, passports
etc), but you might win a vote on the return of States Rights as envisaged in the
Constitution:
Tenth Amendment
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it
to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people".
So go back to the original idea, and mostly RAISE TAXES LOCALLY AND SPEND THEM LOCALLY.
Combine this with the removal of the Washington/FED right to create credit and the removal of
most Presidential powers and that's the end of Washington.
And BTW you could also change the name of the "United States" to the "Confederation of
American States" or "American Confederation" in recognition of the fact that states don' t
have to be united, but could still respect each other's decisions and differences of
opinion.
Let Texas be Texas and California be California.
It's also a useful way to stop foreign military adventures, since local voters would have
to discuss the issue beforehand, budget for the expense and raise a special tax.
Question. The race problem in America. Was it slavery or race? Imagine the following thought-experiment. 300 yrs ago, suppose the colonists brought over 300,000 white or Asian slaves and 300,000
free black Africans.
Suppose, at some time, the white or Asian slaves were freed whereas blacks were never
under slavery.
Today, which group would be causing the most problems? White or Asian descendants of
slaves or black descendants of free blacks?
I think blacks would still be causing the most problem.
Genocide is worse than slavery, and it's been said pre-American Indians got 'genocided'.
But they cause far less problems than blacks(and despite their great poverty).
Blacks were bound to cause more problems because of biological factors. They are more
muscular, more aggressive, and less reflective.
"Defending the Constitution" during the American Civil War almost turned it into a
suicide pact. Hundreds of thousands were killed or wounded, the South impoverished for the
next century, and angry resentments persist to this day.
Indeed. IMO, had the seceding southern states been allowed to go their own way, in all
likelihood they would have abolished slavery of their own accord within two decades.
Possibly, reunification of several states would have eventually occurred, and the America of
today would have a much stronger, more unified country and a less oppressive government.
Is America a nation? It is a country, but to call it a nation seems a bit too far. Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas
have in common. Nothing.
"I view national sovereignty as an indispensable fire wall against globalism which ends
in universal, perpetual Feudalism wherein the .001% have everything and the rest nothing.
But neither do I wish to be ruled by Imperial Washington which I regard as distant, foreign
and EVIL." -- WorkingClass
Hear ye! Especially when globalism is of the corporatist variety -- and is there any other
now in 2017? Small nations generally don't stand a chance nor do the large nations unless
their politic is a functional democracy -- actually ruled for and by an educated and aware
electorate. In the case of small nations, they are like the states of the USA when the states
compete for which can give more to huge corporations in hopes of the corporations relocating
and bringing capital and jobs to Nebraska, Georgia, Texas, etc. and the winner is Global
Capital, Inc..
@Miro23 As Justice Clarence Thomas has pointed out (I believe it was in dissenting
opinion in Gozales v. Raich ), the SCOTUS with their radical judicial activism (from
both the 'liberal' and the 'conservative' sides if the Court) have effectively repealed the
Tenth Amendment.
I agree with Thomas on that score, but that doesn't mean that I agree with those who find
merit in the Confederacy's claim that the Tenth Amendment justified formation of the CSA and
the bombardment of Fort Sumter by the Confederate States Army, thus beginning the Civil
War.
If the Tenth Amendment were intended to nullify Article I, Section 10, then it needed to
spell it out within the Amendment.
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, enter into any Agreement or Compact
with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or
in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
-- U.S. Const., Art. I, Section 10
Sure, there are arguments to the contrary, but this approach is by far the most practical
and truly conservative approach. The solution to the problem is difficult but plain enough.
The people need to make clear to themselves and to their representatives in Congress that
they do not want to see Congress surrendering its powers under the Constitution, whether that
be to the Executive or to the Judiciary; and, the Congress then needs to rein in the activism
of the SCOTUS, exercising their powers as given in Art. III, Sect. 2:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in
which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all
the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both
as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress
shall make. -- U.S. Const.Art. III, Section 2
This approach to the necessary reforms is hoping for a lot from the American people, and
it will be a long and difficult pull to effect it, but any other course will be either more
difficult or will entail disaster. Many Americans have given up on reform within the
Constitution, and have given up on the Constitution, and thus they would gladly court
disaster today, thinking that we already have disaster but what is the way out if not by way
of the Constitution?
One great big fly in the ointment of any nation is the rise of the global corporation and
finance. If the CEO of GM could claim during his Senate confirmation hearing back in the
first Eisenhower Administration that there was no conflict of interest from his being Defense
Secretary because 'what was good for GM was good for America" ( and vice versa) that is no
longer true because GM and most other major companies have no 'national' base just
markets.
As we are seeing right now large companies based out of Catalonia are scrambling to
register their business address elsewhere to escape any punitive sanctions that might be
levied by Madrid or Brussels against a putative Catalonian state.
Unless a 'nation' is large enough to fight back against the dominant power of large
corporations ( and really today only the United States and China are) national independence
is mostly an illusion.
First, that slavery is mostly a rhetorical tool in the ongoing Jewish/ SJW race war
against Anglo Americans (of course ignoring the Jewish involvement). The reality of US
slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as such, were mostly adequately
housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart from legal definitions, I
can't see much practical difference in their situation when compared to much current US
minimum wage (or illegal) work.
There was a recent comment on Unz from someone running three fast food jobs with
hopelessly long, tightly controlled hours and lousy conditions. This work allowed him to
support his family in a minimal way. You could argue that he was not a slave and was "free",
but in what real sense is he any different from a slave. Same as Mexican illegals picking
fruit. They probably work as hard as black slaves did for a minimum of food and shelter.
Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean abilities.
But it's still a mean. People like Carson and Obama can be way above the national average on
intelligence and good luck to them.
A positive idea, is that different average ability levels aren't used to identify superior
or inferior races – but rather to see individuals co-operatively contributing at
their own particular level to a project (e.g. family or workplace). Some are at a higher
level, and some at a lower level, but that's true of any organization, and doesn't stop
people co-operating with a fair (not equal) share out of the rewards.
But it isn't going to happen in a divisive SJW environment where the media and education
constantly push a racial narrative, and it's not going to happen with mass immigration that
overwhelms any efforts at integration.
And, of course, it's all much easier with one race, one country, which is more or less how
the world developed naturally over millennia.
However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved
positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents
– pushing forward as an organized racial block to appropriate power for Jewish racial
advantage – even to the extent of expending $ trillions of US resources for the benefit
of Israel.
@peterAUS I agree that there are certainly strong ethno-centric elements to the
nationalism in Catalonia, as presumably there always are in nationalist movements of any
size. My point is really that the movement itself is unable to mobilise those sentiments
effectively – among the most powerful human motivating factors around, which is exactly
why globalists place such a big emphasis on delegitimising their expression, criminalising
and silencing them – probably because they are hobbled by their own leftist
internationalist political philosophy (see the political origins of the main Catalan
separatist parties).
The sheer willpower by secessionists, in this case, can simply sweep all that logic
aside.
If .if ..that's that "real" nationalism.
We, outsiders, don't know that.
Only Catalans do.
Yes, we can't know it for certain. But we can try to assess it from the available
indicators, and my assessment fwiw is that that is not going to happen in the Catalan case,
for various reasons.
Only a fool or a liar would claim certainty on such an issue, though.
@Hibernian Yes, Derbyshire was a little lax using the term "Britain", when he should have
written: " with the rest of the British Isles not far behind "
There are enormous economic advantages in having a large, national economy. You have a
large domestic market, you can have a highly diversified economy, and you have a national
currency. The best way to view this is from the outside. Decades of largely failed
development economics are entirely consumed with how to overcome the advantages of the large,
highly developed economies.
Industrialization's secret sauce was scale -- which a large national economy can support.
This is so obvious and fundamental that it seems to be invisible. But also -- a large
national economy also has 'diseconomies' and people have had to focus so long on those that
it is understandable that the advantages no longer have the proper mindshare.
I view the US as both very strong as well as an underachiever.
Regardless. If a sub-nation splits off and then, for example, adopts the Euro, belongs to
the EU, and is a member of NATO, then it isn't much of a nation. Leaving aside the question
of military, would an independent California continue to use the dollar? And have free trade
and open borders with Oregon and Nevada? And have a free trade agreement with the current 49
US states? If so, then there isn't all that much point. If not, then there are real costs and
likely much higher costs than the states can imagine. The West Coast does quite will in
global trade. And not in small part because Boeing is subsidized and US Tech firms and Media
share a currency with the rest of the country that don't have the same export strength. Not
unlike Germany, who benefit from a Euro that is much weaker than a stand alone Mark would
be.
And finally -- like it or not -- the US will be dealing with a country (China) that will
have massive scale advantages.
@CatoYes, but how many mutually unintelligible dialects would be spoken within that
"homogeneous" Han core?
There are seven major subgroups of spoken Chinese. Of those Mandarin is by far the
largest, with about 950 million first language speakers, or 70% of China's total population.
So even if China was reduced to its Mandarin core it would still be a massive nation.
Enoch Powell was a hypocrite. He was an imperialist and wanted to be Viceroy of India. Yet
when a few workers from Pakistan and Jamaica made it to his country, he became a demagogue
braying about rivers of blood. To him it was always "nationalism for me but not for
thee."
It's in the northeastern corner of Spain, actually.
In that case, which corner is the Basque country around Bilbao and San Sebastian? Maybe
that is not a corner at all. Spain seems to have 2 north east corners, but you might want to
call the Barcelona corner the south east corner as it sits on the Mediterranean facing of the
Iberian peninsula, rather than the Atlantic coast or Bay of Biscay.
In any case, if you really want to nit pick, Barcelona is below the corner formed by the
Mediterranean and the French frontier and faces towards the Balearics.
And are Almeria and Gibraltar and Huelva located at corners, and what are they called?
Spain is actually shaped like the tilted head of a bull, with the two horns extending over
Portugal and below France, so it has a lots of angles and corners and is not as square or
rhomboidal as one might think.
@Miro23 "The reality of US slavery was that black slaves were valuable property, and as
such, were mostly adequately housed and fed. They were owned and sometimes abused but apart
from legal definitions, I can't see much practical difference in their situation when
compared to much current US minimum wage (or illegal) work."
First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland and
of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being "valuable" and as
"property"; in other words, "gimmedats". Why didn't Europeans work the land themselves? Were
they THAT lazy? Third, black slaves were generally abused by their masters; they were given
the bare necessities, but not education nor individual rights. Fourth, how do YOU feel about
modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your family would have no quibble if ripped
from your homeland and forced to till someone else's fields.
"Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean
abilities."
IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.
"However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved
positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents "
the Derb does not favor breaking up the large nations what a surprise after all, he is a
conservative and conservatism is nothing if not a propaganda arm of Big Business and keeping
large nations together is important to Big Business profits how else can Big Business thwart
the will of the white majority? After all, the governments of large nations such as america
are not really controllable by the white majority and instead are controlled by .wait for it
Big Business!
In general, the larger the nation, the less united and cohesive the nation and the easier
it is for Big Business to control it the smaller the nation, in general, the more unified and
cohesive .so the people are more united and they are more in control of their own government
.large nations like the USA are not united and cohesive .and thus easier for Big Business to
control the media and the GOP are against the Catalonia revolt a Catalonian nation would be
more united and cohesive than the larger nation of Spain with Catalonia Big Business will
lose out .a Catalonian nation would be better able to control its own immigration and no more
cheap labor for Big Business no more consumer demand via immigration..oh no and no more cheap
domestic labor for upper class propagandists like the Derb
Think about it: it includes Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Pico and Kansas. What do these areas
have in common."
Human beings live here. They are Americans or are part of the United States. They share
a common language, customs, and ways of life.
Having human beings living in a country only differentiates it from uninhabited territory,
so is not a very useful distinction as Antarctica and Greenland and the Arctic seem like the
only really large land masses that are not inhabited, and they all have one thing in
common–they are very cold.
Actually Spanish is spoken as the primary language in Puerto Rico, and there are other
countries, for example Canada other than Quebec, where the way of life might have more in
common with Alaska than with Puerto Rico or Hawaii, which also has its own language, though
it is secondary to English.
@John Jeremiah Smith Non sequitar–an inference or a conclusion that does not follow
from the premises
Slavery is a moral scourge.Moral scourges need to be eradicated.
Therefore, slavery is a moral scourge that needs to be eradicated. **
Please point out how the conclusion ** does not logically flow from the previous
statements.
"Unlikely. Industrialization would have rendered Southern slavery non-competitive."
Southern slave owners, as well as northern business owners, would have employed slaves
rather than imported foreigners to do the backbreaking labor. Then, your ancestors would
likely not come to America, and that would have been an absolute shame.
"Also, spare me your personal moralizing, eh, Corv?"
The same way you personally moralize about the scourge of liberals, the elites, and the
Jews?
First, Europeans brutally and viciously stripped a group of people from their homeland
and of their identity. Second, Europeans conferred to slavery as being "valuable" and as
"property"; in other words, "gimmedats". .Third, black slaves were generally abused by
their masters; they were given the bare necessities, but not education nor individual
rights.
How slaves were treated probably depended on who their owners were. Slavery is obviously
wrong but it doesn't automatically mean that the SJW trope "slaves were generally abused by
their masters" is true.
Fourth, how do YOU feel about modern day slavery? Based on your logic, you and your
family would have no quibble if ripped from your homeland and forced to till someone else's
fields.
I never said that. I was talking about modern day, "free market" hard minimum wage work
for excess hours, in return for a bare survival wage, and the similarity to slavery.
"Second, it's a fact that there are biological differences between races in mean
abilities."
IF true, these differences do NOT justify the enslavement of people.
Try reading what I wrote. No one is trying to enslave anybody. The whole point is that
mean racial differences are irrelevant given 1) the amount of variation about the average and
2) people of different abilities being able to harmoniously and usefully work together in
most real life situations.
"However, what is 100% fatal for present US society, is racial patronage (reserved
positions to leverage forward one's own race) of which US Jews are the prime exponents
"
Why are you so obsessed with Jews?
I know that it's taboo to mention the fact the Jewish 2% of the US population have an
outsized influence on Congress, the media, the FED/Treasury and US foreign policy, and they
have got it through a long term policy of ethnic patronage (i.e. racism).
The true obsession is US media concern with hiding the fact.
Sorry Mr Derbyshire. I know that you're an American by choice while I'm merely one by
ancestry, but it seems to me and to many others that the need to disaggregate is obvious and
pressing. If I thought that there was even a remote chance of returning the republic to
something reasonably like the one I grew up in during the 1950s and 1960s, I'd certainly make
the effort to effect that change. But we're past the point of no return. Too much of the
nation is now a polyglot melange of Third Worlders. The only hope now is to try to save those
parts of the Heartland that may yet be pulled back from the brink.
@Miro23 There's at least as good a chance of disaggregation as there is of returning to
federalism. I'd say it's a considerably better chance. The globalists/multiculturalists in
the blue regions (blue islands in a sea of red) will never consent to federalism. They might
not be able to prevent other regions from breaking away.
@Grandpa Charlie The Constitution is a dead letter. It is routinely flouted by both
parties. One of the parties clearly despises it except when judges that they appointed can
interpret it to mean the opposite of what it clearly means. If what you are suggesting were
possible, I'd be in full agreement with you, but that ship has long since sailed.
@anon I have no problem trading with the people of California, and I'd hope that they'd
have no problem trading with me. But I don't want to live under the sort of laws that
Californians want to live under. Best solution: We go our separate ways, but still cooperate
where such cooperation is seen to be beneficial to both the parties.
@Corvinus Your grasp of the realities of the slave trade is weak indeed. Those who
"stripped" the homeland and identity from the African slaves were the Africans who kidnapped
them (or enslaved them by judicial process) and then sold them to European and Arab slave
traders. The European and Arab slave traders (and those who bought the slaves from them) are
not without serious fault, but they were simply availing themselves of a trade that had
existed for centuries.
@Propagandist Hacker the Derb does not favor breaking up the large nations...what a
surprise...after all, he is a conservative...and conservatism is nothing if not a propaganda
arm of Big Business...and keeping large nations together is important to Big Business
profits...how else can Big Business thwart the will of the white majority? After all, the
governments of large nations such as america are not really controllable by the white
majority and instead are controlled by....wait for it...Big Business!
In general, the larger the nation, the less united and cohesive the nation...and the
easier it is for Big Business to control it...the smaller the nation, in general, the more
unified and cohesive....so the people are more united...and they are more in control of their
own government....large nations like the USA are not united and cohesive....and thus easier
for Big Business to control...the media and the GOP are against the Catalonia revolt...a
Catalonian nation would be more united and cohesive than the larger nation of Spain with
Catalonia...Big Business will lose out....a Catalonian nation would be better able to control
its own immigration...and no more cheap labor for Big Business...no more consumer demand via
immigration..oh no...and no more cheap domestic labor for upper class propagandists
like...the Derb I should like to see John Derbyshire respond to this? Ahoy, Mr Derbyshire,
are you reading the comments?
"Here's where I renew my call for a worldwide alliance of nationalists along the lines of
the old Comintern, the Communist International. We can call this alliance the Natintern, the
Nationalist International. I'm still waiting for someone to come up with a suitable anthem,
to be called of course The Nationale."
We already have a stirring anthem; we just need new lyrics.
I wonder whether this Billy Bragg (the name itself is humorous) is sincere, or is an
anti-Communist parodist. His exaggerated British accent sounds comical (e.g., "comraids"),
and his lyrics, with their imperfect scansion, read like a mock on political correctness:
Stand up, all victims of oppression / For the tyrants fear your might / Don't cling so
hard to your possessions [a taunt at John Lennon's "Imagine"?] / For you have nothing if you
have no rights / Let racist ignorance be ended
Let no one build walls to divide us / Walls of hatred nor walls of stone [Hear that, Trump?]
/ Come greet the dawn and stand beside us / We'll live together or we'll die alone
@Grandpa Charlie The South tried to break away from the Union – and the result was
the Civil War.
The idea is to stay within a looser Union (American Confederation?), whereby States can
still respect and cooperate with each other, but with a lot smaller role for Washington, and
correspondingly greater role in looking after their own affairs (raising and spending taxes
locally).
Power would switch back to the State/County level and require plenty of citizen
participation (almost certainly obligatory) which wouldn't be a bad thing.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it." -George Bernard Shaw
Trends in China are toward centralization, not separation.
There are different opinions on this:
The true foot soldiers of the political and economic program of Xi and Li are the people
who have the most power in the current system – the local party leadership. This
includes the heads of the 2,862 counties, 333 prefectures and 31 provincial-level divisions
(not counting Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan). Put this group of just roughly 3,200 together,
and you have the most important constituency of all for Xi and Li.
The loyalty and competence of provincial leadership in contemporary China is critical.
Many of the key leaders from this group in fact sit on the Central Committee.
"... Historically, the USSR was on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil war and there are still a lot of ties between Russia and Catalonia today. However, there is also s sympathy between Russia and Spain and the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony. ..."
"... The question which divides a lot of Russians is this: is Russia better off with a strong EU because a strong EU might be more capable of standing up to the US or is Russia better off with a weak EU because a weak EU weakens the Western 'front' against Russia? My personal opinion is that EU is doomed anyway and that a collapse of the EU would be a good thing for the people of Europe as it would bring closer the inevitable decolonization of the European continent. This suggests to me that while the eventual outcome of the current crisis is probably irrelevant to Russia, the fact that a crisis is happening is to Russia's advantage. ..."
"... the Kremlin's position that " this is an internal Spanish issue " is probably supported by a majority of experts. Russia has nothing to gain by involving herself in this crisis and she therefore won't do so. ..."
Catalonia is far away from Russia and the outcome of the crisis there will have no real
impact on Russian national interests. But on a political level, Catalonia is highly relevant to
the Russian political debates. See for yourself:
The case of Catalonia can be compared to Crimea: a local referendum, organized against the
will of the central government. In contrast, when Kosovo was cut-off from Serbia in total
illegality and without any kind of referendum the entire West gave this abomination a standing
ovation. The Russians then issues stark warnings about the precedent this set and thereafter
South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Crimea happened. Is the secession of Catalonia not the next logical
step? Is there not a karmic beauty in the fact that Spain and the rest of the EU are now being
hit by the very same demon they unleashed in Kosovo? There is a definite Schadenfreude
for many Russians in seeing the pompous asses of EU politicians sitting on the red ants nest of
separatism – let's see how smart and "democratic" you guys truly are?! It is rather
funny, in a bitter-sweet way, to see how 'democratic' policemen beat up peaceful demonstrators
whose only "crime" was to want to cast a ballot in a box. A lot of Russians are now saying that
Russia is now the only truly democratic and free country left out there. Needless to say, the
way the Madrid government handled this situation further damage the credibility of the West,
the EU and the entire notion of "civilized Europe" being "democratic".
My feeling is that the way the central government handled this event alienated most Russian
who are simply baffled by the utter stupidity and needless brutality of the police crackdown
during the vote: what in the world were the cops trying to achieve?! Did they really think that
they could prevent the vote? And what is the point in then denying that a referendum did take
place? Or what about the praise for the police and their behavior? I have to say that for all
my pro-Spanish biases, the way Madrid handled it all truly seems fantastically stupid and
self-defeating to me.
Historically, the USSR was on the Republican side during the Spanish Civil war and there
are still a lot of ties between Russia and Catalonia today. However, there is also s sympathy
between Russia and Spain and the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US
policies towards Russia because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.
Still, a lot of Russian commentator did speak about Madrid's "Fascism" in handling the events
in Catalonia, and footage of anti-separatists screaming Francoist slogans did not help.
Some Russians, however, mostly liberal, caution about supporting separatism movements in
Europe because Russia herself in multi-national and because of the risk of the separatist fad
coming right back to Russia. I don't think that this is much of a real risk for Russia. Not
after Chechnia. I just don't see any region in Russia really interested in trying to secede
from the Russian Federation. If anything, I see more potential for various region on the other
side of the Russian border wanting to join Russia (Novorussia to begin with).
The question which divides a lot of Russians is this: is Russia better off with a strong
EU because a strong EU might be more capable of standing up to the US or is Russia better off
with a weak EU because a weak EU weakens the Western 'front' against Russia? My personal
opinion is that EU is doomed anyway and that a collapse of the EU would be a good thing for the
people of Europe as it would bring closer the inevitable decolonization of the European
continent. This suggests to me that while the eventual outcome of the current crisis is
probably irrelevant to Russia, the fact that a crisis is happening is to Russia's
advantage.
I think that most Russians have positive feelings towards both Spain and Catalonia. The only
clearly negative feelings I have seen over the past couple of days are elicited by the brutal
and dumb way Madrid handled this crisis: most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence
and at the hypocrisy of the EU politicians. But other than that, the Kremlin's position
that " this is an internal Spanish issue " is probably supported by a majority of
experts. Russia has nothing to gain by involving herself in this crisis and she therefore won't
do so.
Strong on the Kurdish/Russian analysis. Not so impressed with the Catalonia stuff, which
seems to me to be overly impressed by all the hysterical propaganda about "police brutality"
in the Spanish police perfectly reasonably trying to enforce the law.
Granted to some extent it's necessary to treat that propaganda seriously, to the extent
that it has been successful in shaping some opinion, but it isn't necessary to restate it as
though it's objectively true, which suggests Saker for some reason actually believes that a
government has no right to order its police to arrest people who break the law, or that
police have no right to deal with people who obstruct them in performing their lawful
duty.
Try doing that in the US some time and see what it gets you.
I have inherent sympathy for the Catalan separatists as nationalists disrupting the Euro
establishment's cosy setup, and inherent antipathy for them as a bunch of globalist lefty
pro-immigration, pro-EU hypocrites, so I'm conflicted on my emotional response to the issue.
Perhaps that allows for more objectivity.
In practical terms, though, I can see no short term future for Catalan separatism. There
is almost zero possibility of any major world government recognising a unilaterally seceding
region in Spain, for obviously self-serving reasons, and a unilateral declaration of
independence leaves Catalonia in breach of Spanish law to the degree that it fails and
outside the EU and without any realistic way to organise its finances and economy to the
extent that it succeeds.
Far from making a mistake, I suspect the Madrid government did the right thing (from the
point of view of the Spanish central government and its tactical objective of frustrating the
Catalan separatists' goal on secession) in making it clear that the "referendum" was illegal
– it prevented it from being a much more credible mandate for independence, and the
hysterical response to a few robust police operations will soon fade as reality sets in.
Rationally, you would expect therefore that the noises the separatists are making about a
UDI within days should be a bluff. However, it's certainly possible that Puigdemont's
analysis is different and he will go ahead with one. In that case, it seems likely the
central government will suspend regional government and arrest the separatist leaders,
replace the senior ranks of the local police force and seek to ride out the likely mass
demonstrations, mob resistance and strikes that will follow.
The separatists can only lose from then on, since all they can do is make life unpleasant
for their own people in Catalonia while the central government tightens the noose. It doesn't
appear there is sufficient or sufficiently strong support for independence in Catalonia, nor
any strong foreign sponsor, to enable them to hold out long enough to bring Spain, backed by
the EU establishment, to its knees. As time goes on, more and more people in Catalonia,
starting with the strong opponents of separatism and moving on to neutrals and ultimately
even "soft" separatist supporters, will come to blame the UDI hotheads for their
situation.
The separatists will be left depending on a "hail Mary" to rescue them – a Spanish
government collapse or some kind of Euro crisis that, instead of causing the big EU powers to
tell Madrid to crack down harder and sort things out, somehow has the opposite effect.
Is there not a karmic beauty in the fact that Spain and the rest of the EU are now being
hit by the very same demon they unleashed in Kosovo? There is a definite Schadenfreude for
many Russians in seeing the pompous asses of EU politicians sitting on the red ants nest of
separatism – let's see how smart and "democratic" you guys truly are?!
The stupidity of the Spanish "politicians" both from Milan & Catalan in allowing this
situation to develop is almost unbelievable. The Nazi-like actions of Rajoy in particular has
generated huge sympathy for the Catalans, who did not previously have a majority for
independence. They will now be closer to a majority.
It's almost as though the dummy was conspiring WITH the Catalan dopes in the breakup of
his own country. Weird.
Israel is, reportedly, a huge investor in the Catalan area. The Separatist movement is
being driven by the Catalan elite, not from the grassroots. It's more Maidan than Wat
Tyler.
Only Israel is backing the Barzani Kurd separatists who have considerable Jewish heritage
& are as stupid as the Catalans in their greedy pursuit of autonomy.
The Israeli dream of Greater Israel, "from the Nile to the Euphrates" is at work in the
M.East.
The globalist dream of the destruction of every nation, including the mad U$Asylum Empire
& the Nazi state of Israehell is at work, again, in Europe.
Is there not a karmic beauty in the fact that Spain and the rest of the EU are now being
hit by the very same demon they unleashed in Kosovo? There is a definite Schadenfreude for
many Russians in seeing the pompous asses of EU politicians sitting on the red ants nest of
separatism – let's see how smart and "democratic" you guys truly are?!
@John Doran. The common denominators are stupidity & Israel.
The stupidity of the Spanish "politicians" both from Milan & Catalan in allowing this
situation to develop is almost unbelievable. The Nazi-like actions of Rajoy in particular has
generated huge sympathy for the Catalans, who did not previously have a majority for
independence. They will now be closer to a majority.
It's almost as though the dummy was conspiring WITH the Catalan dopes in the breakup of
his own country. Weird.
Israel is, reportedly, a huge investor in the Catalan area. The Separatist movement is
being driven by the Catalan elite, not from the grassroots. It's more Maidan than Wat
Tyler.
Only Israel is backing the Barzani Kurd separatists who have considerable Jewish heritage
& are as stupid as the Catalans in their greedy pursuit of autonomy.
The Israeli dream of Greater Israel, "from the Nile to the Euphrates" is at work in the
M.East.
The globalist dream of the destruction of every nation, including the mad U$Asylum Empire
& the Nazi state of Israehell is at work, again, in Europe.
John Doran.
The Nazi-like actions of Rajoy in particular has generated huge sympathy for the
Catalans
LOL!
It's as though the world has been taken over by a combination of 1970s hippies moaning
about "police brutality, man" because they got their weed confiscated and Marxist halfwits
going on about "fascist oppressors" – oh, hang on, that pretty much is what has
happened. They grew up into globalists and brought their children up as SJWs and antifa
thugs
The Nazi-like actions of Rajoy in particular has generated huge sympathy for the
Catalans
LOL!
It's as though the world has been taken over by a combination of 1970s hippies moaning
about "police brutality, man" because they got their weed confiscated and Marxist halfwits
going on about "fascist oppressors" - oh, hang on, that pretty much is what has happened.
They grew up into globalists and brought their children up as SJWs and antifa thugs
When did it become "Nazi-like" for police to enforce the law? (For grownups, I mean.
Obviously childish hippies have always had that view.) Your repetition of the jingo 'police
have a right to enforce the law' is laughably simplistic and at odds with reality
The right to peaceful assembly is an inalienable human right that is respected by pretty
much any non-authoritarian regime
The details that you overlook are fatal
The 'police' with jurisdiction for law enforcement are always local what you refer to as
'police' are the Spanish Civil Guard, described by wikipedia as being 'organised as a
military force' and with a long and bloody history during the authoritarian Franco era
especially, as political shock troops
The footage of what took place is there for everyone to see there was not one recorded
instance of the demonstrators resorting to violence, either against property or persons,
including the Civil Guard
This itself is remarkable, as police agent provocateurs starting trouble is a standard
tactic in any demonstration where authorities want to create an excuse for police violence
the fact that they were unable to deploy such provocateurs speaks volumes about the order
maintained by the demonstrators, supported by local police and first responders
Even US law enforcement with its penchant for violence has not behaved in this way
recently, as was seen in the massive anti-trump riots they only swung into action after
individuals initiated violence against property and persons
Every police department in civilized countries sticks to these rules, not least for their
own interests during any mass demonstration, the local police interest is always to keep
things from getting out of control and minimizing property damage and human casualties
What we saw in Catalonia was a non-local paramilitary force on a purely political mission
of violent assault
the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia
because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.
Which Russians exactly?
Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans. This absurd trope
that the AngloZionist Empire is suppressing Europeans' natural Russophilia needs to be done
away with.
... the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia
because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.
Which Russians exactly?
Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans. This absurd trope
that the AngloZionist Empire is suppressing Europeans' natural Russophilia needs to be done
away with.
... most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU
politicians.
Again, who are these mythical "most Russians"?
It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let
alone have any strong opinion on it.
It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let
alone have any strong opinion on it.
This is what I suspect as well. It might matter more if Spain was a major trading partner
with Russia, but I don't think that has been the case in recent history. I don't think there
is a significant expat community of either Spanish in Russia or vice versa, either.
Watching the EU step a few more steps, zombie-like, toward her inevitable end must be
faintly amusing, though.
@FB Your repetition of the jingo 'police have a right to enforce the law' is laughably
simplistic and at odds with reality...
The right to peaceful assembly is an inalienable human right that is respected by pretty
much any non-authoritarian regime...
The details that you overlook are fatal...
The 'police' with jurisdiction for law enforcement are always local...what you refer to as
'police' are the Spanish Civil Guard, described by wikipedia as being 'organised as a
military force'...and with a long and bloody history during the authoritarian Franco era
especially, as political shock troops...
The footage of what took place is there for everyone to see...there was not one recorded
instance of the demonstrators resorting to violence, either against property or persons,
including the Civil Guard...
This itself is remarkable, as police agent provocateurs starting trouble is a standard
tactic in any demonstration where authorities want to create an excuse for police
violence...the fact that they were unable to deploy such provocateurs speaks volumes about
the order maintained by the demonstrators, supported by local police and first
responders...
Even US law enforcement with its penchant for violence has not behaved in this way
recently, as was seen in the massive anti-trump riots...they only swung into action after
individuals initiated violence against property and persons...
Every police department in civilized countries sticks to these rules, not least for their
own interests...during any mass demonstration, the local police interest is always to keep
things from getting out of control and minimizing property damage and human casualties...
What we saw in Catalonia was a non-local paramilitary force on a purely political mission
of violent assault...
Bottom line is that police do have a duty to stop violent demonstrators who are breaking
the law, but not peaceful assemblies...
The right to peaceful assembly is an inalienable human right that is respected by pretty
much any non-authoritarian regime
Peaceful assembly does not include intentionally breaking the law as confirmed by a direct
court order, unless the law is an unreasonable one that precludes peaceful protest or
political expression or assembly, which the Spanish law self-evidently does not. Catalan
separatists in Spain have every right to speak and assemble freely, and they do so endlessly.
Might as well claim drug dealers can't be arrested in the US for meeting to buy and sell
drugs because it's a "breach of their inalienable human rights".
The 'police' with jurisdiction for law enforcement are always local
No they aren't. In the UK there are national police organisations that act on various
kinds of crime. In the US federal police enforce federal laws.
Whether it's local or national police enforcing a court's orders is in reality irrelevant,
except that local police might be more likely to abrogate their responsibility to enforce the
law through partisan loyalty to the lawbreakers, as happened with the Catalan police.
Even US law enforcement with its penchant for violence has not behaved in this way
recently
I don't know what world you live in, but in the real one the US and pretty much all police
forces regularly enforce court orders and remove and/or arrest those who impede their doing
so, with whatever level of violence is required to do so – usually not much in
practice.
Here are German police dealing with hippy squatters "exercising their right of free
assembly" in Berlin in June:
Here's how US police followed orders to clear leftists "exercising their right of free
assembly" in Zucotti Park in 2011:
And here's how US police dealt with treehuggers "exercising their right of free assembly"
in breach of the law in Montana last year:
At least 117 protesters were arrested after law enforcement Humvees and helicopters
began to flood the area to break up a protester encampment near the pipeline's path.
Calling themselves "water protectors," supporters of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe set
up tents and teepees on the land, about an hour south of Bismarck, which they said belongs
to the tribe under a 19-century treaty.
But authorities said they are trespassing on pipeline property. Officials brought in
reinforcements from seven states to remove protesters and dismantle roadblocks made of hay
bales and wood.
As the standoff continued, police deployed bean bag rounds and pepper spray gas and
unleashed a high-pitched siren to disperse the crowd.
Look, I'm not a blanket apologist for the police or for government repression. I recognise
that there are plenty of occasions when governments and police act repressively. But this
business in Catalonia was not one of those times, even if there might have been occasions
when individual officers or units got carried away – police are human beings, and those
might be disciplinary issues but they do not make either the Spanish government enforcing the
law nor the Spanish police carrying out their orders to do so somehow "Nazi-like", as the
post to which I was replying asserted.
Catalan separatists are an awful lot less repressed than traditionalists/nativists/racists
and other such dissident minorities of the traditionalist right are in Europe and the UK,
where the latter can have their political representation infiltrated and disrupted, their
meetings attacked, their sympathisers harassed and dismissed from employment, and their
freedom of expression suppressed, with the connivance or even active cooperation of
government. Catalan separatists as a matter of hard fact have all those freedoms that
nativists etc do not, and having those freedoms does not require being allowed to carry out a
specific illegal act that has been forbidden by court order, merely in order to try to flout
the law of the land.
At the very least, Russia ought to do everything in her power to encourage Turkey to
abandon its old ways and to follow Russia in her realization that her future is not with
the West, but with the South, East and North
.
Whatever.
You Can Take The Man Out Of The Ghetto, But You Can't Take The Ghetto Out Of The Man.
These are intractable issues. As much as you wish otherwise, both Russia and Turkey are
too big, too clumsy, and too backward to do much about any of this. Powerlessness. Get used
to it. At least Russia has oil.
And the future is over-rated.
The smarter citizens of the West began to see the illusory folly of the Myth of Progress
decades ago. You Russians are still trying to push Utopia. You would think you would have
learned something from the whole Communist experiment. "You Russians are still trying to push
Utopia."
What utopia is Russia still trying to push? The West wants the entire world filled with LGBT
and tolerance and human rights and free trade and everyone then will be happy.
... the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia
because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.
Which Russians exactly?
Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans. This absurd trope
that the AngloZionist Empire is suppressing Europeans' natural Russophilia needs to be done
away with.
... most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU
politicians.
Again, who are these mythical "most Russians"?
It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let
alone have any strong opinion on it.
Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans.
In general, everybody is hostile to everybody else, particularly when the establishment
media are endlessly propagating hostile narratives, the US influence being (as the man said)
a major factor in that. The phony 'global attitude' survey shows the favorability of the US
in Germany dropping 20-30% in one year, and yet the US is exactly the same country. These
numbers are meaningless.
... the Russians understand that Spain is supporting any and all US policies towards Russia
because it is a voiceless and totally subservient US colony.
Which Russians exactly?
Spaniards, like many Europeans, are as hostile to Russia as Americans. This absurd trope
that the AngloZionist Empire is suppressing Europeans' natural Russophilia needs to be done
away with.
... most Russians are sincerely appalled at the violence and at the hypocrisy of the EU
politicians.
Again, who are these mythical "most Russians"?
It's a sure bet that a good majority hasn't even heard about the Catalonian crisis, let
alone have any strong opinion on it. Well, Spain allowed for some years the Russian Navy to
stop for provisions in Ceuta. Only last year they finally capitulated to NATO pressure.
Locals also noticed that Russian sailors and officers were always polite and ordered, never
entering into brawls or getting drunk in public, after a well-orchestrated worldwide
propaganda campaign like this:
"... It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of "allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey, Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. ..."
"... Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US. ..."
"... Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official. ..."
"... Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord. The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as sole regional power. ..."
"... The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's presidency. ..."
"... Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states, especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf war. ..."
"... Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East. ..."
"... The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the international community's list of priorities. ..."
Palestinians and Israelis watched last week's referendum of Iraq's Kurds with special
interest. Israeli officials and many ordinary Palestinians were delighted – for very
different reasons – to see an overwhelming vote to split away from Iraq.
Given the backlash from Baghdad and anger from Iran and Turkey, which have restive Kurdish
minorities, the creation of a Kurdistan in northern Iraq may not happen soon.
Palestinian support for the Kurds is not difficult to understand. Palestinians, too, were
overlooked when Britain and France carved up the Middle East into states a century ago. Like
the Kurds, Palestinians have found themselves trapped in different territories, oppressed by
their overlords.
Israel's complex interests in Kurdish independence are harder to unravel.
Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu was the sole world leader to back Kurdish independence,
and other politicians spoke of the Kurds' "moral right" to a state. None saw how uneasily that
sat with their approach to the Palestinian case.
On a superficial level, Israel would gain because the Kurds sit on plentiful oil. Unlike the
Arab states and Iran, they are keen to sell to Israel.
But the reasons for Israeli support run deeper. There has been co-operation, much of it
secret, between Israel and the Kurds for decades. Israeli media lapped up tributes from
now-retired generals who trained the Kurds from the 1960s. Those connections have not been
forgotten or ended. Independence rallies featured Israeli flags, and Kurds spoke of their
ambition to become a "second Israel".
Israel views the Kurds as a key ally in an Arab-dominated region. Now, with Islamic State's
influence receding, an independent Kurdistan could help prevent Iran filling the void. Israel
wants a bulwark against Iran transferring its weapons, intelligence and know-how to Shiite
allies in Syria and Lebanon.
Israel's current interests, however, hint at a larger vision it has long harboured for the
region – and one I set out at length in my book Israel and the Clash of
Civilisations.
It began with Israel's founding father, David Ben Gurion, who devised a strategy of
"allying with the periphery" – building military ties to non-Arab states like Turkey,
Ethiopia, India and Iran, then ruled by the shahs. The goal was to help Israel to break out of
its regional isolation and contain an Arab nationalism led by Egypt's Gamal Abdel
Nasser.
Israeli general Ariel Sharon expanded this security doctrine in the early 1980s, calling
for Israel to become an imperial power in the Middle East. Israel would ensure that it alone in
the region possessed nuclear weapons, making it indispensible to the US.
Sharon was not explicit about how Israel's empire could be realised, but an indication
was provided at around the same time in the Yinon Plan, written for the World Zionist
Organisation by a former Israeli foreign ministry official.
Oded Yinon proposed the implosion of the Middle East, breaking apart the region's key
states – and Israel's main opponents – by fuelling sectarian and ethnic discord.
The aim was to fracture these states, weakening them so that Israel could secure its place as
sole regional power.
The inspiration for this idea lay in the occupied territories, where Israel had contained
Palestinians in a series of separate enclaves. Later, Israel would terminally divide the
Palestinian national movement, nurturing an Islamist extremism that coalesced into Hamas and
Islamic Jihad.
In this period, Israel also tested its ideas in neighbouring southern Lebanon, which it
occupied for two decades. There, its presence further stoked sectarian tensions between
Christians, Druze, Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
The strategy of "Balkanising" the Middle East found favour in the US among a group of
hawkish policymakers, known as neoconservatives, who came to prominence during George W Bush's
presidency.
Heavily influenced by Israel, they promoted the idea of "rolling back" key states,
especially Iraq, Iran and Syria, which were opposed to Israeli-US dominance in the region. They
prioritised ousting Saddam Hussein, who had fired missiles on Israel during the 1991 Gulf
war.
Although often assumed to be an unfortunate side effect of the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
Washington's oversight of the country's bloody disintegration into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish
fiefdoms looked suspiciously intentional. Now, Iraqi Kurds are close to making that break-up
permanent.
Syria has gone a similar way, mired in convulsive fighting that has left its ruler impotent.
And Tehran is, again, the target of efforts by Israel and its allies in the US to tear up the
2015 nuclear accord, backing Iran into a corner. Arab, Baluchi, Kurdish and Azeri minorities
there may be ripe for stirring up.
Last month at the Herzliya conference, an annual jamboree for Israel's security
establishment, justice minister Ayelet Shaked called for a Kurdish state. She has stated that
it would be integral to Israeli efforts to "reshape" the Middle East.
The unravelling of Britain and France's map of the region would likely lead to chaos of
the kind that a strong, nuclear-armed Israel, with backing from Washington, could richly
exploit. Not least, yet more bedlam would push the Palestinian cause even further down the
international community's list of priorities.
A version of this article first appeared in the National, Abu Dhabi.
I speak as a former Jew, now an Orthodox Christian.
I grew up in an upper-middle class B'nai B'rith synagogue and believe me, MOST American
Jews support the warmongering program of the establishment Jewish Lobbies and think
tanks.
I speak with authority here having grown up INSIDE the Jewish community. Oh, many Jews
might say to the goyim, 'I'm against all this war talk.' BUT with their fellow Jewish
'lantsmen' BEHIND CLOSED DOORS they're ALL for war against Israel's perceived enemies.
Every Sabbath Shacharit (morning) service growing up in the 50′s we sang Hatikvah,
the Israeli National Anthem. It was part of our 'religion' that what's bad for Israel is bad
for all Jews.
Today that would include all the nations that oppose and/or countering the Zionist
project: Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and now Russia.
"... Some people in Catalonia, a rich and culturally distinct area in north-east of Spain, want to secede from the larger country. According to polls (pdf) less than half of the people in the area support the move. The local government prepared for a referendum and called for a local vote. ..."
"... Catalonia has a GDP per capita of some $33,580/year. For Spain as a whole the GDP per capita is $26,643/year. Many factors account for the difference. Catalonia has an advantages in climate, in the vicinity of the French border, the high attractiveness for tourists with its capital Barcelona and its beaches. It has a well developed industry. But the "rest of Spain" is also, by far, its biggest market. ..."
"... In general the splitting off of sub-states from the bigger, established nations weakens both. It is easier for outside forces to manipulated smaller states than larger ones. While the motives in this or that case are understandable, they are also, in my view, shortsighted. ..."
"... It's contradictory and ridiculous. Propagating for "independence" while staying within the gargantuan Borg-collective EU doesn't make any sense whatsoever. One also has to wonder were the usual suspects are in this case. Soros? ..."
"... It is possible that Madrid has sent in the police because other countries in Spain's neighbourhood (hint, hint) fear that Catalonian independence may be a precedent for moves towards self-government and separation in their own territories and are leaning on the Spanish to stop the Catalans. It is possible also that austerity programs adopted by governments in various European countries are helping to drive separation and independence movements. These movements potentially threaten EU unity. ..."
"... if this would be some ex-soviet county or Asian or African country all the hell broken loose for "right to vote" and for "independence". The world master's would call emergency meeting for the Security Council and unanimously vote in for demand of that "people". ..."
"... It'll be interesting to see if all the trolls agitating for Barzanistan independence will be out again in force here...and with the same level of hysteria... I wager they will be conspicuous by their absence... When it comes to secession movements, the key word is 'targeted'... Good for Kosovo...bad for South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Crimea... Good for Iraqi and Syrian Kurds...bad for Turkish Kurds... Good for Bosnia splitting from Yugoslavia...bad for Serbs splitting from Bosnia... Is anyone still fooled...? ..."
"... Actually it is 38.6% [youth unemployment] according to this: https://www.statista.com/statistics/266228/youth-unemployment-rate-in-eu-countries/ but you would not that from Eurostat. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/macroeconomic-imbalances-procedure/youth-unemployment-rate ..."
"... "Then the U.S. came down like a sledgehammer again on Yugoslavia when on November 5, 1990 Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. A section of this law, without previous warning, cut off all aid, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia within 6 months. Also, the law demanded separate elections in each of the republics that made up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before aid to the separate republics would be resumed. In February 1991 the Council of Europe also demanded that Yugoslavia hold multi-party elections or face an economic blockade." Death sentence has been made the US. Need more? ..."
"... Catalonian independence Referendum it is illegal (against the Spanish constitution) have no warranties of any kind, and will be cooked as needed in order to get more subsides and money from the government in Madrid. It is used by nationalistic politicians as a smoke curtain to hide behind in order not to be put to jail after 30 years of corruption. They are not called unofficially the 3% commission Party for nothing. ..."
"... Also say that Catalonian GDP it is actually 17% of Spain's GDP, with about 15% population of Spain. Who's subsidizing who's it is not clear. But related to Spain's External Debt, Catalonia account for about 25 % of it, not to mention 1000s of business have left (and are leaving the region every year) for other parts of Spain since at least 20 years. ..."
"... Before talking of secession check facts. The Catalans don't want to be out the EU, just to have a different relation with Spain. No big deal if not for big money. ..."
"... Ah, yes, than to support "independence" of the Yugoslav republics BND and CIA started to ship weapons trough Austria and Hungary. The Serbs had been already armed to the teeth from depot of ex army. ..."
"... Helmut Kohl and Genscher (US puppets) actively participated and hastily recognized independence of Slovenia. The US' puppet Milosevic (via Lawrence Eaagleburger) and Serbian establishment was all the way to dismantle Yugoslavia. ..."
"... It is funny word "legal" or "illegal". According to the west political philosophy, Vox Populi is Vox Dei so what is legal or illegal it is matter of the power and who has monopole on power (security forces), who interpreting the law. ..."
"... Second thing since the PP is typical capitalist party with only aim to serve foreign financial centers and looting own people I very much doubt they are into legality of any kind. This is power struggle, where perception and rhetoric and emotions are very important in order to "win". ..."
"... Rajoy is ex Lehman Brothers executive. Need to say more? ..."
"... It is even more disturbing considering direct similarities between Crimea and Donbass events of 2014 where Nazi central government violently suppressed local authorities responding to local people demand for autonomy or independence, freedom from fascism. ..."
"... Regardless of political advantages right of people to self determination is in the UN charter and unfortunate moral relativism expressed by b is not serving over all goal of ending global western hegemony of oligarchic class. ..."
"... Catalonia indeps. seek to become a 'new country' that would replicate the EU model: the rich country loves its folklore - language, costume, habits, etc.- and does not pay for the poor elsewhere through taxation, only thru negotiated contribution to 'solidarity' or other voluntary participatory funds. -- See e.g. in EU, Germany and Greece. ..."
"... At the same time, the EU has always had the aim of 'regionalising' areas for them to come under the remit of the new Central Command (EU Brussels), thus gradually diluting the power of the 'old' Nation-State(s), for now a stealthy process. ..."
"... Why has Spain has been so heavy handed? Perhaps because of what happened during the Greek crisis? Recall that Tsipras called a referendum whose result was surprisingly anti-EU. "There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties" - Jean-Claude Juncker, EU Commission President ..."
"... How would you know if US succumbed to "German pressure"? What I remember is the "international community" gave Yugoslavia an offer they could not possibly accept. Typical Mafia governance, per the Judeo-Roman (the actual correct term for the Western civilization, an not the incoherent Judeo-Christian) Regime. ..."
"... There is a saying in Iran: A fool throws a stone in a well and 40 wise men can't take it out. ..."
"... I did so for a very simple reason. The European nations had in the previous 25 years destroyed the nation of Yugoslavia. Then in 1999 NATO went to war against Serbia to give the province of Kosovo independence. Not only that but the Spaniard Javier Solana was the one who pushed NATO into attacking Serbia because it would not give independence to Kosovo. My reaction to Javier -- eat dirt asshole, what goes around comes around. Now it is Catalonias turn to gain independence. ..."
"... "If I remember correctly the U S was inclined originally to help keep Yugoslavia together but it was German pressure..." Very laughable, so client state an issue order to hegemonic power. Germans FP is not run by Germans, when we are talking about political strategic decisions that have affect on international order. Germany is not the creator it is followers. Secondly, Germany is no such power that can cause calamity of such proportion either in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya. Anywhere. ..."
"... As for US help, god help those who US is helping. The US started with dismantling of Yugoslavia in 1984 (or immediately after Tito death), and by cultivation of the Serbian elite (by Zimmmeran, Eagleburger, Scowcroft), investment in Serbia and exporting Yugo cars, handguns from Zastava etc. in the US. And wide "cooperation" of Universities from US with Serbian one. ..."
"... Does this equation hold? NATO + Stasi = NWO ..."
"... My guess is that politicians on both sides are doing what they do best - stay in power by wipping up nationalist feelings. ..."
"... Once again as is becoming far too apparent on this board we many posts from people arguing for what suits them personally. American posters whose slow indoctrination against a united Europe is from America's hypocrisy in enjoying the advantages of a simple market whilst fearing the huge economic and political power a truly united Europe will eventuate in, support Catalans because like Agent Orange they feel more secure when Europe is weakened. ..."
"... On the other hand euros who like united Europe in principle but rightly resent the neoliberal monolith the EU has morphed into, oppose the Catalan secession because they are concerned about further EU destabilization. That is foolish Catalonia would stay part of the EU and any reformed EU must decentralize some decision making to better reflect the local circumstances, while it does a much better job of becoming more 'unitary' in other ways. Yes many Germans hate that idea because they have been enjoying the German imperialism by stealth which is the current EU model, but unless they do become much more understanding of the economic injustices that current EU policies exacerbate, there will be no EU and if that happens these issues will stop being sorted by ballot and go back to the 'old way' of Europeans killing each other in the pursuit of economic advantage. ..."
Some people in Catalonia, a rich and culturally distinct area in north-east of Spain,
want
to secede from the larger country. According to
polls (pdf) less than half of the people in the area support the move. The local government
prepared for a referendum and called for a local vote.
Polling stations were set up for today. But Spanish laws do not allow for such polls or a
separation. Catalonia, like other Spanish regions, already has a good degree of autonomy. If
Catalonia were to secede the Basque areas in the north would likely follow. Spain would fall
apart. Under Spanish law the referendum is illegal. The central government sent police to
prevent the procedure. Street melees ensued.
A lot of mistakes have been made by the central government. It was stubborn in negotiations.
It reacted too late to - at least partially - reasonable demands. Its insensitivity only
incited resistance to it. But it is also responsible for the country as a whole. The behavior
of local government is not much better. It is just as conservative, in its own way, as the
government in Madrid.
Catalonia has a GDP per capita of some $33,580/year. For Spain as a whole the GDP per capita
is $26,643/year. Many factors account for the difference. Catalonia has an advantages in
climate, in the vicinity of the French border, the high attractiveness for tourists with its
capital Barcelona and its beaches. It has a well developed industry. But the "rest of Spain" is
also, by far, its biggest market.
A richer part of the country does not want to subsidize the poorer ones. But it still wants
to profit from them.
In general the splitting off of sub-states from the bigger, established nations weakens
both. It is easier for outside forces to manipulated smaller states than larger ones. While the
motives in this or that case are understandable, they are also, in my view,
shortsighted.
During the Spanish civil war in the 1930s Catalonia and Basque areas were the last
Republican strongholds against the winning right-wing Nationalists. That history lives on in
today's conflict. No one should wish to repeat it.
It is easier for outside forces to manipulated smaller states than larger ones.
I respectfully disagree. If memory serves, places like Switzerland, which is not in the
EU, or tiny Cuba defend themselves very well. And don't see that Russia has been particularly
easy to manipulate after the general plundering that followed the break-up of the Soviet
Union was stopped by Putin.
On the other hand, the EU countries bloc, which would count as one large country, is
mercilessly manipulated by its non-elected bureaucrats, corporate lobbies, and exterior
influences (see the recent CETA, which was imposed without any democratic process
whatsoever).
But yes, at least momentarily, the breaking-up of a country is bound to economically
weaken its seceded parts, which is something different. IMHO.
It's contradictory and ridiculous. Propagating for "independence" while staying within
the gargantuan Borg-collective EU doesn't make any sense whatsoever. One also has to wonder
were the usual suspects are in this case. Soros?
Unfortunately Madrid's reaction to the referendum - which the Spanish government should have
foreseen as early as the Scottish independence referendum back in 2015 - has probably helped
to legitimise the Catalonian referendum and made it look more important than it actually is
to the Catalonian public. Madrid should have advised the public that the referendum was
illegal under Spanish law, explained its case as to why, and left targeted would-be voters
pondering the consequences if they had chosen to participate.
I would like to say also that it's not like B to simply say that Madrid sent the police in
to disrupt the referendum and leave it at that, and that nations splitting into two or more
smaller states become more open to outside interference and manipulation. It is possible
that Madrid has sent in the police because other countries in Spain's neighbourhood (hint,
hint) fear that Catalonian independence may be a precedent for moves towards self-government
and separation in their own territories and are leaning on the Spanish to stop the Catalans.
It is possible also that austerity programs adopted by governments in various European
countries are helping to drive separation and independence movements. These movements
potentially threaten EU unity.
Separation and holding a referendum are two different things. Separation may not be allowed
according to the Spanish constitution, so the Spanish government could simply ignore the
result, just like referendum results are nearly always ignored by the government in my own
country (the Netherlands). But how can the mere act of placing pieces of paper in a box
itself be considered illegal, to be answered with by police batons and rubber bullets?
There were two interesting programs on France24 about the Catalan referendum. From what i
gathered, the president of Catalunya said the latest polls they had were not even giving a
majority to the yes, but the refusal of Madrid to let a democratic referendum was worsening
the situation. Catalunya has been trying to beg Madrid for discussions for years on several
issues but it seems that the king and the Madrid gov are just so corrupt they refuse to open
files normally.
"Catalonia has an advantages in climate, in the vicinity of the French border, the high
attractiveness for tourists of its capital Barcelona and its beaches." ???
oh really, you mean the Costa Brava etc do not attract millions of Brits/Germans/Scandinavian
countries? Not to mention the Saudis who land with a dozen of planes each year? But where is
the money going?
Don't believe the hype. Madrid (PP) and Catalunya (CiU) are equally corrupt. In fact CiU no
longer exists as all it's party offices have been embargoed by the judges. But jolly useful
for distracting people from austerity programmes. (People who lose jobs, on average, earn 12%
less in their new jobs in Spain).
The NWO plan is to bring down the nation states. Worked jolly well in Yugoslavia, nearly
worked in Syria. Glued to the telly, so can't give links, but recently Thierry Meyssan
reported on a speech by Princeling Macron. In the future we will no longer have nation
states, just city states. Germany and Italy became Nation States in the 19th century because
they realised that city states had no future, no defence, no "sovereignty".
One of my favourite places in the world to hang out is a former fishing village about I
dunno, 60 Kilometers north of Barcelona, a town called Cadaques and a staunchly Catalan
village. Many of the tourists who have flooded the joint speak better Spanish than the locals
who still prefer the Catalan language in their day to day conversations.
When I first visited, sometime in the 80's, France still banned Catalan festivals
(Catalonia per se is divided pretty much in half on the Mediterranean coast between
France & Spain), so French Catalans would come south to towns like Cadaques to celebrate
their culture. The locals ripped them off blind and took great amusement in doing so. Most of
the French Catalans had lost their language, so for many of them it was sorta like the way
the Scots families in Aotearoa celebrated "the Highland Games" a sort of dedicated hobby,
whereas for Catalans still held captive by the Madrid/Castillan oppressor who they last
fought less than 50 years before, this was no hobby, it was their life.
The similarities between england's conquest of Scotland Wales and Ireland, and Castile's
butchery and oppression of Catalonia and the Basque Country is strong.
The chief difference being that Culloden was fought 200 years ago and the Spanish Civil War
less than 100 years. The wounds are still fresh and as Catalans describe it, the portion of
the Constitution which prevents their self determination is thanks to General Franco who was
meant to have retired by then, but his meglomania had him insist the new constitution which
he was not meant to be involved in drafting, included provisions to keep Basque and Catalan
kissing Castile's arse.
The Catalans have always been more, shall we say indirect, when it comes to resisting than
the Basques, but they are no less determined, I have no doubt that Rajoy's stupidity in
cranking up opposition to the ballot in order to distract from investigations of widespread
corruption in the People's Party will guarantee an independent Catalonia sooner, rather than
later.
Just as I have no doubt that the englander's crazy decision to bolt from the EU rather
than fight to alter it will actually precipitate many of the changes the EU needs to make. A
reformed EU will mean that many of the artificial nation states put together by greedy
euroroyalty will wither and reduce to their constituent parts - because well run smaller
states are always more likely to provide a better more humanist way of life than the mega
nations with populations closing on 100 million, where even those states which claim to be
'democracies' are controlled by a political elite who rarely interact with those outside
their clique. Trying to communicate with functionaries of a mega state makes attempting to
get human service outta Microsoft, Apple or Google, a piece of piss in comparison.
if this would be some ex-soviet county or Asian or African country all the hell broken
loose for "right to vote" and for "independence". The world master's would call emergency
meeting for the Security Council and unanimously vote in for demand of that "people".
But the country in case is Spain, NATO member, EU member. The country that belong to the
Western and Cristian "civilization". Secession is no-no either as a word or an event.
Someone posted that this would jeopardize the EU. I would say to hell with EU if this
going to do harm to blood suckers that I am for Catalan independence.
Difference PP is Franco's party. It is fascists party. Second thing, that "B" posted about the Spain's GDP $33,580 is just nonsense. Globalist
love to post these figures as a measure of (fictional) wealth. Hey, B go and ask youth in Spain (~25%) what's their "GDP". "B" also mention the Constitution. I wonder who wrote that and when?
It'll be interesting to see if all the trolls agitating for Barzanistan independence will be
out again in force here...and with the same level of hysteria... I wager they will be conspicuous by their absence... When it comes to secession movements, the key word is 'targeted'... Good for Kosovo...bad for South Ossetia and Abkhazia and Crimea... Good for Iraqi and Syrian Kurds...bad for Turkish Kurds... Good for Bosnia splitting from Yugoslavia...bad for Serbs splitting from Bosnia... Is anyone still fooled...?
"Then the U.S. came down like a sledgehammer again on Yugoslavia when on November 5, 1990
Congress passed the 1991 Foreign Operations Appropriations Law 101-513. A section of this
law, without previous warning, cut off all aid, credits and loans from the U.S. to Yugoslavia
within 6 months. Also, the law demanded separate elections in each of the republics that made
up Yugoslavia, requiring State Department approval of election procedures and results before
aid to the separate republics would be resumed. In February 1991 the Council of Europe also
demanded that Yugoslavia hold multi-party elections or face an economic blockade." Death sentence has been made the US. Need more?
But you have no brain since you read and "understand" selectively.
"During the Spanish civil war in the 1930s Catalonia and Basque areas were the last
Republican strongholds against..."
you are falling into the independentist rethoric.
Pais basco was in the hands of nationalist as early as 1937 at the end of the first year of
war (more than half of the Pais Vasco was Pro Nationalist because of religion and ideology)
please inform yourself better before write thing like this.
Catalonia lasted till the end, because of geographical consideration (it was in the
rearguard, deep into Republican lines) but with its typical nationalistic ideology it just
made thing quite complicated for the republic to defend itself. Not to mention a a civil war
inside the civil war (see "sucesos de Mayo")
confronted with national troops it simply couldn't stand and fell apart after the Ebro
Offensive.
Catalonian independence Referendum it is illegal (against the Spanish constitution) have no
warranties of any kind, and will be cooked as needed in order to get more subsides and money
from the government in Madrid. It is used by nationalistic politicians as a smoke curtain to
hide behind in order not to be put to jail after 30 years of corruption. They are not called
unofficially the 3% commission Party for nothing.
Also say that Catalonian GDP it is actually 17% of Spain's GDP, with about 15% population
of Spain. Who's subsidizing who's it is not clear. But related to Spain's External Debt,
Catalonia account for about 25 % of it, not to mention 1000s of business have left (and are
leaving the region every year) for other parts of Spain since at least 20 years.
Things are not that clear, once you put an eye on the facts. Off course the Nationalist
rhetoric is that with independence will come a Golden Age for Catalonia, but when did a
politician tell the truth?
Before talking of secession check facts. The Catalans don't want to be out the EU, just to
have a different relation with Spain. No big deal if not for big money.
Ah, yes, than to support "independence" of the Yugoslav republics BND and CIA started to ship
weapons trough Austria and Hungary. The Serbs had been already armed to the teeth from depot
of ex army.
Helmut Kohl and Genscher (US puppets) actively participated and hastily recognized
independence of Slovenia. The US' puppet Milosevic (via Lawrence Eaagleburger) and Serbian
establishment was all the way to dismantle Yugoslavia.
22
That exactly is the problem.
Either there is a EU where countries redistribute income within the EU (as countries do
within as in richer regions supporting poorer ones), then Catalonian and others independence
is no problem. Or, as is, the exit of a region takes money out of the rest of the
country. The current mood in Germany for a common EU economy is "no way".
What I don't understand is why the Catalans did not apply a B plan since yesterday. Assange
say they blocked apps etc but why not distributing an envelope with a stamp, addressed to the
Brussel Commission or any other international party. A few millions envelopes cannot be
hidden under a carpet.
"Catalonian independence Referendum it is illegal (against the spanish
constitution)...."
It is funny word "legal" or "illegal". According to the west political philosophy, Vox
Populi is Vox Dei so what is legal or illegal it is matter of the power and who has monopole
on power (security forces), who interpreting the law.
Second thing since the PP is typical capitalist party with only aim to serve foreign
financial centers and looting own people I very much doubt they are into legality of any
kind. This is power struggle, where perception and rhetoric and emotions are very important
in order to "win".
The Spanish government has overreacted to the referendum. The question is why? They should
have let it go. The vote may have been no, and even if yes, it was unconstitutional and the
Catalan gov't could do nothing. No one would recognize them.
Obviously, the vote was/is a negotiation tactic for more autonomy, not separation. The
fascists in Madrid have made it a referendum on European democracy.
The economic driver is there, b. But not only. Spain is a complex nation of nations, that has
been hold together by force. The last time the Spanish people tried to deal with
democratically, through the Federal Republic of 1931 the army started a civil war whose
effects, in terms of murder, torture and prison lasted way long after they won the war.
People in Catalunya, Basque Country or Galicia were harassed and humiliated because of having
a different language and culture other than Spanish. The Constitution of 1978, that opened
the way to have a democratic Spain, was agreed between some formerly illegal political
parties and the Franquista establishment, leaving to the king and to the army the protection
of the unity of the country.
Since the politically-contral Constitutional Court mutilated the Catalan Stature if
Autonomy, the Spanish government has kept its door closed to all Catalonian REI indications.
Indeed, the Catalan government is plagued by corruption, as the Spanish ruling party is. But
the bottom of the question is the right of the people to decide who should be ruling them.
One can agree or not on the decision taken, but this right, to me, is undeniable and there
always be people ready to fight for it
B response seems disappointing. Completely ignores that Spain is a Catholic fascist country
since Franco coup and civil war ended in 1939 only because Hitler support and German
Luftwaffe , bombing civilians, before Nuremberg committing a war crime. should we forget
about it Orwellian style?
It is even more disturbing considering direct similarities between Crimea and Donbass
events of 2014 where Nazi central government violently suppressed local authorities
responding to local people demand for autonomy or independence, freedom from fascism.
Regardless of political advantages right of people to self determination is in the UN
charter and unfortunate moral relativism expressed by b is not serving over all goal of
ending global western hegemony of oligarchic class.
Well, suppose defenders of democracy in the west and worshipping elections to the level of
going to war in MENA to assure democratic elections and democratic rule , now eat their feces
of gigantic hypocrisy.
Police thugs beating up elderly people waiting to vote, Trump is silent, DEMS are silent, MSM
is silent.
What possible crime requiring police violence is casting a ballot?
Spain was and is a fascist state so is EU fascist emporium, those election looks identical
to April 1933 election under Hitler emergency rule, tens of thousands voters were beaten or
arrested by police at polling stations and that included various party members as well as the
very candidates running in the election who were beaten and arrested while trying to cast a
vote.(most still were elected while in prisoner)
All those phony defenders of democracy choked, only deafening silence, no word, no
condemnation of police violence, no defending right to vote revealing themselves all of
stooges of deep state run by oligarchic class set sim for mass extermination of population
and terror.
And all of that what for? When simple declaration of illegality of the vote by Madrid
would have suffice, why so desperate violent move that only will increase the number of
Catalonians voting yes.
Here is the answer.
What most are missing is the fact that Madrid panic response is not about Catalonia it is
about Basque country.
The Catalonia issue in fact stems more from 2008 crisis and their carrying most of cost of
Spanish recovery, they want to get better share of they money they send to Madrid and have
been utterly ignored and disrespected by Madrid de facto fascist regime.
In fact like Scotland, [what killed their referendum] they want to stay in EU and probably
last year referendum would have failed anyway so why not done then and got over with it last
year.
It is because it would set a precedent of region leaving the Spain peacefully while Basque
country was not able accomplish it for over several decades, as the only Spanish anti-fascist
force to fight Franco fascists [liberation struggle continued by ETA] before and after WWII
until 1975 and later fascists who just changed uniform for democrats.
The famous Picasso painting Guernica is about a Franco defiant Basque city leveled by
German Luftwaffe [air force, killed hundreds] sent by Hitler to destroy democratically
elected Republican government of Spain just a year or so before WWII stated in Sept 1939
while west was watching.
Why would any legal system centered around ensuring oligarchic control ever contain within it
a "legal" means from exiting that system?
Calling people to respect such laws is calling them to respect the rule of the master.
Yes b, the Central Gvmt. has been singularly rigid, disdainful and all-out dumb.
Creatitivity zero. They seem to have made many mis-steps, no doubt escalating the
pro-independence crowd.
Ex. A non-binding referendum is always a good idea, but was suspended by the Const. Court,
as was a new form of the same, called some "participatory process".. but it went ahead
anyway. (36% turnout, v. low, 80% for independ. 2014 see link.) The oppo to get some 'real'
numbers on board, and have all the issues 'aired' was lost.
Catalonia indeps. seek to become a 'new country' that would replicate the EU model: the
rich country loves its folklore - language, costume, habits, etc.- and does not pay for the
poor elsewhere through taxation, only thru negotiated contribution to 'solidarity' or other
voluntary participatory funds. -- See e.g. in EU, Germany and Greece.
At the same time, the EU has always had the aim of 'regionalising' areas for them to come
under the remit of the new Central Command (EU Brussels), thus gradually diluting the
power of the 'old' Nation-State(s), for now a stealthy process.
The Catalan indeps. are not radical pre-cursors here, prob. they were encouraged by the
'seeming' impact, success, of some color revolution play-books, the engineered identity or
'community' politics to split ppl, groups.
Rajoy is a Merkel pet and there is no way the EU will get involved with this potential
regional break-away. Were Catalonia to become independent, it would have to apply to join the
EU. Ouch.
see mia @ 5, jen @ 6, poster @ 7, mina, and el-sid @ 10 on city states.
Imho the breakaway impulse, like in many places, is fuelled in a large part by HIGH youth
unemployment. Another topic for another day.
Now the French Prime Minister has waded into the debate and suggested an independent
Catalonia could signal the end of Europe.
He said on the radio channel La Ser: "It means in a certain way the end of what Europe is,
which is a federation of nation states. "If one of these states decides to change its borders, the consequences can be very
important at a time where Europe is fragile."
Huh...according to ex French PM ramifications and consequences of Catalan independence are
way far reaching than the one would assume.
That's might explain extreme and repressive measure from Madrid.
1. I think that the Madrid government saw this as something they had to do in order to save
Spain from "being destroyed" (as they would see it, as if they did allow the previous
referendum a few years ago but this time the Catalan authorities had said they would
essentially declare independence and take control of borders if the vote was in favour of
independence).
2. I wouldn't be surprised if there was some pressure exerted by the Spanish military on
the Madrid government. The military is acutely aware that it is heir to a state which was
once the most powerful in the world (Charles V etc) and at its height ruled more territory
than the current Russia occupies. Spain lost the Americas but the Spanish state in Madrid was
always acutely aware of the fact that the part of Iberia which they ruled, excluding
Portugal, was comprised of different ethno-linguistic groups which could, like Portugal, seek
to secede.
This insecurity is what drove Franco's anti-Catalan policies of the mid-20th century.
A figure from the Spanish military did allude to military intervention a few years
earlier.
3. The EU is clearly supporting Madrid with its conspicuous silence, whereas (as others
had correctly pointed out) if it was in some ex-Soviet or non-white region, they would have
been the foremost champions of "freedom" and "the right to democracy".
France also has Catalans (though their identity has been heavily diluted) in its borders
but not only that Catalan is very similar to Occitan which was widely prevalent in the south
of France and would get strengthened with the emergence of a Catalan state.
France's separatist issues also extend to Brittany and Corsica.
4. Most Catalans are opposed to independence because whilst they view themselves as a
separate nation (culturally-linguistically) they still view themselves as part of Spain. They
holiday in other parts of Spain, have Spanish (non-Catalan) relatives, friends, spouses, have
studied and worked in other parts of Spain. However this issue is not merely about abstract
and altruistic concepts of freedom and self-determination it can also be seen as dirty
politicking by corrupt politicans from both Barcelona and Madrid.
The Catalan politicians most likely want to have the same sort of fiscal independence that
the Basques have and are using the threat of independence/secession as a bogeyman with which
to exact concessions from Madrid.
5. This doesn't detract from the fact that Madrid has been very irresponsible and due to
its insecurity about the dissolution of Iberia's largest state has been very insensitive and
harsh towards legitimate Catalan demands for greater freedom/autonomy which Catalans have
actually tried to acquire within the framework of the Spanish legal structure.
Catalan separatists have never used violence.
6. What will happen?
I think ultimately Madrid will be forced to speak to Barcelona and some sort of agreement
will have to be made whereby the Catalan region may get the same or slightly the same powers
and status as the highly decentralized Basque region.
7. The US (CIA) media seem to be somewhat sympathetic towards the Catalans, hence possibly
indicative of the often perceived US desire to weaken its EU rival.
"At least half of the members of my party are members of the Catalan Friends of Israel
Association. Israel is a democratic state, and we support the steps it takes for survival,
and the survival of the Jewish people. We have no intention of criticizing what its
government does. We seek cooperation with Israel, and we hope it will support our
independence movement. It is clear that an independent Catalonia will be a close friend of
Israel – there's no doubt about that."
read more:
https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/catalan-leader-predicts-independence-in-about-two-years-and-close-friendship-with-israel-1.468285
But I doubt that Rajoy has made such decision on its own. I doubt he has guts for it, nor
strength. He is just apparatchik. In addition he doesn't have loyalty except to globalists
and money. Barcelona is too lucrative and rich to be leave alone. Some foreign factor must be involved in his decision making process.
" Most Catalans are opposed to independence because whilst they view themselves as a separate
nation (culturally-linguistically) they still view themselves as part of Spain."
answering Chauncey Gardiner and comment 26
the questions is ...
1.- Do we live in a Country under the Rule of Law? or are we living in the Jungle...
if the answer is yes, there is a rule of Law, under which all citizens have equal rights
and are equally accountable for their acts, then the Referendum is Illegal, and the
politicians promoting it should be in jail. If the answer is that the rule of the Jungle is the good one, then there would be no
referendum because they would have been in Jail long time ago.
The actions in Catalonia today show the true colours of the EUSSR. They also show why the UK was so wise to vote for so-called "Brexit". I predict a Catalan declaration on Tuesday - and that is when the fun will really
start. First thing to look for would be La Liga expelling all Catalan clubs from the League
effective immediately - which will throw European football into chaos for a start! Then the markets will likely start going a little crazy - particularly in Spain
obviously!
After reading b's bit, I knew there would be comparisons to other "breakaway" attempts
especially from areas that are doing better economically or with resources like the Kurds in
Iraq or the Benghazi area of Libya. Flankerbit caught the double standards at play. It's
funny when some in the US suggest secession of either California or Texas or some other
state.
The point was that reading your post one believes he is the current FM and speaks about a
political issue, while the reality is that he spoke/was asked because he often mention his
roots (and is no longer FM)
This statement shares the skepticism about this secessionist movement:
Oppose the state crackdown on the Catalan independence referendum!
For working class unity! No to separatism in Spain!
Statement of the International Committee of the Fourth International, 30 September 2017
On the eve of the October 1 independence referendum in Catalonia, Spain is in the throes of
its deepest political crisis since the fall of the fascist Franco regime.
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/09/30/cata-s30.html
and do the subjects of this article: "In Catalonia's 'red belt' leftwing veterans distrust the separatists"
"Nationalism is not the answer to Spain's problems, say an older generation who fought
against General Franco."
Excerpts (link at bottom):
"All four [interviewees] dismiss the independence movement as a distraction from more
pressing social issues, claiming it has proved a useful smokescreen for the Catalan
government's spending cuts.
""What's happening now is that everyone has been told that Spain is the origin of our
problems," says Salas. "They are being fed a version of Catalan history that has nothing to
do with reality and this has radicalised young people around independence..."
""It's about class. I don't have a problem with the person standing next to me, it's the
one above me who's the problem.""
They have announced this referendum for a year, have been supported by major figures (Savall,
the Barça); it is normal that the consultation can be held and the Spanish gov could
simply have said "we won't recognize the results". This demonstration of violence shows the
real face of the EU and will be one more nail in the coffin.
The Catalans were peacefully exercising their right to self-determination by coming out to
vote today. The Spanish national police behaved like the goons they are at the behest of the
EU & Spanish establishment. Yes, they are concerned that their precious EU project may
fall apart! It will. It is only a matter of time.
What happens if the Catalan government announces that the majority voted to secede and
declares independence? Are the EU goons gonna suppress it with military force?
Exactly! Since the Spanish national guard created the chaos by attacking voters and
stealing ballot boxes, a proper referendum with control of voting was not permitted. The
Catalan authorities were consequently forced to inform the people that they could print the
ballots at home and vote in any voting station. They can announce whatever result they want
now as all the counting systems have been disabled by the Spanish national guard.
What does anyone think the Catalan authorities conducting the referendum are going to
announce?
The proponents of the Catalonia referendum and independence present themselves as forces of
democracy but they are the opposite. They have consistently failed to get even 50% support
for independence and so they have proceeded with an illegal referendum on independence. Who
is going to vote on that and who is going to count the votes (the independence movement and
its supporters). The referendum is illegal and does not meet an criteria for fair voting.
They are opposing democracy because they consistently lose when they go the democratic
route.
That puts the Spanish government, which itself screwed up and handled this quite poorly, in a
very difficult position but i think many will disagree with the course the central government
has taken. Many Spaniards hate the Catalan independence seekers precisely for what they are
doing today and because at the basis of the independence movement is the same consistent
message: "We Catalan have more money than Spain so screw you Spain." Ah yes screw you Spain
but keep paying us. That seriously pisses off a lot of Spanish and many would love to see
Catalonia leave but sans the very beneficial relationship that Catalonia has with the rest of
Spain now. Net: i doubt there will be an outpouring of sympathy for those participating in
the referendum today from the rest of Spain.
@31, Libertarianism is a euphemism for Gangsterism. What's to stop someone seeking
"self-fulfilment" or "self-realization" from deciding that organizing and arming his own
militia is the path to enlightenment? Erik Prince comes to mind. Jim Jones, another eg. Bibi
Netanyahu fits the bill too.
And what the heck is bionicmosquito? toohipformyshirt?
I would guess that most of those troops are from outside of Catalonia and as i posted many
and perhaps most Spaniards are a wee bit annoyed with Catalonia's behavior which is seen as
rather self centered, arrogant and illegal (cause it is illegal). Tensions are running high
and the troops are probably going to behave in a less than kind manner. I really doubt the
voters are just allowing the troops to close down polling stations and take voting machines
sans a fight so I would ask what happened before the scenes in the video. The referendum is
Illegal and the vote lacks impartiality and validation. Nonetheless, the Spanish government
is handling this very, very poorly.
The best thing for the government would be to film what happens to police as they try to
peacefully close down polling stations and to completely refrain from violence. That takes a
pretty strong man to do because i bet the cops would get beaten up.
The Spanish press reporting on this is, as you might expect, very anti catalonia and they
are listing the numerous violations and lack of transparency in the vote. The government
should have allowed them to vote and refused to acknowledge the results.
Why has Spain has been so heavy handed? Perhaps because of what happened during the Greek crisis? Recall that Tsipras called a
referendum whose result was surprisingly anti-EU. "There can be no democratic choice against the European treaties" - Jean-Claude Juncker, EU Commission President
OR the Spanish government in Madrid could have followed Canada: Quebec twice voted to separate, in 1980 and 1995. Canada allowed the vote; National
politicians and notables participated in the Quebec campaigns, presenting the case to remain
in Canada. Madrid takes its orders from the Technocrats in Brussels. Today's brutality to stop the
vote guarantees Catalan's urge for independence won't go away.
Voting on
Independence, Quebec Style.
Unlike the UK or Canada which allowed the Scots and Quebecois their right to vote, Spain
did not. What should the Catalans have done? This did not happen overnight. They repeatedly
asked the Spanish government to allow them to vote. If the referendum was open then it is
quite possible the majority of Catalans would have voted to remain in Spain. With the
authoritarian response of Spain hiding behind "legalism" they have now screwed the pooch and
enabled Catalonia to claim the majority voted to secede.
Whomever supports the Catalan "independence" should think long , and hard, about its purpose,
as there a several Russian regions that could be instigated into doing the same. Also, if
Catalonia has a democratic right to secede, then what about the "Kurdish" regions of Iraq,
Iran, Turkey, and Syria ?
Democracy is longer what it seems, as people can be goaded into voting for their own
suicide. It has proven itself to be a easily manipulated, failed system of governance. Be
careful what you wish for.
If I remember correctly the US was inclined originally to help keep Yugoslavia together
but it was German pressure, largely on Croatia's part that tipped the US - I suspect
grudgingly - into her actions with Germany on the Balkans .
How would you know if US succumbed to "German pressure"? What I remember is the "international community" gave Yugoslavia an offer they could not
possibly accept. Typical Mafia governance, per the Judeo-Roman (the actual correct term for
the Western civilization, an not the incoherent Judeo-Christian) Regime.
There is a saying in Iran: A fool throws a stone in a well and 40 wise men can't take it
out.
A few years ago I attended a big Catalonian demonstration in Barcelona. This consisted of a
line, about 1000 miles long that snaked through Catalonia but the big demonstration was in
Barcelona. Very very impressive. What was very conspicuous was a large contingent of Basques
right in the middle of the main square, with about 500 of them. They were flying their flags
and most definitely supporting Catalonian independence. It was very inspirational. I joined
them with their chants.
I did so for a very simple reason. The European nations had in the previous 25 years
destroyed the nation of Yugoslavia. Then in 1999 NATO went to war against Serbia to give the
province of Kosovo independence. Not only that but the Spaniard Javier Solana was the one who
pushed NATO into attacking Serbia because it would not give independence to Kosovo. My reaction to Javier -- eat dirt asshole, what goes around comes around. Now it is
Catalonias turn to gain independence.
You are right, of course, that it is all a big heaping steaming pile of global hypocrisy.
It is pervasive and it is clearly the m.o. of Mb>every single one of these mafia regimes
ruling over us in the planet.
Some "Grieved" barfly the other day was moaning about "god bothered" folks like me. Permit
me to clear up the situation for you, dear grieved one:
There is a subset of humanity [presumed] that claims a "Natural Right to Rule". We the
"god bothered" assert, on the contrary, that "Only God Rules". We do not deny the uneven
distribution of Gifts, such as beauty, intelligence, capability, will power, discipline,
physical prowess, artistic ability, etc. We accept all that.
What we do NOT accept is that a certain class of [so-called] Humans on this planet have an
Inherent Right to Rule.
You, "grieved" one, are they one who drops all his weapons and armour before entering a
battle. Boo hoo for you and your lot.
"If I remember correctly the U S was inclined originally to help keep Yugoslavia together but
it was German pressure..." Very laughable, so client state an issue order to hegemonic power. Germans FP is not run
by Germans, when we are talking about political strategic decisions that have affect on
international order. Germany is not the creator it is followers. Secondly, Germany is no such
power that can cause calamity of such proportion either in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Syria, Libya.
Anywhere.
As for US help, god help those who US is helping. The US started with dismantling of
Yugoslavia in 1984 (or immediately after Tito death), and by cultivation of the Serbian elite
(by Zimmmeran, Eagleburger, Scowcroft), investment in Serbia and exporting Yugo cars,
handguns from Zastava etc. in the US. And wide "cooperation" of Universities from US with
Serbian one.
Indeed.
In fact, the utterly defeated, occupied, and civilizationally lobotomized Germans, needed
permission from that bitch Thatcher before they could reunify Nato-fatherland with
Stasi-fatherland.
Rusty-Bucket-Lady
on German unification. .
An ignorant post B. You should stick with what you know. I'm starting to wonder if this forum
has been taken over by some agency.
If you live with Catalans, you know that they are a distinct people. I know the French
side but they share the same distinct culture. Their wealth comes from a culture of hard work
and excellence, similar to the wealth of Northern Italy. If Spanish Catalonia separates they will exceed all expectations. French Catalonia, The
Basques, and Spanish Galicia will follow. If French Catalonia goes the whole of Languedoc and
probably Brittany will become more restive. Large governments are inherently parasitic and increasingly obsolete. We see this
everywhere.
Regarding the Kurd comparison: the Barzani mafia are crypto Jews and work for Israel. The
Catalans do not share this fatal defect.
I wonder how you will decide on Catalonyan citizenship, ius sanguinis or ius solis? Can
the "destinctive culture" be preserved by ius solis? Catalan language courses? Citizenship
for speaking the language? How will you draw the borders? By civil war?
My guess is that politicians on both sides are doing what they do best - stay in power by
wipping up nationalist feelings.
Rajoy is ex Lehman Brothers executive.
Need to say more?
Posted by: Chauncey Gardiner | Oct 1, 2017 9:20:14 AM | 29
WOW!
I dunno where you get that information, but he has nothing to do with Lehman Brothers...
please read his profile in Wikipedia, which is quite accurate.
I don't like him, I think he is one of the worst presidents ever Spain had. But seriously, he is no ex Lehman Brothers. he can not speak English for starters.
The easiest way to discern a weak argument is when a non-sequitur such as "it's illegal
because it's against the law" is dragged out and that is all I see from those hunting around
for an excuse to decry a bunch of people, totally unaided by any external support arguing for
freedom from oppression.
Once again as is becoming far too apparent on this board we many posts from people arguing
for what suits them personally. American posters whose slow indoctrination against a united
Europe is from America's hypocrisy in enjoying the advantages of a simple market whilst
fearing the huge economic and political power a truly united Europe will eventuate in,
support Catalans because like Agent Orange they feel more secure when Europe is weakened.
On the other hand euros who like united Europe in principle but rightly resent the neoliberal
monolith the EU has morphed into, oppose the Catalan secession because they are concerned
about further EU destabilization. That is foolish Catalonia would stay part of the EU and any
reformed EU must decentralize some decision making to better reflect the local circumstances,
while it does a much better job of becoming more 'unitary' in other ways.
Yes many Germans hate that idea because they have been enjoying the German imperialism by
stealth which is the current EU model, but unless they do become much more understanding of
the economic injustices that current EU policies exacerbate, there will be no EU and if that
happens these issues will stop being sorted by ballot and go back to the 'old way' of
Europeans killing each other in the pursuit of economic advantage.
It can never be wrong or illegal for people to seek change through ballot - if the 'law'
says it is then the law is an ass.
It is that simple especially in these circumstances when Catalans are voting in spite of the
external forces lining up against them - not because of them. A truly united Europe is the best way forward by far but there must be real change
throughout the 'sovereign states' and the unprincipled Brussels gang to accommodate this.
Leaving Spain and staying in EU is kind of neoliberal play, not exactly nationalism. Something
like Ukrainian Maydan. As for rich parts of the county want to secede from more poor parts,
the tale of Ukraine and Georgia which were more well-to-do parts of the USSR are interesting
examples what can happen in suchcases.
Kosovo opened the Pandora box of "parade of independence declarations" in Europe.
And now EU and, especially Germany, needs to eat its own dog food.
Notable quotes:
"... What you are saying is that the Spanish state has no rights to remain a coherent unitary state but, rather, must allow itself to be disintegrated by the political whims of this or that group. In such manner, every extant state could look forward to quick death at the ballot box. ..."
"... "The right in international law of a people to self-determination cannot be constrained by the domestic legislation of the larger state from which that people is seeking to secede. NATO itself went to war ostensibly to enforce the right to self-determination of the Kosovans, which Kosovan secession was claimed as illegal by Serbia in precisely the same terms the Spanish claim. The hypocrisy of NATO governments is breathtaking (as always)." Craig Murray https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ Interesting comparisons with Scotland and Kosovo. This is another fight in which I have no dog. Thirdeye -> outthere... , 02 October 2017 at 02:35 AM Even worse, in the case of Kosovo the group claiming the right to self-determination were ethnic Albanians who migrated to Kosovo in the late Ottoman period and claimed the primacy of their group's collective rights over those of the Serbs, the original inhabitants. That situation is a lot like what's going on with the Rohingya who were brought to Burma by the Brits, with the same undercurrent of Islamist agitation. ..."
"... The Spanish government of Mariano Rajoy showed bad judgment in my opinion in preventing the referendum from taking place. The UK allowed the Scots to have their vote and campaigned on why the Scots would be better off in the UK. The Scots rejected independence. Similarly Canada permitted Quebec to vote and campaigned on the benefits. The Quebecois voted against separation. ..."
"... How about Ordoliberalim? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ordoliberalism ..."
"... The Catalan and similar movements are going to become a feature of this century as a direct result of globalism. This was made plain at least twenty years ago. ..."
"... The downside of fragmentation is that the world is modeled on the Westphalian state concept, and all our treaties with each other are predicated on the state enforcing them on their citizens. As nation states lose that ability, the outcome is war. ..."
From the perspective of the post-liberal right, a little chaos is a small price to pay for
scuppering the globalist world order. I see no reason (outside of bourgeois considerations)
to hold sacred the existence of states who merely demarcate zones of competition between
disparate groups, or who serve the need of international capital for 'political stability.'
The 20th century was dominated by three political models, which arose in response to mass
society - Fascism, Communism, and managerial liberalism. A combination of institutional
instability and the alliance of the latter two took out the first one. The second collapsed
under the weight of a centrally managed economy. The latter thought it had 'won' because it
was the last man standing. But this model is accumulating irreparable system failures of its
own, because its fundamental premises are flawed too (endless growth, individuals are the
primary unit of society, freedom is 'doing whatever you like', the distribution of goods and
services is the sum of a stable society).
Whenever there is disorder in the universe, chaos clears a space for the natural order to
reassert itself given the contingencies of the time. Western thought has understood this
since Heraclitus ('flux'). The winds of change are blowing, and contra the the Scorpions
song, its not toward the universal brotherhood of man. We are in the beginning of a
transition, a liminal phase. The West is transmogrifying into a new forms, which cannot be
explained in the terms of the old models.
What you are saying is that the Spanish state has no rights to remain a coherent unitary
state but, rather, must allow itself to be disintegrated by the political whims of this or
that group. In such manner, every extant state could look forward to quick death at the
ballot box.
"The right in international law of a people to self-determination cannot be constrained by
the domestic legislation of the larger state from which that people is seeking to secede.
NATO itself went to war ostensibly to enforce the right to self-determination of the
Kosovans, which Kosovan secession was claimed as illegal by Serbia in precisely the same
terms the Spanish claim. The hypocrisy of NATO governments is breathtaking (as always)."
Craig Murray https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/
Interesting comparisons with Scotland and Kosovo.
This is another fight in which I have no dog.
Even worse, in the case of Kosovo the group claiming the right to self-determination were
ethnic Albanians who migrated to Kosovo in the late Ottoman period and claimed the primacy of
their group's collective rights over those of the Serbs, the original inhabitants. That
situation is a lot like what's going on with the Rohingya who were brought to Burma by the
Brits, with the same undercurrent of Islamist agitation.
The Spanish government of Mariano Rajoy showed bad judgment in my opinion in preventing
the referendum from taking place. The UK allowed the Scots to have their vote and campaigned
on why the Scots would be better off in the UK. The Scots rejected independence. Similarly
Canada permitted Quebec to vote and campaigned on the benefits. The Quebecois voted against
separation.
In the non-binding referendum done some years back nearly half the Catalans rejected an
independent state. If the Spanish had allowed an open referendum and campaigned against
secession the outcome would very likely have been that separation would have been rejected.
In an open referendum those opposed to secession would have been empowered to campaign and
vote against separation.
In this case the Spanish government chose to disrupt the referendum by using police force.
The separatists chose to come out in the streets to exercise their right of
self-determination. The videos of police violence are a public relations disaster for the
Spanish government and will only steel the resolve of the separatists. Since the Spanish
national police were attacking polling stations and taking away ballot boxes by force, this
created a pretext for the Catalonian authorities to tell their supporters they could print
their ballots at home and deposit at any polling station.
Additionally since the Spanish
police have disabled all vote counting software systems the Catalonians can count and come up
with any result they choose.
This situation can only escalate now. The lesson of the referenda in Scotland and Quebec
was not learned.
The EU project of a common currency and monetary policy is fundamentally flawed unless
they move towards a fiscal union as Macron is suggesting. Centrifugal forces are gathering
strength not only in Europe but also here in the US.
Centrifugal forces are gathering strength not only in Europe but also here in the US.
Perhaps, but in Catalonia's case (and Scotland's too) secession is planned with a view to
joining the EU in their own right.
I expect the authoritarian trend in some former COMECON countries will be a greater threat
to the EU.
I see much of the sentiments of the Catlonian independence movement as a major vote of no
confidence in the central Spanish government, which is a complete whore to the global bankers
and the EU's autocrats. The tyrannical attitudes of Junkers & Co. are driving the action
along these fault lines with the resulting seismic activity. The central governments have no
one to blame but themselves.
Of course, the EU might like to see this sort of unrest as an excuse to declare martial
law and establish themselves as the outright controllers of Europe.
Except the pro-independence leaders and supporters are also Pro-EU and have declared that
their newly formed free state will seek to join the EU and hope to be accepted with no
qualm (delusional) or some even argue that when they declare independence they won't actually
be leaving the EU.
So where that does leave your argument?
(disclaimer: I don't care one way or another about Spain nor Catalonia, I have no skin in
that game, though I generally lean towards favoring secessionist movements in principle.)
The early returns are showing a massive landslide victory for the Catalan separatists. I
have not seen any data yet on the turnout or the ratio of registered voters that actually
cast ballots.
" Catalan leader Carles Puigdemont says the region has won the right to statehood
following Sunday's contentious referendum which was marred by violence.
He said the door had been opened to a unilateral declaration of independence. "
How will the Spanish government now respond if the Catalan parliament declares
independence? Will they send in tanks? The media would have a field day with that. What will
the EU apparatchiks do?
Col. Lang, you are right. If the Catalans succeed in becoming independent, then it will
only embolden all the other separatist movements in Europe. The next few days will be
interesting to see how this escalates.
As you probably have figured out by now, my rhetorical positions in posts do not always
match my actual positions. It will, in fact be interesting to watch if Europe and North
America devolve into their natural fragments. I hope I am here to watch. BTW "The Vietnam
War" is available on Comcast "on demand." pl
IMO that ship has long sailed for Quebec at least. My father came here as an FOB immigrant in
the 80s and enthusiastically voted "Oui" in '95 along with his fellow transplants that had
accompanied him on scholarship way back then, all of whom along with him had by then picked
up native wives. The newer breed of immigrant is more in tune with "Multicultural Paradise"
vision of canada. And the younger quebecois generation couldnt care less, even as the
language itself continues to degenerate, especially in montreal.
This is a natural progression of the dismantling of the nation state supremacy over the past
30 years. The break-ups of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia established the precedent that the
constituent parts of a state can break off without a supporting referendum or agreement with
the central government. This culminated with the International Court of Justice ruling on
Kosovo independence that established that any group can declare independence. There is no
internationally recognized legal requirement for such declaration and the group does not have
to have any legitimacy through election or referendum. Enforcement of the territorial
integrity of a country depends solely on its monopoly of force, there is no legal recourse.
The issue Europe is facing now is that the economy is being driven off the cliff by the
German mercantilism, giving rise to populist nationalism. So now Europe, having supported the
principle of self-determination elsewhere (where convenient), will have to suppress it by
force at home while maintaining a veneer of democracy.
Britain and Canada managed to skirt the issue by relying on media and financial
inducements to obtain a favourable vote. Spain will be a real test as the referendum will be
inevitably followed by some sort of declaration of independence, leaving central government
with no choice but to escalate the into violent repression.
One way or the other, this will open a lot of rifts in Europe. Many people will see this
as illegal crackdown on democratic rights, while others will see it as legitimate suppression
of separatism. Countries with ethnic issues will likely side with Spain, but others will
likely side with Catalan self-determination rights. So far most EU governments are not
reacting, but the pressure to do so will increase quickly.
*****
About a decade ago slightly led by someone's core arguments on an issue surfacing here
repeatedly, I looked into self-determination and more recent academic debates. Legally it is
balanced by the right to territorial unity. Never mind my personal opinion concerning e.g.
Crimea. What about California?
******
You should update this term slightly, I had to smile, admittedly: The issue Europe is facing now is that the economy is being driven off the cliff by the
German mercantilism
That's at least the recurring critique by e.g. Yanis Varoufakis et all.
What about the idea of keeping some type of balance between what you earn/tax and what you
spent? Or redistribute? ... MRW seems to feel money only needs to be printed, debts don't
matter.
The Catalan and similar movements are going to become a feature of this century as a direct
result of globalism. This was made plain at least twenty years ago.
The cause is the weakening of the nation state as an organising principle because of the
weakening of national identity. People now have a multitude of choices about their identity
thanks to global information flows. For example you can now identify as LGBT, Jedi Night,
MS13, libertarian, etc. etc. The old 'brands" - English, Spanish, Italian, Australian, etc.
are now breaking down into a multitude of subsets with which people can identiify.
However its not just "identifying"; its organising around that identity that is the
problem. By way of example, it appears to me (and I may be wrong) that the entire BLM
movement is purveying a black American identity that is based on a "them and us" model that
views conflict as inevitable. In Australia we have a serious criminal gang problem with
members identifying as Hells Angels, Comancheros - imported American identities. Twenty years
ago that would have been quaint.
The downside of fragmentation is that the world is modeled on the Westphalian state concept,
and all our treaties with each other are predicated on the state enforcing them on their
citizens. As nation states lose that ability, the outcome is war.
Mike:
Only the province of Catalonia voted on it. Baleares and Valencia don't want to join them,
but of course you have plenty of foolish irredentists who want to take them back, and even
French Roussillon to boot.
That's even more reasons for EU countries to not recognize that process, because if they're
allowed to succeed, no current border will ever be safe in Europe; you'll always find some
goons ready to declare independence for their village, or for it to join the country next
door, or to want to annex the neighbouring town beyond the border, under any flimsy pretext.
Jack:
"As nation states lose that ability, the outcome is war."
Well, the outcome is more than war.
The obvious final outcome is the war of all these newly self-styled communities against all
the other communities.
Then, after immense bloodshed and suffering, when people will be fed up and depressed after
years of war, some major groups, ethnies, religions or leftover nations will stand and
regroup the bludgeoned and nearly destroyed smaller groups and populations, who will gladly
go under their umbrella if they can ensure peace at long last.
I defer to Col. Lang about the constitutional right of the Southern States. Here,
Catalonian independantist leaders clearly violated not only the Spanish Constitution, went
against Spanish Supreme Court rulings, they even went against their own Catalonian courts who
were opposed to the referendum and bypassed the Catalonian parliament, because they knew many
parties would opposed the referendum as well. To be blunt, that idiot Rajoy is acting out now
and relies on violence because Catalonian people couldn't be bothered to protest against
authoritarian leaders who don't give a damn about legality, both Spanish and Catalonian ones,
and Catalonian police couldn't be bothered to jail them.
And there's no way this is a backlash against "capitalist globalism" or whatever, the
current bunch of independantist leaders are just as corrupt as the Spanish ones, and the way
they did their wannabe referendum is proof enough they're ready to rule their future country
like Orban, or even Lukashenko.
I'm with Jack. Both Spain and Iraq should take lessons from the Scot and Quebec models.
Catalonia has never been truly Spanish, always repressed and treated with contempt by Madrid.
IIRC even Cervantes denigrated Catalonians 400 years ago, calling them thieves in his Don
Quixote novel.
What of Majorca and the other Balearics, was the referendum held there as well as in
Barcelona? Are they not all mostly of ethnic Catalan descent, or have they been Iberianized?
Or they may well prefer stability and the plentiful tourist euros and greenbacks instead of
the possible volatility of a referendum.
Europe is in such a state of uncertainty and tumult, I have to wonder how long people in the
periphery of some of these states will consider such stability as a net benefit. The slow
strangulation of Greece is an example to all.
The current Spanish Constitution made the peaceful transition from the Franco era possible,
at the price of denial of the legal right to secede. A more mature democracy, not needing to
look over its shoulder for the emergence of another Tejero (who threatened the Parliament)
from the ranks of the Army could have gone the same route as Quebec and Scotland. Not Spain.
There are plenty of "unresolved issues " out there. The most interesting, but depressing,
thing I've observed over the last 18 months or so has been the campaign to denigrate the
autonomous police force of Catalonia, culminating with a blame game over the recent terrorist
outrages. I'm not sure that there won't be telling responses to that, let alone the
hamfistedness of the central government over the past few months.
I will make a prediction that in 100 years, if there is a peaceful earth with a climate
that supports advanced civilizations, the world will be redefined into city states (or single
planet-wide nation aka star trek, but I think there were several global wars in between in
that future history).
Until fairly recently, empires with free movement within were the rule of the day. The EU
has attempted to resurrect empire, but in the world of good communication, the inevitable
inequalities are tearing the project apart (ignorance is bliss). The city and its surrounding
agricultural lands is a natural economic unit, and if you blob two city states into one
economic unit (e.g., a nation state), absent eternal subsidization (as in Rome versus Milan),
one city and its environs settles into terminal decline relative to the other. The end result
is that after a few hundred years, every country is dominated by one city with the rest on
economic life support (i.e., subsidization).
Current EU policy is optimal for Germany and thus by definition sub-optimal for all other
countries. The end result is the current state of affairs with the EU one Italian vote from
collapse. This would have happened eventually - for example, Italy has not had a good year of
economic growth since it joined the euro (but many good years before). However, the US
generated arc of instability and resultant refugee waves brought the chickens home to roost
in the now, not in a few decades.
Catalan is a symptom, and EU opposition is not a cure, its a band aid (as is the EU
treatment of Greece), but the EU repeatedly over-rules democracy (vote again until you get
the right vote), which as long as it also provided rising incomes (on debt) was accepted.
Many years ago I read a book that described the rise and decline of cities in different
countries but cant recall or google find the title (not Jane Jacobs' treatise).
Detroit is an excellent example - US economic policy matches that of the financial
centers. Only if Michigan was to separate, could Detroit reverse its fortunes - possibly but
unlikely given the quality of US political leadership - or more to the point, how bought they
are in our very expensive electoral system.
No, no, no. That model does not exist any longer, what relationship does Mexico City, Seoul,
Peking, Tehran, London, New York, DC have with the surrounding country side?
Since, as has been pointed out, Catalonia would remain in the EU, it seems on the surface to
make little difference whether Catalonia remains part of Spain anymore than if Bavaria
remains part of Germany or Lombardy part of Italy.
The real problem for Madrid's poobahs is how can they keep paying extortion money to German,
French and American banks if they lose a major urban center like Catalonia. I'm sure they
assume (and probably correctly) that Basque country would follow quickly in departure.
Aside from that, the extreme and rapidly accelerating centralizing tendencies of the
neoliberal world order (the Brussels brain trust throwing national sovereignty out the window
when issues of finance and immigration come up for instance) have created a reaction that
might look likely to undo the EU project, but in a way, create a crisis which could be
exploited by those seeking further centralization.
Catalonia would NOT remain in the EU. I stated that the pro-independence leaders and
supporters WANTED to remain in the EU but that is a pipe deam they are selling each other
because the EU would not recognise any unilateral declaration of independence and Spain would
never vote for Catalonia to join anyway.
Multiethnical states tend to fall apart see Sovietunion, Yugoslavia, or Czechoslovakia.
Wonder how long such anti-minority states like Greater Romania and Ukraine will last.
OTOH with such gigacompanies such as google, or microsoft the creation of small,
fragmented, and financially weak states clearly favor the masters of globalization.
'Double
standard & hypocrisy': Serbian president on EU denouncement of Catalan referendum
Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic has accused the EU of hypocrisy and double-standards
following its denouncement of the Catalonian referendum as illegal, while acknowledging the
independence of the breakaway province of Kosovo.
" The question every citizen of Serbia has for the European Union today is: How come that in
the case of Catalonia the referendum on independence is not valid, while in the case of Kosovo
secession is allowed even without a referendum, " B92 quoted Vucic as saying during a news
conference.
" How did you proclaim the secession of Kosovo to be legal, even without a referendum, and
how did 22 European Union countries legalize this secession, while destroying European law and
the foundations of European law, on which the European policy and EU policy are based?
"
On Monday the European Commission echoed the Spanish government's stance that the referendum
held in Catalonia was illegal, describing the events on Sunday, which saw voters being beaten
by Spanish riot police, as an "internal matter". By contrast in 2010, the European Parliament
adopted a resolution urging its member states to recognize Kosovo's independence.
" This is the best example of the double standards and hypocrisy of the world politics,
" Vucic said.
The authors of The Israel Lobby went on
Chicago radio station WBEZ last week to reflect on their achievement after ten years. No, not
60 Minutes. Not The New York Times. Not MSNBC. But WBEZ radio.
It is a great interview by Jerome McDonnell about a stupendous achievement. As I wrote ten years
ago, this book is up there with Rachel Carsons Silent Spring, Upton Sinclairs The Jungle and Ralph
Naders Unsafe at Any Speed, as a bombshell that will help transform society.
Below are some choice bits from the interview.
Publication ruined both mens chances to serve in government or in university administration. Mearsheimer:
I had no interest whatsoever in a government position. But I did think that when we wrote the
piece, that it would mean that we would never get a high level government position. Even medium
level government position. It would also make it almost impossible for us to get any meaningful
administrative job in the academic world.
Mearsheimer was then 59 years old and in Chicago. But Steve Walt was a sprightly 50 and on I-95,
on the Harvard springboard to presidential elbows. The book forever changed his horizon:
I was academic dean in the Kennedy School. I think its fair to say that both universities did
stand by us in the sense that they didnt put any formal censure on us. There were various ways
of what you might call informal marginalization at least for a while, because the leaderships
in both universities were very nervous about the fallout. Universities dont really like controversy
very much.
I did understand that this was probably going to eliminate any possibility of government service
in my case, which is something I do regret, because its something I would have appreciated, had
that opportunity presented itself at some point down the road.
Walt went on to say that they had to do it. If we werent willing to do that, then hardly anybody
else would be. We couldnt lose our jobs. We didnt necessarily need government employment to pay the
mortgage.
The two men actually gave up on the article and book years before it was published because
doors kept closing. Here is some of the history.
Mearsheimer spoke about the idea first at the American Political Science Association meetings
in Boston in 2002; and a friend said the Atlantic wanted to commission an article on that very subject.
The Atlantic magazine assigned Walt and Mearsheimer in 2002. Then it got cold feet and killed the
piece in early 2005. At that time, Walt said, the two scholars thought that no other outlet in
the United States would publish it , but they could flesh it out as a short book, so they consulted
a number of publishers and a couple of literary agents.
We got what you would call polite interest but nothing you could call enthusiasm. At one point
we basically decided to drop the project entirely.
Jesus H. Christ.
After that, though, an editor who had a copy of the piece showed it to a scholar at UCLA who reached
out to Mearsheimer and said the London Review of Books might be interested. The LRB version
was eventually
published in March 2006 , and provoked an immediate firestorm, Walt said.
Ironically once it provoked that firestorm, suddenly publishers and literary agents recognized
that there was a product people were interested in and suddenly they were contacting us and offering
us book contracts.
Mearshimer said it was the internet that published that piece as much as the LRB:
The internet was indispensable for making this article available to people all over the world.
If this had been published in the London Review of Books in 1985 or 1990 when there was no internet,
hardly anybody would have taken notice. But in the age of the internet, this article just ricocheted
all over the world very, very quickly.
Rashid Khalidi at Columbia University told me that the morning after the piece had hit the
internet, 14 different people had sent him a link for the piece. It was such a big bombshell.
Now here is the sad conclusion. Mearsheimer:
I dont think we– or anyone else– has had much influence on policy. I think the lobby is still
as powerful as ever. Its now more out in the open, and thats not necessarily a good thing for
a lobby, but its still remarkably effective. This is why you saw all those Republicans falling
all over themselves in the 2016 Republican primaries to say how devoted they were to Israel, because
they understand that you dont want to cross the lobby.
Or to put that another way: This interview was not on 60 Minutes, MSNBC, or the New York Times!
The authors deal with the fact that the lobby failed on the Iran deal. They never said that the
lobby could not be defeated; but that delivering a defeat would require spending a lot of political
capital, as President Obama did. And P.S. the lobby isnt finished with the Iran deal! (Republished
from Mondoweiss
by permission of author or representative)
The academic courage of Mearsheimer and Walt brings to mind the late Richard Herrnstein who
in good conscience felt that his tenured position required him to defend and propagate the truth
even if not popular (what would now be classified as non-PC).
The Israel Lobby was a volume that fatefully examined the influence of the State of
Israel and its strength of power over broad aspects of money-driven American politics.
They (the IL) need to be put in their place. It cant be done without access to significant media
outlets who are intimidated by how the IL works.
Thank goodness they could not stop the Iran deal which caused the vilifying of Obama. Israel indicating
that the president was the new focus of antisemitism in the 21st century. Congrats to Walt-Mearsheimer
on their anniversary of a great book as we hope to gain traction in minimizing the foreign influence
in our policies and political figures.
The retweeted article by Phillip Giraldi itself contains the usual anti-Semitic tropes: Jews
are guilty of dual loyalty; they control politicians, the media and entertainment ; they
want the U.S. to fight wars for the country to which they have real allegiance – Israel; they
are dangerous to America. Giraldi has been pushing this garbage for years and Plame is one of
his fans.
Hard not to be an anti-Semitic troll in these circumstances because the truth about the Israel
Lobby IS anti-Semitic (to use the chosen gibberish terminology of those who use this term as a
weapon)..
Or to put that another way: This interview was not on 60 Minutes, MSNBC, or the New York
Times!
Reinforcing the fact that the most urgent problem is not really either antisemitism or jewish
dual loyalty, just as it is not racism or antiracism, but rather it is the fact that in each case
one side is largely successful in suppressing the free expression of the other, thus biasing the
public debate and therefore opinion and therefore policy. The result is policy warped out of true
in favour of the powerful identity and other lobbies behind the creation and maintenance of these
taboos, whether foreign policy (wars fought in the interests of foreign nations) or domestic (the
ongoing attempt to suppress free speech by creating a hate speech exception, active suppression
of traditionalist, nativist, Christian etc liberties, globalism, promotion of mass immigration,
etc).
The value of Unz is precisely that it stands against that suppression, to publish the Interesting,
Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media.
One of the more controversial pieces here recently was Giraldis piece arguing that there is
a problem with dual loyalty amongst jewish nationalists in positions of influence in the US biasing
policy towards wars they see as favouring Israel (
Americas Jews Are Driving Americas Wars ). The details can be debated, though nobody yet has
come up with any convincing counter to the basic thrust of his piece and most criticisms have
been aimed at its tone or at straw men. But what is really important about that piece, and the
reason he and it should be supported even by those who do not necessarily agree with his point
or the way it was expressed, is precisely that it simply could not be published in any mainstream
media outlet, and indeed Giraldi was promptly sacked from even a fringe political publication
merely for having had it published elsewhere.
It has been argued persuasively that we cannot be confident of the truth of any position once
we have refused to allow the arguments against it to be heard. It may also be the case that genuine
freedom of political expression is an unachievable ideal, but at least we should try to get as
close as possible to that ideal, rather than meekly surrendering to the leftist position that
says some opinions are too dangerous to be heard.
@Avery{Dershowitz wrote on Fox News website:
Quote"The retweeted article by Phillip Giraldi itself contains the usual anti-Semitic tropes:
Jews are guilty of dual loyalty }
Dershowitz spearheaded years-long efforts to have Pollard released.
A Jewish-American man, born in Texas, who worked for the foreign State of Israel, spied on his
putative home country of US of America, and caused great harm and damage to United States.
Pretty hard not to conclude that Dershowitz's loyalty to his putative home country is somewhat
tarnished. If Deshowitz et al had any real smarts they'd throw the filthy traitor under the bus
and forget about him.
But obviously they can't: and the question is "Why?".
And the answer is 'The gentleman doth protest too much' .
If Deshowitz et al had any real smarts theyd throw the filthy traitor under the bus and
forget about him. But obviously they cant: and the question is Why?.
No, they know exactly what they are doing. There is a reason why Israel and its supporters
lobbied for leniency for Pollard. It is important for the continued recruitment of new spies that
the recruiter demonstrate loyalty to the old ones, even after they get caught – especially after
they get caught. The Russians did the same thing. Dershowitz, and the others who advocated Pollards
release, wanted Pollard to be well taken care of, because they want there to be more Pollards.
Accept in Jewishness of neocons is counterproductive. They perform their role because this is
what MIC which controls and pays them want them to perform. The fact that there are selected for
this role is no different then large percent of Jews in academia: they provide to be talented
propagandists.
Some commenters definitely mix effects of neoliberalism on the US society with the influence
of Jews. That's pathetic.
Notable quotes:
"... [Choose a single Handle and stick with it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your comments will be trashed.] ..."
...The recent example is a piece by Philip
Giraldi on the Unz.com, which still produces waves on the web. In his piece he rolled the
list of Jews who were keen on Iraq invasion, and who are pushing the US now into an attack on
Iran: "David Frum, Max Boot, Bill Kristol and Bret Stephens, Mark Dubowitz, Michael Ledeen And
yep, they're all Jewish, plus most of them would self-describe as neo-conservatives."
Giraldi proposed to keep Jews out of the positions of influence on the foreign affairs, in
order to keep the US out of wars it does not need. Giraldi wrote: "We don't need a war with
Iran because Israel wants one and some rich and powerful American Jews are happy to
deliver."
Actually, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz wrote at the time (in
April 2003): "The war in Iraq was conceived by 25 neoconservative intellectuals, most of them
Jewish, who are pushing President Bush to change the course of history. Two of them,
journalists William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, say it's possible."
I also wrote things in the same vein during Iraq invasion, and it is good to see that this
thesis did not die but keeps resurging from time to time. One could add that these very persons
are pushing for conflict with Russia, demonise Putin and attack Trump, though the Orange Man
tries to fulfill their wishes as an eager Santa Claus of diligent Lizzie.
While agreeing with Giraldi on the malady, let us discuss the remedy. Would keeping Jews out
of foreign policy making actually help? Did the US keep out of wars before the Rise of Jews in
late 1960s? The Jews weren't specially prominent before that time, and certainly weren't
overrepresented in the establishment. A Jewish couple, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg has been
fried on the electric chair in 1953, and there were few objections. McCarthy terrorized Jews.
The word Holocaust had yet to make its first appearance (in 1968). Jews were still kept out of
clubs and out of high level politics. Israel had been threatened by the US (in 1956) rather
than assisted.
And still, the free-from-Jews US had fought in Korea the terrible three-year long war
(1950-1953), and in Vietnam (up to 1974), invaded and caused regime change in Guatemala and
Iran, violently interfered in elections in France and Italy, and had fought the fierce Cold War
against the USSR. In all these campaigns, the US Jews were actually for peace and against war.
The Jews were nowhere in power when the US fought its wars against Spain and Mexico. The
non-Jewish US made a coup in Iran, and non-Jewish and not-pro-Israel President Carter tried to
invade Iran. Jews weren't involved in the conquest of Panama, in Nicaragua intervention, in
Granada operation.
Perhaps the Jews had moved the arena of wars to the Middle East and out of Latin America.
Less Jewish-influenced America would rather invade Venezuela than Iraq or Iran. But is it so
wonderful?
The idea of correcting or channelling the excessive Jewish influence is a reasonable one,
but can this goal be achieved by keeping Kristol and Krauthammer out of media (an excellent
thought anyway)?
The Jewish prominence in the US is inbuilt in the US culture and tradition. Karl Marx
wrote that "in North
America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its
unambiguous and normal expression". He said that all Yankees are Jews, behave like Jews, aspire
to be Jews and even are circumcised like Jews. So it is natural that real Jews succeed better
in being Jews than their Gentile neighbours. Werner Sombart added that Jews were prominent from
the very dawn of America and they created American-style capitalism the way that fits them. The
Jews are prominent now because America is custom-built for Jews to fit and suit them, he
said.
This is what should be corrected, and then the Jewish scribes, these Krauthammers will be
out of business of inciting wars. Stop subscribing to Jewish success model, and the Jews won't
be able to influence the Senate. Make the US Christian as Christ taught, share labour and
wealth, aspire to God instead of Mammon, make the first last and the last first, love thy
neighbour and the problem will be solved.
If this is too tall an order, make it a smaller one. Unseating Ledeens and Frums (and I
think they deserve tar and feathers all right) will not do the trick unless the rich Jews are
un-wealthed. Without excessive Jewish wealth, there will be no excessive Jewish push for wars.
And provided that more than half of all US wealth is in few Jewish hands, freeing it will make
a colossal effect of improving life of every American, even every person on earth.
And why to stop there? The super-rich non-Jews are as Jewish as any Jew. They share the same
aspirations. Strip them of their assets. Why should we worry whether Jeff Bezos is a Jew by
blood or faith, or he is not? He behaves like a Jew, and that is enough. Establish a ceiling of
wealth, a counterpart of minimal wage. This idea has been mulled: Jeremy Corbyn called for the
maximum wage. Taxes can do it easily – in wonderful Sweden of 1950s, top tax rate was
102%. Or this can be achieved in a more festive way of stripping the richest men of their
ill-gotten wealth on the main square of Washington, DC on Mardi Gras Sunday. Do not say this is
a punishment for their diligence – other way around, this is assistance on their way to
spiritual improvement. Too many assets imprison the spirit.
This would be good for Jews and for all concerned: while the average Jewish wealth in the US
had been lagging below total average (that is as long as Jews were less wealthy than Gentiles),
the Jews acted in the interests of the people. Around 1968-1970 the Jews became more wealthy
than all Americans, and that was it: they ceased to strive for the common good.
Jews could be a force for good if their excessive tendency to collect material goods is
nipped in the bud. So it was in the USSR: as the Jews could not make money, they went into
science and worked for the common good. Even oligarchs could be good managers instead of pain
in the neck for the society.
This is not more complicated than booting Max Boot out of writing business. So why to go for
a palliative if you can go for the jugular?
Israel Shamir is an entertaining writer and sometimes informative (especially about Russia).
But he is prone to hyperbole. For example:
[N]on-Jewish and not-pro-Israel President Carter tried to invade Iran
Perhaps the Jews had moved the arena of wars to the Middle East and out of Latin America.
Less Jewish-influenced America would rather invade Venezuela than Iraq or Iran. But is it so
wonderful?
– Shamir
The Special Forces operation to extract USA's hostages in Iran fell way short of anything
that anyone would call an "invasion." As for Venezuela:
Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) fired back at President Trump on Friday, saying Congress
"obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela" after Trump said he wouldn't rule out using a
military option in the country.
"No, Congress obviously isn't authorizing war in Venezuela," Sasse, a member of the Senate
Armed Services committee, said in a statement. "Nicolas Maduro is a horrible human being, but
Congress doesn't vote to spill Nebraskans' blood based on who the Executive lashes out at
today."
– The Hill
This entire article is based on Shanir's exaggerationa: First, as I recall, Giraldi never
suggested any form of censorship of news media or commentary; more likely Giraldi would like to
see effectively less censorship, especially censorship on behalf of Israel and Zionism. Second,
Giraldi, as I recall, never made his suggestions as promising an end to war in general. Third,
Giraldi never suggested that removing Jews from positions of influence relating to USA's global
security/strategy would keep the USA out of all unnecessary wars, only that it would help in
getting the USA out of unnecessary wars in the ME -- wars that do not enhance and indeed detract
from our national security.
I feel certain that Giraldi knows as much as anyone about the evil influence of the Military
Industrial Congressional Complex -- which obviously includes major gentile players as well as
Zionist neocons. For me, the matter is simple: anyone whose loyalty is divided between the USA
and Israel should be barred from any position of influence in USA's military or related
governmental activities. The same is true for anyone whose loyalty is divided between the USA
and the People's Republic of China or Ireland or Russia or the Vatican or wherever.
It's been a week or so since I read Giraldi's piece, but I recall him saying keep Jews in
the US out of policy matters relating to Israel. "Put the Jewish members in
charge of Korea Policy. . . " I believe was Giraldi's example. You seem to be punching a straw
man with your otherwise pedestrian argument. But thanks for supporting Giraldi's basic
thesis!
Now these pitiful William-F-Buckley-tards should put Giraldi's article back up; Shamir
confirms that Giraldi is right.
While agreeing with Giraldi on the malady, let us discuss the remedy. Would keeping Jews
out of foreign policy making actually help? Did the US keep out of wars before the Rise of Jews
in late 1960s? The Jews weren't specially prominent before that time, and certainly weren't
overrepresented in the establishment.
This is an interesting question, but there is a difference between Then and Now.
In the past, US expansionism was part of the global norm. Imperialism was common and
accepted all over the world. Ottomans ruled over a giant empire. Russians kept expanding into
Siberia and Central Asia. It also swallowed parts of Central Europe. Manchus took over China
and gobbled up more territory as part of Chinese empire. There were native imperialist wars in
Africa before white man came. And Mexico was also the product of empire building. Spanish took
it from Aztec Imperialists, and the Conquis took more land. And Spanish also took Philippines.
Brits and French were creating vast empires. US was created out of empire-building and
continued as such.
So, US warmongering in the past was part of the world norm. Everyone did it. Also,
empire-building was seen as glorious for the Whole People. So, even though the elites benefited
the most, there was a sense of shared glory among all Britons over the British Empire. All
Frenchmen were to share the glory of the French Empire. And US expansion into SW territories
was great not only for elites but for Anglo settlers who built new lives in those areas. And it
was even good for Mexers in the region because Anglos did so much than Mexers had done before
when SW territories had belonged to Mexico. It's like Ramon has it pretty good working for
gringos. He was like the Guillermo of his day.
@Anonymous I
thought the ascent of Jewish power in America started in 1913?
One year after that, America entered WWI... WWI was planned and executed to plan by a
British elite – just like the 2 Boer wars. In all these wars, wealthy Jewish bankers
helped get them started – the Cassels and the Rothschilds principally. Many leading
British politicians – e.g. Winston Churchill and his father – were deeply in debt
to these people. The much touted "Balfour Declaration" was the product of a British prime
minister who was in debt to them – as was his uncle Lord Salisbury.
Randolph Churchill died with debts of the order of $8m in today's money to these bankers. It
is all well-documented.
Suggested reading:
"The Secret Origins of the First Wold War" by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor
However, blaming ordinary Jews or American Jews for WWI is as ridiculous as blaming the
French for their corrupt Poincaré or the ordinary British for the warmonger
Churchill.
@Grandpa
Charlie It occurs to me that it's possible that Shamir intended the article as humor, as
camp, as a parody of ((anti-Jewish)) commentary here at UR. It's complicated.
This article is a mix of truths and bull. But the key problem with the article is that it
never mentions the main tool of the Zionists – the petrodollar and the main conduit of
the Zionist power in US – The Federal Reserve. Luckily, China and Russia are working on
dethroning FED by diminishing petrodollar. This will have the world-wide beneficial effect of
deglobalisation: removing the ability to print money indefinitely will curb the ambitions of
both "the rich Jews and the rich who want to be Jews" to rule the World. Power will become
distributed again and the Jews will have to compete with the Chinese for domination.
Diminishing petrodollar is a much healthier solution than the Marxist's solution of removing
wealth from the wealthy Jews and wannabe Jews. Once one starts removing wealth from
individuals, one does not know where and when to stop.
@Anonymous
It's quite hard to know such things for certain, since a lot of highly-paid professional effort
has gone into concealing them from public scrutiny.
For some reason I am reminded of George Carlin's weirdly logical observation, "One can never
know for sure what a deserted area looks like".
Around 1968-1970 the Jews became more wealthy than all Americans, and that was it: they
ceased to strive for the common good.
For the next 30 years through excessive debt the Jew Allen Greenspan, head of the Fed, put a
stake in the heart of America's economy – end of story.
Jew dominated corporate America turned its head away from its fiduciary responsibilities to
customers, employees, neighbors, investors, and country – they instead turned to raw,
naked, personal greed. Junk bonds got the ball rolling.
In America you no longer do business with your neighbors – you must do business with
Wall Street – Wall Street gets a slice of all your spending. Guess what – unlike
you neighbors – Wall Street doesn't give dam about you – PERIOD.
Companies change ownership with the tough of a keyboard creating great uncertainty for all
those invoved. This creates instability.
Ownership must be returned to local people. Then stability will return to culture.
Remember the old adage for success in the world of WASPs: "Think Yiddish, dress
British."
A serious case can be made for replacing the income tax, which has the potential to keep
people from becoming wealthy, with a wealth tax, which has the effect of making people pay in
proportion to their longer-term success and influence in the system. A millennial might say
that this would be a more sustainable way to run things.
This is not more complicated than booting Max Boot out of writing business. So why to go
for a palliative if you can go for the jugular?
If you think that imposing a general prohibitive wealth tax or somehow banning being rich is
"not more complicated" than simply recognising the problems of dual loyalty and ulterior group
motives, both in general and in particular relation to jewish elites, and addressing them in
some form, then you would seem rather unrealistic to me.
There has been no convincing argument raised against Giraldi's point – the closest to
a response so far seems to be the one you raise here – that jews aren't the only people
or groups pushing the US towards war, which is rather irrelevant, and the insistence that not
all jewish people do so, which is both obvious and likewise irrelevant.
Regardless, and whether or not one agrees with Giraldi's particular diagnosis of one aspect
of the ills of modern US sphere society (I do, broadly), one should support him and it anyway
simply because its expression is so obviously being punished by those who seek to suppress it.
His prompt dismissal by the contemptible American Conservative illustrates the truth of the
point made by those who complain of politically correct censorship being used by identity
lobbyists and those who kowtow to them to control dissent.
The latter is a far bigger problem in the societies of the modern US sphere than the
particular issue of foreign policy identified by Giraldi.
I like what is being said:
Before the 1960s the Jews in the US were not occupying the front stage but their influence was
far from being negligeable. They were acting like a fifth column and as such, they have been
active in triggering and supporting the Bolsheviks revolution, in getting the US to enter WW I
and latter on WW II.
It is also obvious that when they were not occupying the front stage, they were courting the
people in the US and in all the countries where they were living; to get accepted and their
contribution to the societies was important.
Today as they are running the show in the western world, they are acting like slaves drivers
and are treating others like they treat the Palestinians.
Having conquered the US and its dominions in Europe, they want to get the rest of the world.
They never have enough. It looks like they want to take a revenge against all the others like
they have done against the Russian during the revolution. They are no more working for
improving the world but for running it and wreaking a revenge for having living the Diaspora
.
The only way to stop them driving us to Armageddon is to have them bankrupted; the whole
world might be in jeopardy but that is the only way to avoid a nuclear apocalypse.
[Choose a single Handle and stick with it, or use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your
comments will be trashed.]
I have never found Jews particularly cheap or materialistic. Maybe as a Scot I have a warped
perspective. Denied the chance at noble titles or churchly favor, money has been their only
path to power and distinction. What I do see as a problem is the combination of extreme ability
and extreme solidarity. Put that together with their adversarial relationship to the gentile
world developed over the centuries and you have a recipe for harmful culture war. Producing
sexy movies and violent rap, the war on Christmas, the attempt to limit free speech -- all are
forms of aggression or payback for aggression, as I see it. To be sure, not all Jews or even
most feel this emotion, but the ones that do work hard to promote it. According to Pew
Research, 94% of self-identified Jews identify as pro-choice. The next highest group is
mainline Protestants at 59%. Such a great disparity suggests to me that the issue is largely
symbolic for them. I suspect you would find similar disparities on gun rights, attitudes to
pornography, and religion in the public square. It's rare for Muslims or Hindus to complain
about having to hear Christmas carols, but many Jews want to sick the Homeland Security SWAT
Team on the school choir if a few syllables of Hark the Herald Angels are overheard. For that
reason, I feel more threatened by the billions of Adelson, Bezos, Saban, Soros, and Singer than
by Gates or Buffett, even though the latter are also quite liberal.
Why focus so much on Jewish wealth? The main problem of the American system has a simple
name: capitalism. It is wealth and excessively rich people as such, who are the problem, and
with a certain amount of wealth, you stop giving a fork about your religious, ethnic, national,
or other alliances. All you care about are interests rates. Rich people also have a tendency to
turn psychopath and get hooked on power – after all, you need to utilize that money, and
you can only buy so many yachts, ferraris and mansions, right?
Scratch capitalism by changing the monetary system from a debt money system to a full or
free money system, in which private banking based on loans and credits is called out for what
it is: criminal fraud. The debt of the many – including government – is the wealth
of a few. You wouldn't have this sick connection between wealth and poverty, if money creation
wasn't based on debt, and only allowed to a (computerized and automated) fourth state power
called the monetative. Read German thinkers to understand that, start with Karl Marx to
understand the social and spiritual errors of capitalism, read Silvio Gesell and, more
up-to-date, German economist Bernd Senf and Austrian economist Franz Hörmann to understand
the possible alternatives. Educate yourself about The Wörgl Experiment to get an
historical example from Austria where Free Money worked wonders before it was scrapped by the
bankster elite and their political servants during the Great Depression in the 1930s.
Only free money could guarantee free markets (and you wouldn't even need taxes anymore). In
capitalism with debt money, all you ever get is monopolies and corporate cartels.
Add to that a real democracy – no congress, no parliament, no parties, the
legislative shall only be the people based on direct democracy. We now have the technological
means to realize what has never been realized in human history: free markets, democracy, and
something which could be called communism. Don't flinch from reading this last word, the stuff
you commonly refer to as communism must be called bolshevism and has had nothing to do with
actual communist ideals, which can never be realized in a centralized fashion as in capitalism
(centralized wealth) or in bolshevism (centralized state power). But thanks to IT at our
disposal, it can now be realized in form of free money and direct democracy.
'Stop subscribing to Jewish success model, and the Jews won't be able to influence the
Senate. Make the US Christian as Christ taught, share labour and wealth, aspire to God instead
of Mammon, make the first last and the last first, love thy neighbour and the problem will be
solved.'
Would that this were possible. Great ideas in this article, but realistically, could any of
it be implemented? It would take great anti-Jewish fervency, which, as you note, Americans
don't have as they have always behaved as Jews.
What about the American Jewish bankers–like Schiff–that bankrolled Lenin and his
thugs to sneak back into Russia, then proceeded–with his Jewish buddies–to steal
the Revolution from Russians that had deposed the Czar?
Lenin's Bolshevik Jew radicals turned that Christian nation into a Commie nightmare,
murdering around 60 million Russians in the process and turned a Christian nation that had been
on friendly terms with the USA into an implacable foe, eventually leading to a five decades
long 'Cold War.'
The USSR Commies tried to export their madness to Europe, specifically Germany, which led to
the popularity and rise of Hitler and eventually WW II.
During WWII, FDR had a number of Jewish advisers, like Henry Morgenthau, Jr. whose post-WW II
plan for Germany was so punitive, it gave Germans the will to fight harder in the closing days
to prevent the plans implementation, thereby dragging out the war.
It was President Truman's support for creating Israel–by stealing it from
Palestine–and his recognition of that apartheid nightmare that led to many an ill,
including 9/11.
I like Mr. Shamir's writings, but I think he needs to hit the history books again and
refresh his memory.
Just stay away from Wikipedia, which publishes a lop-sided version of the past.
What I saw in the speech was a long-overdue redressing of the balance. Of course
nationalism is not an unqualified good; of course nationalism has its pathologies. But you can
say the same of globalism.
One thing Donald Trump's election victory last year demonstrated is that many of us think
globalism has gone too far, has over-reached, especially in the absurd and nation-destroying
doctrine of Open Borders.
We want to redress the balance. The good thing about Trump's speech; It sounds as though he
wants to redress that balance, too.
"... Despite the creation of a new global order, has not transnationalism led to the politicization of identity in the form of fundamentalism, xenophobia, and a fanatical espousal of tradition, as many critics observe? It is increasingly doubtful that transnational practices are generally counter-hegemonic. ..."
"... The dissemination of transnational practices entails the transterritorialization of various socioeconomic, political, and cultural practices and identities that frequently bolster the formation and reconstitution of the nation-state. ..."
"... As Arjun Appadurai observes in his book Modernity at Large: Cultural Dimensions of Globalization ..."
"... Yet transnational politics often lead to cultural and religious fanaticism by emphasizing a conception of identity between the "authentic" and the "demonic." ..."
Despite the creation of a new global order, has not
transnationalism led to the politicization of identity in the form of fundamentalism,
xenophobia, and a fanatical espousal of tradition, as many critics observe? It is increasingly
doubtful that transnational practices are generally counter-hegemonic.
The dissemination of transnational practices entails the transterritorialization of
various socioeconomic, political, and cultural practices and identities that frequently bolster
the formation and reconstitution of the nation-state.
As Arjun Appadurai observes in his book Modernity at Large:
Cultural Dimensions of Globalization , diasporic communities such as the ones formed
through the phenomena of transnationalism in the West Indies, Malaya, Fiji, Mauritius, Eastern
and Western Africa, the U. K., and the U. S., "safe from the depredations of their home states
. . . become doubly loyal to their nations of origin" (49).
Transnationalism implies a process in which formations that have traditionally been
perceived as restricted to well-defined political and geographical formations have transgressed
national borders, producing new social formations. Yet transnational politics often lead to
cultural and religious fanaticism by emphasizing a conception of identity between the
"authentic" and the "demonic." It is important to offer a critical dialogue between the
works of transnational writers and the contemporary history they encounter, using history to
interrogate fiction and using fiction to think through historical issues.
All discussions of what nowadays fascism is, our could mean, end like rivers in the desert.
Poetic, jilles dykstra, but as an Italian given to bluntness, I'd state it somewhat differently:
Most people who sling the epithet "fascist" do not know what the hell they are talking about.
I suggest they read Giovanni Gentile's Origins and Doctrine of Fascism
It's going to require a bit of effort -- a lot of effort, in fact to fully understand Gentile
and what he/Mussolini hoped to achieve through Fascism -- The effort will likely tax the most
ambitious of our stenographer/journalist class: you'll have to take on board an understanding
of Italy's fragmented history, and especially of Italy's relationship to Catholicism: it's easy
for me, I lived it, but Brian Lamb was absolutely flummoxed when Maurizio Viroli tried to explain
to him that Italians incorporate within themselves holy-joe pious Catholic practices with utter
disdain for Church strictures --
https://www.c-span.org/video/?160904-1/niccolos-smile
As an Italian, I would, of course, play some beautiful music in the background. Tchaikovsky
gathered charming Italian folk music and composed the dynamic Capriccio Italien:
PS Our Jewish/zionist friends might find it intriguing that Jabotinsky centered his "spiritual
being" in Rome, and greatly admired Mussolini and sought to incorporate his ideas in Revisionist
Zionism.
So said Raghuram Rajan, the former governor of the Reserve Bank of India, during a keynote address
he gave at the Stigler Center's
conference on the political economy of finance that took place in June.
Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke about
the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities in
areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial
crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion.
In his talk, Rajan focused on three questions related to current populist discontent: 1. Why is
anger focused on trade? 2. Why now? 3. Why do so many voters turn to far-right nationalist movements?
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right
answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today
is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used
to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present.
Today this is no longer true." ...
There's quite a bit more. I don't agree with everything he (Raghuram) says, but thought it might
provoke discussion.
The understanding of exploitation
Of wage earning production workers
Is a better base then the 18 th century liberal ideal of equality
Exploitation and oppression are obviously not the same
even if they make synergistic team mates oftener then not
So long as " them " are blatantly oppressed
It's easy to Forget you are exploited
Unlike oppression
Exploitation can be so stealthy
So not part of the common description of the surface of daily life
Calls for equality must include a careful answer to the question
" equal with who ? "
Unearned equality is not seen as fair to those who wanna believe they earned their status
Add in the obvious :
To be part of a successful movement aimed at Exclusion of some " thems " or other
Is narcotic
Just as fighting exclusion can be a narcotic too for " thems "
But fighting against exclusion coming from among a privileged rank among
The community of would be excluders
That is a bummer
A thankless act of sanctimony
Unless you spiritually join the " thems"
Now what have we got ?
Jim Crow thrived for decades it only ended
When black arms and hands in the field at noon ...by the tens of millions
were no longer necessary to Dixie
"Pointing fingers at these communities and telling them they don't understand is not the right
answer," he warned. "In many ways, the kind of angst that we see in industrial countries today
is similar to the bleak times [of] the 1920s and 1930s. Most people in industrial countries used
to believe that their children would have a better future than their already pleasant present.
Today this is no longer true." ...
I thought this sort of thinking was widely accepted only in 2016 we were told by the center
left that no it's not true.
"Rajan, a professor of finance at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, spoke
about the "concentrated and devastating" impact of technology and trade on blue-collar communities
in areas like the Midwest, the anger toward "totally discredited" elites following the 2008 financial
crisis, and the subsequent rise of populist nationalism, seen as a way to restore a sense of community
via exclusion."
Instead the center left is arguing that workers have nothing to complain about and besides
they're racist/sexist.
'"These communities have become disempowered partly for economic reasons but partly also because
decision-making has increasingly been centralized toward state governments, national governments,
and multilateral [agreements]," said Rajan. In the European Union, he noted, the concentration
of decision-making in Brussels has led to a lot of discontent.'
I'd suggest that this part is not true. Communities have become politically disempowered in
large part because they have become economically disempowered. A shrinking economy means a shrinking
tax base and less funds to do things locally. Even if the local government attempts to rebuild
by recruiting other employers, they end up in a race to the bottom with other communities in a
similar situation.
I'd also suggest that the largest part of the "discontent" in the EU is not because of any
"concentration of decision-making", but because local (and regional, and national) politicians
have used the EU as a convenient scapegoat for any required, but unpopular action.
"... By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter: @Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
August 19, 2017 by
Yves Smith Yves here.
This is a well-argued debunking of various "evil Rooskie" claims and is very much worth circulating.
Stunningly, there actually are people asserting that white supremacists and the figurative and now
literal hot fights over Confederate symbols (remember that Confederate flags have been a big controversy
too?) are part of a Russian plot. Help me. Fortunately their views don't seem to have gotten traction
outside the fever-swamp corners of the Twitterverse.
Author Kovalev's bottom line: When you are doing the same thing Putin and his propaganda machine
does, you're doing something wrong.
By Alexey Kovalev, an independent journalist living and working in Moscow. Follow him on Twitter:
@Alexey__Kovalev. Originally published at
openDemocracy
On 11-12 August, violent clashes erupted between the far-right Unite the Right movement and anti-fascist
counter-protesters in Charlottesville, Virginia. One woman died when an alleged neo-Nazi sympathizer
rammed a car into a crowd of counter-protesters. There were numerous injuries and a major national
crisis erupted in the United States resulting from and inspired by the rapid rise of white nationalist,
neo-Nazi and other similar sentiments far to the right of the political spectrum.
As it often happens these days, numerous people on Twitter immediately jumped in, pitching the
so-called "hot takes" -- rapid, hastily weaved together series of tweets with often
outlandish theories of what really happened. These instant experts, who have come to prominence in
the wake of the Trump presidency, have carved out a niche for themselves by taking the most tangential
or non-existent connection to anything Russian and "connecting the dots" or "just asking questions".
The most egregious example is
Louise Mensch , a former UK conservative pundit (and sometime MP) now residing in the US. Mensch
is the
most extreme example of a Twitter-age conspiracy-mongering populist . But there are other people,
with more credible credentials, who are also prone to demanding that "ties with Russia" (via individuals,
events and institutions) be investigated.
Immediately following the events in Charlottesville, the writer and consultant
Molly McKew
and Jim Ludes of
the Pell Center , among others, chimed in with their "hot takes", repeating each other almost
word for word: "We need to closely examine the links between the American alt-right and Russia."
These particular expressions ("links between X and Russia", "ties with Russia", "Russian connections"
or "close to Putin/Russian government") are, essentially, weasel words, expressions so elastic that
they could mean anything -- from actively collaborating with senior Russian officials
and secretly accepting large donations from to the vaguest, irrelevant connections mentioned simply
for the sake of name-dropping Russia in an attempt to farm for more clicks.
Almost every person of Russian origin involved in the Trump drama is "Putin-connected", although
in Russia that definition only applies to a tiny power circle of trusted aides and advisors, a select
group of oligarchs running state-owned enterprises and close personal friends from before Putin's
presidency. The exaggerated tone of reporting often suggests something more far-reaching, coordinated
and sinister than a loose collection of unconnected factoids.
So, what do "links between the American alt-right and Russia" actually mean? Much of the allegations
of American alt-right's "collusion" with Putin's regime rely on the fact that Richard Spencer, a
divisive figure in this already quite loose movement, was
once married to a woman of Russian origin , Nina Kupriyanova. Their current marital status is
unclear and, frankly, irrelevant. Kupriyanova, a scholar of Russian and Soviet history with a PhD
from the University of Toronto, is also a follower of Alexander Dugin, a larger-than-life figure
in contemporary Russian media and politics. Because of Dugin's outsized presence in the western media
where he is often, and quite erroneously, presented as "Putin's mastermind" or "Putin's Bannon",
this connection is often enough to be declared the
smoking gun in the crowdsourced investigation .
Dugin has been many things to many people over his decades-long, zig-zagging career as an underground
occult practitioner in the Soviet years: philosopher, lecturer, one of the founding fathers of a
radical movement, public intellectual, flamboyant media personality. But he is not a "Putin advisor"
and never has been. Although Dugin is a vocal fan of the Russian president, has repeatedly professed
his loyalty to Putin and has orbited the halls of Russian power for more than a decade, he hasn't
accumulated enough influence to even keep a stable job.
In 2014, Dugin was fired from his position as a guest lecturer at the department of sociology
of Moscow State University. Students and academic staff had complained for years about the "anti-scientific,
obscurantist" atmosphere Dugin had created within the department (one petition filed by the students
mentions Dugin "performing extrasensory experiments" on them during lectures). But the final straw
was Dugin's interview where
he agitated to "kill, kill, kill" Ukrainians in June 2014 -- the early stages
of Russia's war campaign in Ukraine. Both Dugin and his patron, the dean of the sociology department,
were promptly fired after a major media scandal.
Later, Dugin was quite
unceremoniously removed from his position as a host on Tsargrad TV -- a right-wing,
reactionary private network funded by "Orthodox oligarch" Konstantin Malofeyev and launched with
the help of a former Fox News executive. All mentions of Dugin's show on Tsargrad simply disappeared
from the network's website.
Although Richard Spencer's own writings for his Radix Journal do have visible Dugin inspirations,
it's inconceivable that Dugin has any significant influence on the American right. His teachings
are just too eclectic, esoteric and over-intellectualised for an average American neo-Nazi who just
wants to see more white faces around him. In fact, Dugin's overarching idea of "Eurasianism" goes
against the grain of "keeping America white and ethnically pure": at its core is an obscure early
20th century Orientalist school of thought which accentuated Russia's civilisational continuity with
Mongolian and Turkic ancestors, as opposed to the spiritually alien West.
Russia's conservatives of all shades of right have indeed been long cultivating links with their
brethren to the west of Moscow -- well before Putin appeared on the scene. These
have been well documented by scholars of the far right such as
Anton Shekhovtsov . After Putin's onslaught
in Ukraine, Russia, in dire need of new allies,
intensified efforts to strengthen those links .
In the latter case, the dynamic is reversed: it's not Russia influencing the West and exporting
its values, but vice versa. It's Russia's parliamentary ultra-conservatives like
Yelena Mizulina (now a senator) who have been inspired and supported by the American religious
right.
Russia's last public attempt to unite the European and American far-right ended in a
major media scandal in early 2015 when the "International Russian Conservative Forum" in Saint
Petersburg was widely criticised in the press. The forum's Russian official supporters from the "traditionalist"
Rodina (Motherland) party allied with the ruling United Russia were forced to withdraw their endorsement,
and no further attempts to organise the forum have been made. Propaganda outlets like RT are quietly
shedding commentators with far-right sympathies like Manuel Ochsenreiter or Richard Spencer mentioned
above in an attempt to cleanse their image as a safe haven for Holocaust deniers and white power
enthusiasts. Only a couple of days after Charlottesville, Russian authorities
banned The Daily Stormer, a virulently anti-Semitic "alt-right" website, which had temporarily
sought refuge on Russian web space after having been refused service in the US.
There is little to no evidence that any of the above had anything to do with the tragic events
in Charlottesville. The resurgence of murderous, hateful ideologies in the United States is a home-grown
issue. Young men with identical haircuts and matching, uniform-like attires chanting "Blood and soil
-- " in the streets of American cities are inspired and influenced by many things, but a bearded
Russian mystic is hardly one of them. Attempting to explain internal strife in your country by "Russian
influences", hastily put together disjointed and exaggerated phenomena, is intellectually lazy. It
distracts from getting to the root of the problem by offering quick, easy answers to complicated
questions.
Ironically, it's also a very Putin thing to do. Explaining Russia's internal issues by blaming
the West's machinations is the Russian president's shtick. When you find yourself doing the same
thing Putin and his propaganda machine does, you're doing it wrong.
The only real quibble I have is with the (very loaded) term "white supremacy". I would
change it to "cultural supremacy" or "Western supremacy". As Barack Obama and others have
demonstrated, non-white people are welcome to join the Imperial Empire Club so long as they
accept the membership terms. Pale faces who reject the Club charter or cannot afford the
membership dues are deemed by the elite to be much lower than a more conformist darker
skinned applicant. Cf "basket of deplorables"
"... The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball" where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html ..."
Fascism is a term that was originally referred to the fascists of Italy under Mussolini.
Nazism on the other hand, referred as National Socialism, is in an ideological concept of the
Nazi Party.
For Fascists, the state was the most important element. But Nazism emphasized on racism.
While fascism considered state as important, Nazism considered 'Aryanism' as more important."
The US alternative to fascism and national socialism can be visualized by the movie "Rollerball"
where the "corporations rule the world" and government is subservant to them (see David Korden's
book by the same name. The circus' for the proles merely serve to distract them by providing a
false identity politic associated with a particular "team". The history the Hanseatic-League also
provides some inspiration for this system: http://www.bergen.hanseatic-league.com/history.html
Cannot wait for football season to arrive so we can go back to the regularly scheduled sports
"programming"(go seahawks. sic).
"The brutal repression and dehumanization witnessed across Europe in the 1930s has not found
generalized expression in the U.S. and Europe, at least not yet. Nevertheless, large sectors of
the U.S. and European left appear to be unable to recognize that the U.S./NATO/EU axis that is
committed to maintaining the hegemony of Western capital is resulting in dangerous collaborations
with rightist forces both inside and outside of governments."
The impetus of that article was to critique the inherent danger of the Obama Administration's
cynical manipulation of right-wing elements in Ukraine to overthrow the democratically elected government
of Viktor Yanukovych. Not only was it dangerous and predictably disastrous for the Ukrainian people,
but because U.S. support for a neo-fascist movement in Ukraine took place within a context in which
the political right was gaining legitimacy and strength across Europe, the political impact of the
right gaining power in Ukraine could not be isolated from the growing power of the right elsewhere.
Which meant that the Obama Admiration's selfish, short-term objective to undermine Russia in Ukraine
had the effect of empowering the right and shifting the balance of forces toward the right throughout
Europe.
But because Obama was incorrectly seen as a liberal, he was able to avoid most criticism of his
policies in Ukraine, in Europe and domestically. In fact, liberals and the left both in the U.S.
and in Europe generally supported his Ukraine policies.
However, playing footsie with right-wing elements in the Ukraine and underestimating the growing
power of the right has resulted in powerful and dangerous right-wing movements on both sides of the
Atlantic who have effectively exploited endemic white racism and the contradictions of neoliberal
capitalist globalization. The ascendancy of Donald Trump cannot be decontextualized from the racial,
class and gender politics of this moment here and abroad.
Ethnic nationalism rises when the state and the nation experience economic difficulties. Weimar
republic is a classic example here.
Notable quotes:
"... That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling upwards thing is actually theft. ..."
"... The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream, which was the essence of upward mobility. ..."
"... Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out. ..."
"... "In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes." ..."
"... Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson, etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran ), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm. ..."
"... The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk ..."
"... The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined and thus navigating ŕ vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc. ..."
The US has no problem generating wealth, and has no need to force conflict with China. The
US's problem is that that wealth is funneled upwards. Wealth inequality is not a meme. "Shrinking
middle class" is a euphemism for downward-mobility of the middle class, an historical incubator
for Reaction. And that's what we have here, reactionaries from a middle class background who now
are earning less than their parents at menial jobs, or who are unemployed, becoming goons; aping
the klan, appropriating nazi icons, blaming the foreigner, the negro, the Jew, the Muslim, for
their circumstances. A "trade war" will not help them one iota, it will make their lives worse,
and Bannon will go out and say it's the fault of the foreigner and the immigrant, their numbers
wool swell. More terror, depper culture wars. I suppose that's nationalism to some people.
That's exactly nationalism, for sure. The work of that wealth creation by the way is done
by the all the classes below the rentier class, from working to middle class. The funneling
upwards thing is actually theft.
The middle class is shrinking and being pushed down closer to rage because the wealth-stealing
mechanisms have become bigger and better, and saturated the entire national system, including
its electoral politics. This real face of capitalism has driven out the iconic American Dream,
which was the essence of upward mobility.
Nationalism is an ugly word, but it's easily reached for when there aren't any better words
around. In Russia, they already went through what faces the US, and they figured it out.
Since we're looking for the grown-ups, let's turn to Vladimir Putin, always reliable for sanity
when direction is lost.
Putin recalled the words of outstanding Soviet Russian scholar Dmitry Likhachev that patriotism
drastically differs from nationalism. "Nationalism is hatred of other peoples, while patriotism
is love for your motherland," Putin cited his words.
"In our view, faster growth is necessary but not sufficient to restore higher intergenerational
income mobility," they wrote. "Evidence suggests that, to increase income mobility, policymakers
should focus on raising middle-class and lower-income household incomes."
Interventions worth considering include universal preschool and greater access to public
universities, increasing the minimum wage, and offering vouchers to help families with kids
move from poor neighborhoods into areas with better schools and more resources, they said.
Is there any political party or group in the US that suggests this?
The Corporate "fascist" - with grains of salt - USA. The 'democracy' part is fiction, camouflaged
via a fools theatre two-party system and ginormous social re-distribution, amongst others..
the Core (PTB) found itself through miscalculation and loss of power subject to a challenger
who broke thru the \organised/ fake elections, to attempt some kind of re-adjustement - renewal
- re-set - review...
Advocating smoothed-out relations with Russia (for commercial perso reasons, Tillerson,
etc. and a need to grade adversaries and accept some into the fold, like Russia, instead of Iran
), a more level playing field, multi-polar world, to actually become more dominant in trade (China
etc.) and waste less treasure on supporting enemies, aka proxy stooges, to no purpose (e.g. Muslim
brotherhood, Al Q kooks, ISIS) and possibly even Israel -- hmmm.
Heh, the profits of domination are to be organised, extracted and distributed, differently.
One Mafia-type tribe taking over from another! Ivanka will be The Sweet First Woman Prezzie! Style,
Heart, Love, Looks! Go!
The old guard will do much to get rid of the upstart and his backers (who they are exactly
I'd quite like to know?) as all their positions and revenues are at risk, so they are activating
all - anything to attack. The Trump crowd seems at the same time both vulnerable and determined
and thus navigating ŕ vue as the F say, by sight and without a plan An underground internal
war which is stalemated, leading to instrumentalising the ppl and creating chaos, scandals, etc.
In a few hours, I'll fly to Europe, my favorite
continent, and why not? Most of my intellectual and artistic heroes are Europeans,
Kakfa, Beckmann, Kippenberger, Siebald, Rabelais, Rimbaud, Celine, Orwell, Kundera,
Dostoievsky and Milosz, etc. I've spent significant time in Italy, England and Germany,
and have fond memories of a least a dozen other European countries, all very distinctive
from each other. Still.
White culture has dominated much of the world for
several centuries, but it is winding down through self hatred. The white left mostly
hate whites, while most of the white right are contemptuous of everybody else. Half of
whites, then, hate the other half, and contemporary white culture is a degraded mess.
Think Katy Perry being breaded, kneaded, garnished then cooked. Free of war and
colonialism, whites are doing a fine job of destroying themselves.
Many are cheering. It's about time! Susan Sontag in
1967, "The white race
is
the cancer of human history; it is the white race and
it alone!its ideologies and inventions!which eradicates autonomous civilizations
wherever it spreads, which has upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now
threatens the very existence of life itself."
After white hegemony comes Chinese leadership, many
whites themselves are hoping. When I was in Leipzig in 2015, a German friend insisted
that the Chinese were lifting up the Third World. It was a constructive partnership, he
said, unlike murderously exploitative white colonialism. Often citing
Andre Vltchek,
this man believed that a resurgent Communism would be led by Russia and China.
He
didn't care for my observation that the Russians and Chinese had regained their footing,
confidence and compass thanks to nationalism. Nationalism is reactionary, he believed.
He himself didn't feel German and could care less for the concept. Most tellingly, this
man had never been outside Germany. He didn't know how grounded to Germany he was.
No population anywhere needs a global ideology. Not
only is global solidarity unachievable, but undesirable.
Bereft of a homeland, many Jews dreamt of a
international brotherhood, thus the nightmarish chimera of Communism, which is defended
to this day by the most emotionally arrested, historically amnesiac or simply
hypocritical. Many who extol the virtues of international Communism will also rabidly
defend the ultra nationalist and racist state of Israel.
In the popular mind, the evilness of white culture is
epitomized by Nazi Germany, with Germans forever stigmatized as the worst of whites.
Contemporary Germany, however, is one that supposedly allowed 500+ German women to be
sexually assaulted by Muslims in Cologne during New Year's Eve of 2016. Germany is
really that neutered, goes the narrative.
Perhaps emboldened by such, Vietnam recently kidnapped
a Vietnamese asylum seeker from the Tiergarten, right in the heart of Berlin, then
smuggled him back to Hanoi to stand trial. A former head of the state-owned oil company,
Trinh Xuan Thanh is accused of pinching $150 million. Maybe Turkey will follow suit and
snatch a few of Edorgan's enemies?
I'll be in Barcelona by morning. Emerging from the
train onto the Placa de Catalunya in 2003, I encountered so many Africans and Chinese
peddling goods, I thought I was in, well, Naples or Belleville in Paris. My mind has
been in Spain for weeks. Reading Spanish newspapers, I learnt that a Senegalese had been
beaten to death by four other Africans in Salou, just a 15 minute drive from Taragona,
where I'll be staying with
Jonathan Revusky
.
In Salou in 2015, a Senegalese peddler of pirated
DVDs, counterfeit sunglasses and fake handbags jumped to his death from a third floor
balcony as police raided his apartment. This led to two days of clashes between 100+
Senegalese and police.
In Florence more than a decade ago, I often ran into
Africans selling bogus goods made by Chinese, often in nearby Prato. With a population
of 191,104, it has 45,000 Chinese.
Taragona and Bacerlona Provinces are 10% Muslims, the
highest in Spain. In Reus, a law was passed in 2014 banning burquas. When it was struck
down by the Spanish Supreme Court, this code was revised to ban all full-face coverings,
so you best not loiter in the Reus McDonald's while wearing a motorcycle helmet, baclava
or facekini.
I read that in Pizarra, population 8,990, a
three-year-old girl was hit by a train. What's most remarkable is that as news of her
disappearance spread around midnight, 300 locals immediately volunteered to search for
her. That's the kind of small town Europe I remember, having spent two years in
Certaldo, Italy, population 16,000.
You see, where every stone tells a story, people are
ardently loyal to their home turf. Shared history matters. Strip malls don't. Europe
will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses,
collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope.
Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies
and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope.
No, the contemporary "American empire" is a flailing, Jewish golem. Its "corrosive
ideologies" and "madnesses" will have to be addressed first. Both Europe and the US will
have to solve that problem before moving on to a better future.
Chances are we'll all die before that happens (40/60%). Western Europe is just a
lesser golem ATM.
Leftist / Zionist liars use the 'holocau$t' fraud as a cover to destroy white gentiles
and their cultures.
The problem is that belief in the 'holocaust' = belief in the
impossible, a la witchcraft where "eyewitnesses", "confessions" and courts of law
worldwide stated that witchcraft was a proven fact.
Science, rational thought, & logic simply demolish the 'holocaust' storyline.
And that's why there are Thought Crime Laws that imprison those who engage in free
speech about it.
When it comes to any topic that is known to be of special financial & political
interests to supremacist Jews, and certainly there is no cash cow & political tool quite
like the 'holocau$t' scam, you can bet the fix will be in. To them truth is irrelevant.
The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
"One should not ask, how this mass murder was made possible. It was technically
possible, because it happened. This has to be the obligatory starting-point for any
historical research regarding this topic. We would just like to remind you: There is
no debate regarding the existence of the gas chambers, and there can never be one."
- endorsed by 34 "reputable historians" and published in the French daily Le Monde on
February 21, 1979
is one that supposedly allowed 500+ German women to be sexually assaulted by Muslims
in Cologne during New Year's Eve of 2016.
Not even supposedly. Change it before
Revusky finds out. Cologne never happened. Revusky's razor, proves it beyond any doubt.
It is the ultimate Wunderwaffe against any accusations tarnishing reputation of Muslims.
You see, where every stone tells a story, people are ardently loyal to their home
turf. Shared history matters. Strip malls don't. Europe will only be saved if the
American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this
will happen soon enough. There is hope.
You're an incurable optimist. Probably not a bad thing to be, I suppose.
I fear that the triumphant internationalist left, with its firm grip on the
commanding political, social, academic and corporate heights of US sphere societies, is
managing to get its totalitarian institutions in place to suppress the inevitable
growing dissent – "hate speech" laws, institutional and corporate speech- and
thought-crime policies, sackings and blacklists, etc.
I believe we will rue the loss of our religion, Christianity, its tenets first
ridiculed and undermined and then its institutions infiltrated and corrupted, by the
same internationalist, materialist left, in particular.
To see where western European civilization is headed, take a look at Zimbabwe. That is
the destination the Left has in mind for us. Obama was the U. S.'s. Robert Mugabe the
First. There are more to come.
Doesn't sound like it. That whole last paragraph was non sequiturs.
You can't write a couple hundred words detailing why the white man is finished in Europe
–
and he is
– then tell an anecdote and reverse course for the close. That will
to band together to find a missing child in Certaldo is the same impulse to band
together and serve pasta to skinnies just off the boat in Ragusa. Europeans have
succumbed the voluptuous rapture of martyrdom: the end.
@Realist
Even if this were true in the utterly simplistic sense in which you mean it – i.e. that
white civilization is some sort of "glue" holding literally everything together, rather
than having been
the catalyst for the very forces now consuming it
– it might be
enormously helpful for this world for which you so blithely profess to care, if whites
along with their humanitarian and watchdog organizations actually disappear, leaving the
rest of mankind to revert a little to that essential barbarity – of which the altright
are so fond of reminding us! – that might at last allow Malthus to take his course
White culture has dominated much of the world for several centuries, but it is
winding down through self hatred. The white left mostly hate whites, while most of
the white right are contemptuous of everybody else. Half of whites, then, hate the
other half, and contemporary white culture is a degraded mess.
Utterly cryptic:
You see, where every stone tells a story, people are ardently loyal to their home
turf. Shared history matters. Strip malls don't. Europe will only be saved if the
American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this
will happen soon enough. There is hope.
' In a few hours, I'll fly to Europe, my favorite continent '
' Europe will only be
saved if the American empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses,
and this will happen soon enough. There is hope '
Probably good afternoon where you are. I am interested by your mention of Vltchek.
Used to think he was a more optimistic version of Pepe Escobar (whose writing I still
read, although I think he is wildly over-optimist re. BRICS at times, at least the parts
that aren't R and C).
I think his heart is in the right place.
With Vltchek, came to doubt any sincerity, a long rant he posted about how bad it was
to stay at the Imperial Hotel, i think it was on Counterpunch, it disgusted me. I never
stay there, because of having a flat here. Have met staff and managers from there when
eating and drinking in the area. They seem to be pleasant people.
Never stay in similar places on domestic travels (although there is only one Imperial
Hotel), because being not so privileged and entitled as Mr. Vltchek, much closer to and
from the
proletarii
, I can't afford it.
His extended whine about staying there finally convinced me that he is as phony as a
three-dollar bill.
@Randal
I agree that a world government is looking scarily possible but having already rued the
loss of my religion and returned to church I am faced with the following choices:
1. convert to Catholicism or orthodoxy
2. join a bunch of exhaustingly positive young people who like to sing nursery songs in
big crowds
3. join a very nice but small group of octogenarians seemingly oblivious to 21st century
society but with fab choral music
4. join an equally isolated group of younger people with dreary songs and food on their
clothing
So Europe's self-immolation is all America's fault? Funny, I thought Europe had a long
and glorious history of destroying itself. And other countries as well. Thankfully
historian Dinh is here to set us all straight.
@Glasgow
Ned
No, he doesn't. I'm Asian too. You can admire other cultures and wish them to be without
hating yourself.
I like marsupials and don't want them to be destroyed by an incoming
wave of rabbits, for example. Does that make you self-hating? Quite a few
environmentalists and animal conservationists wish to keep certain animals alive in
their habitat, does this make them anti-human?
Another superb "keeper" column.
What Mr. Dinh "gets" , unlike so many others here, is that the various outrages and
inanities of the assorted Them ( Blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, Jews, Trans-sexuals , etc.
) , are not The Problem- they are the symptom of an underlying spiritual collapse in the
Western world particularly among its elites who somehow seem to have lost all faith and
regard for their own identity and heritage.
The Daily Mail newspaper last week contained a video clip of Malia Obama ( the former
President's daughter ) literally rolling convulsively on the floor and banging her head
on it at a rock concert prior to beginning her freshman year at Harvard. Where is the
Problem- with young Ms. Obama or the admissions committee at Harvard ?
Fun facts about "white culture":
- It invented the entire modern world – cars, airplanes, computers, electricity,
antibiotics, telecommunications, industry, advanced agriculture, everything. Curiously,
people who complain about "cultural appropriation" never shy from using all of the many
fruits of "white culture".
- It invented and perfected science. (The Chinese had some inventions. The Europeans had
science. That's why the Europeans invented the modern world and the Chinese didn't.)
- It was the only major culture to destroy slavery. (Check for yourself.)
- For what they are worth, democracy and human rights are "white culture" things.
- And much more.
So yeah, haters of "white culture" should stop and think for a
moment.
That "white culture" has committed its share of crimes and atrocities is a separate
issue.
Mr. Dinh is quite right that many hate "white culture", which they don't understand,
with a passion. And many think that China will be some sort of an angelic new harbinger
of peace, prosperity and love. I much admire what the Chinese have achieved to better
themselves in recent decades; but surely to expect them to be any sorts of angels is
optimistic at the least.
@Randal
I agree. I do think that the major issue is a great spiritual crisis that has led to the
extremes that Dinh is speaking of, the increasing polarization of whites into goodthink
genderless SJWs or unironic Nazis.
So Europe's self-immolation is all America's fault?
Look at the evidence, Western civilization existed for centuries, it had multiple
wars but those wars did not destroy it. Then as soon as Western Europe became a vassal
of the USA there was an incredibly rapid decline, so much so that one can now basically
call Western civilization dead.
They were fighting to fight the white race, one cannot say the same about their
enemies such as Churchill or FDR. Since the establishment is hell bent on eliminating
whites and fascism is their number one enemy, I regard fascism as the correct ideology
to accept.
@Daniel
Chieh
Brilliant analogy there, Danny; but I really haven't met a lot of men who were envious
of something that carried it's children in a pouch
Well, the theory goes is that leftism had its initial plague in France where it did
indeed destroy its patient with fanatical vigor.
The disease moved to the Anglo culture, which was innately more robust and was thus
able to carry it in a less destructive way, allowing it to eventually evolve in America
until it reached an appropriate virulent stage where it has spread across the world.
It is shameful that Russia and China, AGAIN, cooperated 100% with an illiterate, old,
mass murderer zionist stooge to pass the sanction AGAINST NORTH KOREA. Down with
Chinese, Putin and illiterate zionist stooge who have committed CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY.
China and Russia Always have cooperated fully with the mass murderers at the Black House
to receive a bone as concessions. These two colonies two days ago pleased the mass
murderers in Washington by going after another victim, North Korea, but these criminals
NEVER called on their ambassadors when the ziofacists were burning the toddlers in
occupied Palestine with phosphorate BOMBS, but Venezuela did, that's why this beautiful
country is under attack by Clinton – Obama – Trump regime to topple the government.
Shame on you all.
These two petty countries always have cooperated with the mass American murderers in
Muslim countries for the benefit of the ziofacists because all three are in the pocket
of the zionoist bankers.
Putin, Trump and China have enriched themselves by selling others.
When China wants to stand for humanity? When China wants to stand up against EVIL?
China NEVER does because still has mentality of a colonized people.
Chinese economy is the largest in the world NOW. Russia has half the nuclear bombs in
the world. But both China and Russia still play it very
safeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
to receive a BONE as concession by voting along the mass murderes against nations that
are under attack. Shame on you all.
Russia and China SOLD Libya that's why these two countries have equal share in the
destruction of Libya and massacre of Libyan people by not voting against the Obama
regime.
Down with China, Russia and US,and their stooges.
Every one must boycott goods MADE IN CHINA. Don't buy their trash where these
servants are giving advantages to trump regime, by voting for the sanction against North
Korea to starve them to death. China has hundreds of nuclear weapons – like the criminal
Russia and US – but goes against a North Korea that is under attack by the criminal
Trump regime on daily basis. We spit at you all.
Assad must ask criminal putin to get out of Syria, because Russia is selling Syria,
like Libya, and is cooperating with trump regime and the kurdish terrorists trained by
the CIA/Mossad to steal part of Syrian territory and partition Syria according to Oded
Yinon, a criminal plan by the ziofascists in the region.
Down with the enemy of humanity – China – US – Russia.
@neutral
Ridiculous comment. Europe is hardly a "vassal" to the U.S. Most Europeans mock the U.S.
as a has-been country, floating the idea that China's the real world power. If the U.S.
is a "flailing zombie" in the unforgettable words of Linh Dinh, how can we be telling
Merkel what to do? And why wouldn't Hungary and Poland (also in Europe) be experiencing
the same nonsense? No, Western Europe's problems are entirely self-created, the result
of decades of Frankfurt School ideology. (Note: Frankfurt is not in America.)
Those who invent or try to advance this things (and often not so
advanced) were very few among "white people invent this".
And invent "modern world" also mean
- huge exploitation of working (and middle) classes .
- destruction of environment
- increasing the amount of human trash
- colonialism
- two extremely dumb world wars
And still today "religions" and "ideologies" governing in diverse wrong ways the mind of
millions/billion people.
It will be over for Whites before the end of this century. Everything bad for Whites
will escalate & grow. Pro immigration propaganda, anti-White propaganda, anti-White
policies, hatred of Whites in culture & education, immigration, legal and illegal, low
fertility (for Whites), race mixing etc.. The left will gain more & more power until
democracy & voting is futile. They'll become increasingly more radical & authoritarian.
Once White nations are overrun with low IQ coffee colored people the Jews will get their
world government. The minority of Whites left will be killed & imprisoned. Thats the
goal, put Whites worldwide in the same position as current White South Africans then
finish us off. This is where its headed, there is no hope. There will be reactionaries,
especially as Whites increasingly suffer as minorities in their own lands, many will
'wake up', but it will be too late, they will not be able to take on the world gov, they
will not have weapons to defend themselves & they'll be vastly out numbered. The Jews
are ready for the reactionaries, they will laugh..
"We are not ramping down. We're
just getting started. Nothing stops this train, nothing."
―Walter White
The Alt-Right reactionaries today are mostly degenerates, some Jew infiltrators
deflecting White indignation away from Jews. Their only avenue is the internet and that
will not last much longer. The ADL is pushing for internet speech regulation. UN
International Hate Speech Laws & they'll eventually get it.
As far as Trump is concerned, he's basically the White man's last hurrah. Right now he
serves to motivate and inflame the left. After Trump we'll get someone 10X worst than
Obama.
Honestly, only divine intervention can save the White race now.
@RadicalCenter
It is rather lovely, gold and incense, and a healthy link with feasting. But I'm not
keen on kissing objects previously kissed by other people and, I'm a big fan of the
filioque. I'm looking for something choral with shades of Salvation Army and a bit of
Taize!
@Jovetta
That's pretty much how I see it. Somewhere years ago I read that the last blond hair
blue eyes will be around the Baltic in 200yrs. I don't envy the Europeans who live
through the last stages. But I do think that European genes will be a huge part of
society in the future. And Red will never disappear!
I've had the experience of visiting other lands where non-whites are in charge of a
non-white culture. While whitebread America definitely has its share of problems due to
sin, crime, folly, and misrule, it's still •definitely• superior to any of the
alternatives I've witnessed.
China's corruption is worse than our own. Mexico is in an undeclared civil war with
drug lords who strive to outdo ISIS in beheadings. How could you exaggerate what a giant
pile of excrement Africa is? Arab rule is so bad that their refugees are overrunning
Europe, and not a few Arabs actually prefer to live in Israel! The Hindu-based
government in India presides over its empire of poverty and filth and enforces a caste
system so cruel it makes America's slave past look positively virtuous.
Truth is, you cannot find a country where non-whites rule over a non-white culture
where life is better there than here. What refugees from American oppression flee to any
land where non-whites rule over a non-white culture?
Now I just hope Thought Police don't hunt me down for saying this. But as Winston
said, "they'll shoot me i don't care they'll shoot me in the back of the neck i don't
care".
@The
Alarmist
Just like the British Empire fell, so will The United Snakes of America. Yes, it will be
just another country, without warmongers, and neocons' power to destabilize the planet.
It won't collapse. What should scare you is that the progressives and the technocrats
will actually succeed and the technocratic diverse global corporate dystopia will become
a reality
Perhaps the Spanish need to ban immigrants like Dinh and Revusky bearing divisive
poisons? They are already subjected to a large dollop of PC propaganda by the CIA
Not that long ago in Europe, one had to go to a church, a temple or a mosque to
imbibe industrial quantities of religious doctrine.
Since the beginning of the 21st century, however, it has become possible to access it
in a great and self-satisfied profusion on the editorial pages of the continent's
"serious" and nominally progressive dailies, papers like The Guardian, El País, La
Repubblica, Le Monde, and Suddeutsche Zeitung.
The particular brand of theology being pushed?
Neo-Liberal Imperialism, something the faith's leading clerics!people like Timothy
Garton-Ash, Niall Ferguson. Moisés Naim, Mario Vargas Llosa, Hermann Tertsch, Antonio
Cańo, Joseph Joffe, and that erstwhile philosopher-clown, Bernard Henry-Levi!prefer to
describe in terms of "promoting trans-Atlantic partnerships" and creating and
maintaining "Open Societies"
The Germans hate themselves so much that (after they became part of the Judeo-American
Empire) they embarked on a breeding program to turn the de facto national mascot (the
German Shepherd Dog)
into a grotesquely deformed and crippled wreck. People mostly hate and/or distrust or
simply exploit each other (as the historical record shows), but it takes a special kind
of masochism and self-hatred to maim your true best friend.
GSD exhibition in Germany in 1936:
Degeneration and planned torture of the GSD since 1945:
@RadicalCenter
Try the Society of St Pius X (SSPX). You may be pleasantly surprised. SSPX subscribes to
pre-Vatican II "ecumenical council" teachings. There are SSPX churches all over the
country
A month ago, after reading a desperate cry for help from the National Coalition of
Christian Organisations in Palestine (NCCOP) addressed to the World Council of Churches,
I emailed eight churches in my locality asking whether that heart-rending appeal had
trickled down to them at parish level ..
@Bragadocious
FRankfurt School was expelled from Germany in 1933 and went to US . Frankfurt School
ideology was imposed via on Germany by US occupation forces. Western Europe as a whole
has been part of the American Empire since 1945.
Paul Gottfried writes:
You should read my last three books, all of which stress that The Authoritarian
Personality profoundly affected American political thinking. It was essential to the
postwar reconstruction of German "civic culture' and the work was deeply admired by
SM Lipset, the sponsors of Commentary, and scads of Cold War liberals. It was not
necessarily viewed as the post-Marxist leftist source of moral corruption that I
suggest it was in The Strange Death of Marxism. What made The Authoritarian
Personality particularly insidious is that it was widely seen as a blueprint for
non-totalitarian democracy both here and in Europe; and leaders in government and in
universities read the book in that way. The fact that Adorno and Horkheimer (who
later backed away from the implications of the work he had co-edited) were at the
time Soviet sympathizers did not dampen the enthusiasm of the anti-Stalinist
secularist intellectuals who tried to defend the study. Although the Jewish identity
of the Frankfurt School may not have been the only factor leading to their
anti-Christian, anti-fascist pseudo-science, denying its influence on the formation
of Frankfort School ideas is simply silly. Adorno was only half-Jewish and raised as
a Catholic but nonetheless paraded his Jewish genes in explaining how he had arrived
at his critique of bourgeois, Christian society. It is furthermore is silly to
pretend that Jews have not played a DISPROPORTIONATE role in greasing the skids for
our moral and social disintegration. To recognize this is to recognize reality. What
is more dubious is that Jews have caused this ruin, without the enthusiastic support
or at least cowardly acquiescence of the white Christian majority. Although it is
correct to note the significant Jewish contribution to the present decadence, it is
naive to think that Jews are the only culprits in what you and I deplore.
Christopher Lash's True and Only Heaven includes a long section detailing the
mainstream liberal support for The Authoritarian Personality in the 1950s and 1960s.
Lipset, Hook, Daniel Bell, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Hofstadter and the members of
American Jewish Committe, who sponsored Adorno and Commentary magazine, were among
the anti-Communist liberals who admired TAP and who thought that it had relevance for
our country. Although you and I may be to the right of these celebrants, it would be
hard to argue that no anti-Communist had any use for Adorno's ideas.
During the Second World War, three prominent members of the Frankfurt School–Franz
Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer–worked as intelligence analysts for
the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime forerunner of the CIA This book brings
together their most important intelligence reports on Nazi Germany, most of them
published here for the first time.
These reports provide a fresh perspective on Hitler's regime and the Second World
War, and a fascinating window on Frankfurt School critical theory. They develop a
detailed analysis of Nazism as a social and economic system and the role of
anti-Semitism in Nazism, as well as a coherent plan for the reconstruction of postwar
Germany as a democratic political system with a socialist economy. These reports
played a significant role in the development of postwar Allied policy, including
denazification and the preparation of the Nuremberg Trials.
Nationalism is reactionary, he believed. He himself didn't feel German and could
care less for the concept. Most tellingly, this man had never been outside Germany.
He didn't know how grounded to Germany he was.
How did you find such a defective/oddball? Today's Germany is a small place, just a
short train or bus ride will get you to a different country. It's not like it's the 18th
Century and this guy is Immanuel
Kant.
I believe we will rue the loss of our religion, Christianity, its tenets first
ridiculed and undermined and then its institutions infiltrated and corrupted, by the
same internationalist, materialist left, in particular.
I don't know about that can you seriously believe in Christianity's core doctrines
(e.g. Original sin, Christ died for our sins/to reconcile us to God/to free us from the
dominion of the devil, the Trinity etc.) and regard them as relevant to the present, or
compatible with the vast increase in scientific knowledge since the 17th century? I
certainly can't, and it seems doubtful to me even most Christians today could make a
coherent, let alone persuasive case for them.
And even if one were to accept that the Christian churches have been subverted by
materialist left-wingers, I'd say Christianity by its very nature is susceptible to such
a takeover. It's a universalist religion with global aspirations, and there are many
elements in the Gospels that, if taken literally, would be deeply corrosive to order and
morality (e.g. Luke 14,26 where Jesus says "If you're not willing to hate your parents,
brothers, sisters etc., you can't be my disciple" not exactly compatible with "family
values"; also notable that the primitive church as described in Acts basically practiced
communism). There's little imo that's inherently conservative or compatible with
patriotism/nationalism in Christianity, and one way of understanding the present
situation is that the compromises with and accomodation to the world that it entered
during the Middle ages seem to be in the process of unraveling. In a way Christianity,
with its future in the Global South, might be returning to its roots and nationalists in
Europe are the pagans in the Christian narrative now, a satanic obstacle to the
realization of Christianity's full meaning.
@Marshall
Lentini
As I said when Western Civilization goes humanity is screwed.
'Civilizations' that 'developed' at or south of the equator are pretty much dumb ass.
@jimbojones
No, the idea that modern science and technology is a uniquely western creation is highly
contested, and will become more contested in future as rival societies increase in
wealth and power. You're naive if you think otherwise.
@Bragadocious
If you have permanent foreign soldiers in your country then you are a vassal, no amount
of rosy sounding terms (strategic partnership, allies, international community, blah
blah blah) can change that. The Frankfurt ideology could only have spread so rapidly if
there was the means to do it, that was clearly Hollywood and the other mass
entertainment/media outlets that were deployed in Western Europe.
As for the Hungary
and Poland you mentioned, it proves my point, whatever one can say about the USSR, it
was not anywhere near as destructive as the Western European states were under US
control. The USA was the single most destructive thing that has ever happened to Western
civilization.
@anonymous
The world is as it is, I am afraid, and so is politics. Because we live in this
imperfect world and need some politics or the other, the problems only get confounded.
You are right, the behaviour of Russia and China is shameful by the yardsticks of logic
and ethics. But then, you have to remember that Russia and China are (or at least view
themselves as) "Have countries" while the middle eastern basket cases and North Korea
are "Have-not" countries. There is plenty of in-fighting among the haves but, when
dealing with the have-nots, they present a similar face. All the "Haves" are convinced
that it is alright for them to possess enough nuclear weapons to blow up the planet 10
times over but how dare a pesky pipsqueak like North Korea aspire to have even a few? In
the realm of international politics some animals are more equal than others. At feeding
time, Russia and China, too, behave like 'more equal animals' just to keep up with the
most equal of them all. As long as the nuclear club remains a privilege of the few,
expect the members to close ranks to keep out new entrants. Entirely expected. Expect to
see this scenario to play out again over Iran.
"You see, where every stone tells a story, people are ardently loyal to their home turf.
Shared history matters. Strip malls don't. Europe will only be saved if the American
empire, with its corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen
soon enough. There is hope."
Every part of this paragraph is true.
Why must the American Empire die, or at least be greatly diminished, for European
cultures to survive?
Start with the obvious: we are the Anglo-Zionist Empire. We are Part 2 of the British
Empire, the 1st Anglo-Saxon Empire. And the foundational culture is Anglo-Saxon
Puritanism, which right as it crystalized as a culture made its alliance
with
Jews
against
all 'other' whites.
WASP culture is, and always has been, about Anglo-Saxon Elites in bed with Jews in
order to make war of various types on virtually all whites who are not WASP.
@jimbojones
"Fun facts about "white culture":
- It invented the entire modern world – cars, airplanes, computers, electricity,
antibiotics, telecommunications, industry, advanced agriculture, everything. Curiously,
people who complain about "cultural appropriation" never shy from using all of the many
fruits of "white culture"."
You do realize that a number of prominent Alt Right
thinkers, ranging from Mark Citadel to Brett Stevens, are opposed to modernity.
Furthermore, it wasn't "white people" who invented the modern world, but Americans,
the English, the Germans, etc., with contributions by the Chinese and Japanese.
Moreover, there were important discoveries made by the Nile River Valley,
Mesopotamian, and Yellow River civilizations that human beings, namely Europeans,
undoubtedly expanded upon.
"It invented and perfected science. (The Chinese had some inventions. The Europeans
had science. That's why the Europeans invented the modern world and the Chinese
didn't.)"
Again, not without key contributions from several societies.
"It was the only major culture to destroy slavery. (Check for yourself.)"
Actually, it was liberal Americans and Europeans who destroyed slavery, with these
two groups expanding this scourge like the world had never seen.
Begrudgingly.
"For what they are worth, democracy and human rights are "white culture" things."
No, they are human being constructs.
"Mr. Dinh is quite right that many hate "white culture", which they don't understand,
with a passion. And many think that China will be some sort of an angelic new harbinger
of peace, prosperity and love. I much admire what the Chinese have achieved to better
themselves in recent decades; but surely to expect them to be any sorts of angels is
optimistic at the least."
She is patently wrong. White people as a whole do not "hate" themselves, nor are they
"destroying" themselves. Rather, it has been the nature of human beings to love/hate and
create/destroy. The "evilness" of white culture is not represented by Nazi Germany, but
by individuals and groups of people REGARDLESS of race or ethnicity foolishly insist,
using God on their side, that they are superior. Pro-race, of course, is code for
anti-humanity.
Finally, when Dinh says "Europe will only be saved if the American empire, with its
corrosive ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There
is hope", most Americans will find that sentiment to be anti-human and pro-hate. Who
wishes for an entire nation to collapse? Who desires a civil war in which hordes of
people, especially babies and children, will be slaughtered? Do you?
@Grandpa
Charlie
I already watched and this video or this point of view, invariably correct, don't change
mine. Conservs luv "rationalize" their own historical faults. "their own".
@hyperbola
the faith's leading clerics!people like Timothy Garton-Ash, Niall Ferguson. Moisés
Naim, Mario Vargas Llosa, Hermann Tertsch, Antonio Cańo, Joseph Joffe, [...], Bernard
Henry-Levi
@Corvinus
You say "pro-humanity" like it has any meaning. Would womb machines cloning the maximal
number of humans be pro-human enough for you?
When humanity has become reduced to
soulless dregs of flesh devoid of any of the innate beauty and essence that arose from,
yes, among other things, a connection with blood and soil its not a humanity worth
saving.
Let the corruption die and take its soyflesh beings with it.
@German_reader
A rather poor understanding of Christianity. Somehow it reminded me of this, from
Chesterton, a 20th century english convert to Catholicism:
@in the
middle
You underestimate the Narcissistic Personality Disorder of the American Elite; if the
Indispensible Nation is going down, they're taking the world with them.
I only attend the Traditional Latin Mass. It is not at a chapel of
the SSPX, in part because when I began, there was no nearby weekly SSPX Mass. But now
that there is, I may soon be over there every week.
@The
Alarmist
Not bloody likely. Take a look here:
http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/119/2016
. the FY 20156 federal budget: a half
trillion dollar deficit; even eliminating the defense budget there'd be a deficit; the
biggest items, SS, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on the debt are beginning
accelerating growth.
And higher tax rates will only make things worse. Corporate taxes
are screwing American competitiveness. The middle class has no savings. Taking away ALL
the wealth of the wealthiest 5% of private individuals would barely cover the deficit
from one year of federal spending.
The current federal debt is 17.4 Trillion dollars (over 100% of annual GDP) and
growing at an accelerating rate which is currently 3% per annum. THe federal debt will
almost inevitably double in about twenty years.
And politicians still insist we can magically increase spending, start new wars all
over creation, continue paying low IQ women for having bastards and paying those
bastards to go to colleges whose names they can't even spell, and yet hold steady or
reduce taxes.
@Anon
I don't care what Chesterton or some other intellectually mediocre 20th century Catholic
apologist wrote. If you think my understanding of Christian doctrines is defective,
you're free to point out so in detail with reference to the Gospels, the writings of the
church fathers, the decrees of councils or other relevant materials. Poems don't
qualify.
Yesterday, the A.P. reported on Madrid police having arrested the Turk-Swede writer,
Hamza Yalcan. This action was taken as a result of a "Turkish order, alleging
terrorism."
A.P. noted that President Erdogan is pleased with his ability to reach
"critical voices outside Turkey."
Mr. Erdogan did not have such success with our ZUSA police forces when he wanted the
Pocono Mountain (N.E. Pennsylvania) cleric apprehended for instigating a coup against
his government.
(Sigh) ZUSA and Russia can cooperate in outer space but not at sea.
I am fascinated by events in Spain. I recall how NATO lords became upset when the
Spanish government agreed to allow Russian war ships to refuel on their way to the east
Mediterranean basin.
At any rate, I'm pleased to know Linh and Mr. Revusky will tour west Europe & chances
of my becoming more aware are good.
Ridiculous comment. Europe is hardly a "vassal" to the U.S. If the U.S. is a
"flailing zombie" in the unforgettable words of Linh Dinh, how can we be telling
Merkel what to do?
Well, if we have the power to tell Merkel what to do, that would make her a vassal,
wouldn't it?
@Jovetta
Wow. I bet you're loads of fun at parties.
Seriously, though: although the situation
is indeed grave, you're being way too pessimistic -- defeatist, in fact. For openers, all
the nations of Europe are still overwhelmingly white, and even with current demographic
trends, probably will remain so for several generations more. As far as the US is
concerned, we will probably have to ditch one-man-one-vote democracy and embrace the old
Rhodesian model. Once the (((neocon empire))) is gone, and there's no longer need for
'democracy promotion' as a cover for their globalist ambitions, we could easily scrap
the current multi-culti model and establish white government.
@Daniel
Chieh
"You say "pro-humanity" like it has any meaning."
To religious minded folks, like
Christians, pro-humanity is oozing with meaning.
Matthew 6:26–Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into
barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?
"When humanity has become reduced to soulless dregs of flesh devoid of any of the
innate beauty and essence that arose from, yes, among other things, a connection with
blood and soil its not a humanity worth saving. Let the corruption die and take its
soyflesh beings with it."
You assume that today's humanity is wholly corrupt and ugly. No, there are elements
of our humanity that embody those vile traits. In essence, you are playing God here by
injecting what you think are "soulless dregs of flesh" who deserve to die.
@Jake
"Start with the obvious: we are the Anglo-Zionist Empire. We are Part 2 of the British
Empire, the 1st Anglo-Saxon Empire. And the foundational culture is Anglo-Saxon
Puritanism, which right as it crystalized as a culture made its alliance with Jews
against all 'other' whites."
No, some Americans are able to trace their ancestry to
the English. There were other colonists who came from various parts of Europe. There was
no "Anglo-Zionist Empire" or "1st Anglo-Saxon Empire", just the British Empire.
Furthermore, the North, Middle, and Southern colonies had distinct cultural traits, so
our foundational culture was not exclusively "Anglo-Saxon Puritanism". Furthermore, the
English were borne themselves out of a multicultural stew–Picts, Britons, Angles,
Saxons, Romans, Jutes, Danes, and Frisians.
You really need to study American and world history.
@Truth
No, and I'm not sure that I've improved all that much with the passing of a whole lot
more years than I care to think about
The point is, however, that in that long ago America entering Harvard didn't make you a
member of the cognitive elite- it signaled the recognition that you already were such
based primarily on very top of the curve SAT or ACT score ( being a straight A student
from a high school whose student body was composed almost exclusively of illiterates was
justifiably suspect ). It was, in other words, an individual merit selection.
Yes, I know about legacy admissions- Charles Murray covers this well in the Bell Curve.
It is entirely possible ( though not bloody likely ) that young Ms. Obama is both a top
2% scorer and a creator of truly creative dance which an over the hill philistine such
as I am is too limited in taste to savor.
None of this really relevant to the basic fact that thug and Social Justice infestation
at colleges and universities, the balkanization of American society Affirmative Action
set asides and quotas has all been done by American elites overwhelmingly white, male,
gentile and native born.
It still ain't Them.
@hyperbola
Speaking of "heart-rending appeal", on a previous thread you had insisted that "Remember
that ca. 90% of slave trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and
Portuguese jews based in the respective colonies."
I asked kindly for a source. Sadly,
you neglected to provide one. Interesting how when you are confronted you conveniently
disappear. So, what is your source for that statistic?
Remember, of the Dutch West India Company 3,000,000 florins in original capital, Jews
contributed only 36,000, or 1.2 percent. In 1656, seven of 167 major shareholders were
Jews; in 1671, ten of 192.
And also consider that the 937 slaving voyages from Rhode Island launched from
1709-1807, Jews were responsible for only 21.
Furthermore, you insisted that the Brazilian economy was run by Jews. You supplied a
link, yet there was no indication that those two individuals were indeed Jewish. So do
you have another source to submit into evidence?
Konrad Lorenz, the great student of animal behavior, made the observation that animals
that form intimate pair bonds–friendship with the same and mating with the opposite
sex–also rear their young with love and care and passionately defend their territory. So
Love and Hate are opposite sides of the same coin.
Other animals like fishes school in
anonymous aggregations in which there is no intimacy between any two members. A herd of
reindeer, wildebeests, a flock of starlings; there is no personal bond of affection or
interaction on the basis of individual personality at all.
It is the second type of aggregation that our Fearless Leaders propose as the basis
for human societies. No one will be tied to a specific location or a particular neighbor
by bonds of affection. Instead human interactions will be regulated by the impersonal
contract of the "proposition nation". You see what they've done here? Turned a
description
of democracy into a
prescription
for democracy. The have mistaken
an effect for a cause.
The prediction suggests itself. In the future there will be little to no individual
expression of genius, since genius is grounded in passion and passion is for the
particular.
@German_reader
Good points all. That matches a lot of my thinking about Christianity, too.
But this
troubles me: even if today's Christianity is more part of the problem than the solution,
and so we chuck it, what do we replace it with? I personally feel no connection to the
religion beyond the cultural, but I think there will always be loads of people who need
to believe in something. There are plenty of people with advanced degrees and prestige
who never tire of laughing at all those 'dumb Christians' out there in Deplorable-land,
but who themselves will read horoscopes, do meditation or fall head-over-heels for
SJWism. I don't think Odin-worship is going to cut it here.
@Oldeguy
Well isn't that the issue now Old Buddy;
you good folks are constantly complaining about the watered-down standards the dusky
folks have brought to your favorite institutions
While simultaneously complaining
about the job the white people, who came from those institutions before the standards
were "lessened", have done in running this country, and the policies they crafted to
allow the duskies in in the first place.
I mean, Oldguy, were you this sage, brilliant, established, infallible, Socratic,
world-traveler, that you are now, at 19?
True enough, but nobody fell on the floor for head-banging in previous generations.
At least not in the places where I hung out.
It's a race to the bottom now, with stupid show-offs, and reckless nitwits striving
to outdo each other with various silly stunts even risky maneuvers to stream live, and
impress the world with their own special brand of idiotic folly.
In 1960, the most shocking thing was the Twist, a dance craze that swept the nation,
kicking off a wave of dance crazes, mostly of the stand-alone-and-wiggle variety. Who
knew then there would turn out to be so many different ways to wiggle?
Suddenly, the devious purpose of a previous craze became known -- the Hula Hoop got
everybody in shape for the Twist, and the succeeding wiggles like the Frug, Watusi,
Jerk, Fish -- whew! –and of course, almost everyone was thin then anyway, and a good
thing it was to be fit and able –and young! -- to do those kinds of dances.
@Seamus
Padraig
Um, this story was about immigration, not NATO. Obviously, immigration is an internal
German matter. Unless you have some evidence that the U.S.
forced
Merkel to bring
in thousands of refugees. Which I doubt you do. Of course, I can see Germans and
Europeans in general pointing fingers here. It's what they do best.
But this troubles me: even if today's Christianity is more part of the problem
than the solution, and so we chuck it, what do we replace it with?
I'm troubled by that as well and don't have a good answer. A return to paganism
probably isn't possible (and in its cruder forms wouldn't be desirable anyway); some
vague form of Deism probably isn't satisfying to most people. And being without religion
is pretty depressing in a way it amounts to admitting that there probably is no grand
story giving meaning to it all and that all our struggles may be entirely meaningless in
the end.
I suppose though the "problem" might correct itself anyway, with Europe at least being
overrun by the fertile masses from the Global South, who still seem very secure in their
religious beliefs maybe all the doubts that have plagued an increasingly secular West
since the 17th century will be just a forgotten historical footnote, when Nigerian
pentecostalists and Neo-crusaders battle against the forces of the caliphate in Europe's
ruins
@The
Alarmist
The phrase "United States" refers to two different entities. There is the country known
as the United States, which I know and (usually) love. Then there is the American
empire, which I despise. The sooner we ditch the American empire, both us Americans as
well as the rest of the world will be the better for it.
@Truth
Well, uh er no, not really.
The dead horse that I mercilessly continue to beat is all about agency, the capacity to
act in a given environment.
If those whose hands have a death grip on the levers of power are overwhelmingly white,
male, gentile native born U.S. citizens ( which is undeniably the case ) , shouldn't our
angst be directed at them as opposed to whatever sub-group way down on the power food
chain happens to be blissfully misbehaving due to the nonfeasance of the above societal
leaders ?
@Bragadocious
Vassals often are allowed to determine their own internal policies; it's control of
their
foreign
policy that makes them true vassals. In other words, your
counter-argument here is irrelevant.
@German_reader
Sadly, if we can't figure a reasonable answer to that question, then your dark prophecy
here stands a good chance of turning out to be true!
@Bragadocious
The US regime supports mass immigration, since Merkel was doing something that adhered
to US norms they would not need to get involved. Now if Merkel said all US troops must
leave, the reaction from the US would be predictable. Or how about she decided to
boycott Israel, yes I know this is not likely, but if she did, then it would be very
clear how the US would respond to their vassal.
@Daniel
Chieh
"A casual perusal of pop culture reveals this to be near universal. No point discussing
it with a liberal, however."
More assumptions made on your part. First, just because
there are elements of pop culture you personally distasteful does not mean that our
society is other than humane. Second, I'm not a liberal. I'm a white married American
man with children who makes his own decisions regarding race, politics, and society.
@Oldeguy
"If those whose hands have a death grip on the levers of power are overwhelmingly white,
male, gentile native born U.S. citizens ( which is undeniably the case ) , shouldn't our
angst be directed at them as opposed to whatever sub-group way down on the power food
chain happens to be blissfully misbehaving due to the nonfeasance of the above societal
leaders ?"
No, considering that these overwhelmingly white, male, gentile native born
U.S. citizens are merely exercising their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. How
do propose denying them these fundamental freedoms?
If those whose hands have a death grip on the levers of power are overwhelmingly
white, male, gentile native born U.S. citizens ( which is undeniably the case ) ,
shouldn't our angst be directed at them as opposed to whatever sub-group way down on
the power food chain happens to be blissfully misbehaving due to the nonfeasance of
the above societal leaders ?
Oh absolutely, and how do you express such angst?
By voting for HIM (Drumpf)?
By reading HIS articles (the writers here are elite university/white guy types)?
By joining HIS fraternal organizations, and civic orders?
You see, this whole left/right paradigm thing is a carefuly crafted mirage, the same
folks who created the problem are the ones you are personally counting upon to fix it,
so is, in large part, racial and sexual animosity. If you looks sideways, you forget to
look upwards.
Basically, there are no heroes, only different degrees of saps and cowards in this
fight, and a teenager wirthing on the floor is just a symptom of the disease.
True enough, but nobody fell on the floor for head-banging in previous
generations. At least not in the places where I hung out.
So what they did; showing up for a military draft in wars intended to make Exxon and
The Bush Family rich, was better? Is being a simple-minded automaton, in your
estimation, superior to being a "stupid showoff" or a "reckless nitwit"?
The reason we have so many simpletons now, is because we had too many simpletons in
generations past. This is, at least, my opinion.
@Truth
Well, as an example, obviously what we know now about the evolution of humanity is hard
to reconcile with an understanding of the fall of man as an
event
that actually
happened (and this view of the fall as a real event that actually took place, not just a
metaphor for our depraved nature etc., was the view of at least the churches in the
Latin West – I don't know enough about the Eastern churches to make a judgement about
their position – for the vast majority of the last 2000 years, and in some form I'd
suppose still is the stance of the Catholic church at least; and indeed it's hard for me
to see how there could have been a need for reconciliation to God through Christ's
death, if there hadn't been an actual specific offense committed against God by
mankind).
when Nigerian pentecostalists and Neo-crusaders battle against the forces of the
caliphate in Europe's ruins
That is HBO-level Emmy Award winning stuff right there. Wait until GOT is over then
capitalize on those that need another series to latch onto. King in the North! King in
the North!
@helena
Have you heard of A Course in Miracles? If not,
look it up. It has millions of enthusiastic followers in the U.S.
and Europe. Many claim ACIM is the future of Christianity
@Daniel
Chieh
"With ideas that just happen to coincide with all liberal positions. Hilarious."
Fake
News Story. See, the problem with ideologues like yourself (and you are no different
than lefties in this regard) is that anyone who says they are a moderate, you
automatically label them as liberal OR that anyone who takes your positions to task, you
automatically label them–wait for it–a liberal.
I favor limiting immigration.
I am a 2nd Amendment advocate.
I support the death penalty.
Eminent domain in most cases is wrong.
Do you comprehend that these positions are NOT liberal, or are you going to be your
typical obtuse self?
@Corvinus
So which are you: NeoCon, or Liberal, Jew, or perhaps just average middle class WASP?
If you are not playing water muddier, then you need to learn that nations always have a
cultural Elite that sets standards. Various other groups either assimilate to the
standards and biases of that elite, or else they are persecuted until they poise no
threat.
In America, for example, the Civil War meant that the American Elite would be WASP,
which was the amalgam of New England Anglo-Saxon with PA Quaker. That is the source of
American WASP, as Philadelphia native and scholar Digby Baltzell designated.
Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy, which lead naturally and inevitably to
Cromwell leading the Puritan Commonwealth to take Jewish loans and in return allow Jews
back into England, with more rights than the vast majority of British Isles natives had.
That was the start of Anglo-Zionism, which became the largest Empire in world history.
@Abelard
Lindsey
When we went from writing and saying 'these United States' to writing and saying 'the
United States,' we marked a new nation, one that was ready to explode into Empire.
A casual perusal of pop culture reveals this to be near universal.
Maybe you need to visit the streaming music site of your choice and download a Bach
concerto. Or some Benny Goodman, or some John Coltrane. Yeah, uplifting music can come
from anyone of any color.
Maybe you need to go to your local library and check out the exploits of Robinson
Crusoe, Cyrano, or Harry Potter, so you can regale in tales of heroism instead of
self-pity. Maybe Amy Tan will do the trick for you, I'm open-minded.
Maybe you need to rent blu-ray copies of
Casablanca
,
The Seven Samurai
,
or
Cry Freedom
, so you can see life-affirmations.
And maybe you can see that not everything is as ugly as you claim it to be.
As for me, the only thing I need to maybe do is leave you to decide which path to
take.
@Anon 2
I had a quick look. Thanks for the info. Not sure I'm looking for inner peace so much as
cultural sanity. I don't have a problem with racial mixing but I do have a problem with
subordinating the (global-minority) guilt-based European culture to the
(global-majority) Afro-Asian shame-based culture.
@anonymous
I think you have lost your mind. It happens when there is so much naked evil with people
not willing to confront it
But you must understand Putin is now the ONLY one who is
actually standing up to this menace for the sake of his own country but as a result has
rekindled hope in the other "lesser" nations of the world.
And China has always been militarily timid and only willing to use force at the
barest minimum
Nonetheless due to the crazed zombie behavior being displayed by DC (in cahoots with
Tel Aviv), it is painfully obvious to these two nations that they will have to confront
the hegemon some or the other time.
So they are waiting for it to become weaker not to mention someone sane takes charge
(just a glimmer of hope but hope nonetheless)
@Seamus
Padraig
Ah do you think the 'neo-con' empire will be gone with a whisper?? They will try to take
down the whole world with them. See how easily they sell "national security' to murder
and kill innocents in far away lands and have young kids die for them. As more and more
reactionary terrorism happens and add to it their own false flags, it only helps them
with even more control and power
The article forgets an important "detail": the leading role of a foreign element – a
very specific group, in the guilt and self hate anti White propaganda in the
intellectual sphere, the media and cinematography.
The elite of that group dominates
the Western culture for a long time now, and is actively working against White interests
by relentlessly brainwashing and conditioning the simple minds, which are always in the
majority.
On the other hand, those who try to resist, are demonized.
@Jake
"So which are you: NeoCon, or Liberal, Jew, or perhaps just average middle class WASP?"
I'm your typical American mutt.
"If you are not playing water muddier, then you need to learn that nations always
have a cultural Elite that sets standards."
The citizens of a nation establish norms, whether it be political, social, or
cultural. These people may or may come from elite backgrounds. Current trends found on
social media, for example, have been established by "normies".
"Various other groups either assimilate to the standards and biases of that elite, or
else they are persecuted until they poise no threat."
You are being overly broad here. Americans generally assimilate to our dominant
culture; it depends upon specifically what they are "persecuted" for. Remember, freedom
to choose does not mean freedom from consequence.
"In America, for example, the Civil War meant that the American Elite would be WASP,
which was the amalgam of New England Anglo-Saxon with PA Quaker. That is the source of
American WASP, as Philadelphia native and scholar Digby Baltzell designated."
The outcome of the Civil War actually resulted in a large immigration boom, with
people entering our shores who would be other than WASP, with a number of them
eventually gaining "elite" status due to their money making ventures.
"Anglo-Saxon Puritanism was a Judaizing heresy "
Evidence to support your assertion?
"which lead naturally and inevitably to Cromwell leading the Puritan Commonwealth to
take Jewish loans and in return allow Jews back into England, with more rights than the
vast majority of British Isles natives had."
Evidence to support your assertion?
Because it would appear that the Jews who returned to England had conditions placed
upon them, and thus did not gain "more rights".
@Captain
Nemo
"The article forgets an important "detail": the leading role of a foreign element – a
very specific group, in the guilt and self hate anti White propaganda in the
intellectual sphere, the media and cinematography."
You mean Jews, right?
"The elite of that group dominates the Western culture for a long time now, and is
actively working against White interests by relentlessly brainwashing and conditioning
the simple minds, which are always in the majority."
Who are these "simple minds"? Are you not part of this group? In what specific ways?
Did it ever occur to you that perhaps white Americans for the past 60 years have made
their own decisions based on their knowledge and personal preferences about politics,
race, and culture without being subject to "Jewish propaganda"?
"On the other hand, those who try to resist, are demonized."
So "good whites" are those who resist Jewish temptations, and "bad whites" are those
who befriend Jews and serve in their interests, right?
So "good whites" are those who demand that their fellow whites are Christian, refrain
from race mixing, and remove Muslim citizens from our nation by force, and "bad whites"
are those who seek to practice their own faith, marry and procreate outside of their
race, and oppose repatriation, correct?
@Corvinus
"Who wishes for an entire nation to collapse? Who desires a civil war in which hordes of
people, especially babies and children, will be slaughtered? Do you?"
I do. And I mean
that. Better than billions of neurotic apes cooped up in little boxes, ranting, jerking
off, and waiting to die. Let's revive the tragic. Let's roll the dice. Let's let the
weak finally perish, and may the best chimp win.
On the other hand, I admire your critical stance. So much simplistic, self-serving
dogma and infantile wishful thinking on the right. But you won't convince anyone. You
must know that. Your comments are good, but your reliance on humanism gives them a note
of bathos which ruins the whole.
I'm not saying a world without white people will be pleasant. I'm saying maybe the
reemergence of barbarism – and grand tragedy – is better than all of this.
It's hard for you alt-right guys to grasp because for the most part you've never been
anywhere or done anything but comment online and fetishize white civilization. In the
end, you're as reliant on modernity as the bluehairs and trannies.
Both sides would like to pick & choose the parts of modernity they like and totally
abolish what they don't. In other words, an infantile worldview.
Nonetheless, south of the equator, they do manage a semblance of muh white
civilization. It isn't America in the 50′s but it works. And that's all life as such
boils down to. There was never some cosmic guarantee that history is perfectable or that
"we" (not
me
or my people of course, always some other people) would be on top
forever, and it doesn't mean the world just stops spinning when we're not. Sorry, but
that's rank narcissism.
I did some editing. (Much of this might be redundant as I didn't read the entire comment
section)
contemporary ((white)) culture is a degraded mess.
((Many)) are cheering. It's about time! ((Susan Sontag)) in 1967, "The white race
is the cancer of human history; it is the white race and it alone!its ideologies and
inventions!which eradicates autonomous civilizations wherever it spreads, which has
upset the ecological balance of the planet, which now threatens the very existence of
life itself."
In the popular mind, the evilness of white culture is epitomized by Nazi Germany,
with Germans forever ((stigmatized)) as the worst of whites. Contemporary Germany,
however, is one that supposedly allowed 500+ German women to be sexually assaulted by
Muslims in Cologne during New Year's Eve of 2016. Germany is really that neutered,
goes the narrative.
Europe will only be saved if the ((American empire)), with its corrosive
ideologies and madnesses, collapses, and this will happen soon enough. There is hope.
Interesting article
this is a conversation that's worth having, as we all have a ringside seat to the
death of the Western world, with all that will mean.
For ((some)), it's an imperative. For others, it's the genocide of their fellow
people and all hope for the future of their offspring and the preservation of our
culture. For yet others, they're simply content to feast on the carcass.
I have to say I'm also intrigued by Mr. Dihn's observations with JR vis-a-vis the
glaring realities as this tragicomedy plays out.
I recently asked one of the commenters here what he considered the definition of
'white nationalist' to be – when he spoke of some of the commenters on Unz being "white
nationalists".
Ok, what is that? Are the Germans who're apprehensive about massive Muslim and
African immigration into their countries, 'white nationalists'? Are the Swedes? Do they
qualify?
What I suspect, is that term is sort of reserved for
American
white men, for
whom much of the world seems to have a seething hatred and resentment for. Blaming them
not just for slavery and the treatment of the Amerindians, but also for all the wars and
atrocities that the ZUS fecal government is relentlessly guilty of, (and for whom the
white, American male is expected to kill and die in)
I suspect.. (and this is necessarily going to include some hyperbolic exaggeration),
but I suspect that what is being ((subtly done)), is that all the very real crimes and
enormities that are being visited upon the planet's people by the ((ZUS government and
Goldman Sachs types of corporate thieving,)), are subtly being turned into the singular
crimes of white, American men. Who are congenitally racist, unapologetic for slavery,
militant, flag-waving, USA! chanting, Mexican wall-building, woman hating, beer
drinking, pickup truck diving, causing all the global warming that will kill us all,
Trump voting, gun owning, Bambi shooting, homophobic, darky loathing; caricature that is
a constant meme coming out of ((Hollywood and Madison Ave, etc..)) seemingly daily,
hourly, and by the minute.
And, there's probably some truth to that. But I'd say very little. Rather I suspect
that most white American men are not too different than most Canadian or Australian men,
but because the Fiend has made its nest in NYC and DC, we American men have the pleasure
of hosting it, and therefor get to enjoy the brunt of its blowback on the world's stage.
And get to have our characters relentlessly maligned by ((Hollywood)) and ((ad
agencies)) as the cause of all the world's problems.
The wars are not being waged for Israel and Lockheed by Obama/Hillary, no they're
being waged by congenitally racist "white nationalist" American men hell bent on bombing
the darkies- or so it goes.
So when you ask someone what they mean by 'white nationalist', if they don't answer
you, I suspect that it's because the answer would be somewhat emotional-based.
'they're white American men who are bombing everyone because they're racists and
building walls on Mexico because they hate all brown people!!!!'
not
that 'white nationalists' are just like every other person on the planet,
who " are ardently loyal to their home turf. Shared history matters."
Just like everyone else.
But unlike everyone else, white (particularly
American) men are not entitled to want to see their offspring persevere, because we
alone are responsible for all the suffering in the world and all the wars and strife and
misery that our ((government)) perpetrates all over the planet.
Just like the hatred of the Germans as congenital Nazis, it serves a purpose to
deflect the crimes of ((some)), onto a convenient scapegoat. And therefor whitewash
their ((own)) bloody hands.
. In one area of what used to be Dutch Guyana, 40 Jewish-owned plantations were home
to a total population of at least 5,000 slaves, he says. Known as the Jodensavanne, or
Jewish Savannah, the area had a Jewish community of several hundred before its
destruction in a slave uprising in 1832. Nearly all of them immigrated to Holland,
bringing their accumulated wealth with them.
Some of that wealth was on display last year in the cellar of Amsterdam's Portuguese
Synagogue, part of an exhibition celebrating the riches of the synagogue's immigrant
founders. Van de Kamp says the exhibition sparked his interest in the Dutch Jewish role
in slavery, which was robust.
On the Caribbean island of Curacao, Dutch Jews may have accounted for the resale of
at least 15,000 slaves landed by Dutch transatlantic traders, according to Seymour
Drescher, a historian at the University of Pittsburgh. At one point, Jews controlled
about 17 percent of the Caribbean trade in Dutch colonies, Drescher said.
Jews were so influential in those colonies that slave auctions scheduled to take
place on Jewish holidays often were postponed, according to Marc Lee Raphael, a
professor of Judaic studies at the College of William & Mary ..
@Truth
Notwithstanding that I've never coded a day in my life, I was let go from an office job
literally minutes before writing that. Guess ya gotta revise your ad hom, kiddo.
The continued existence of Europe has nothing to do with whether America's empire
collapses and everything to do with Europe's own globalist traitors in political office.
Keep letting in Muslims and nothing will save it.
@helena
Hello Helena
I agree re: the guilt based European culture which seems to have gotten a foothold in
some parts of England as well. I wonder what religion can offer in a rearguard action,
when it seems to have been the avant-guard, seeking it out! At least to an extent.
Perhaps I conclude too much, but in my recent visits to the U.K., greater London
aside, Surrey, Kent and Essex seemed so nice. Quite English, culturally, I'd say.
I actually used "coding farm" as a synonym for "boring job
with no future" so I wasn't completely wrong, but in any event, now you are freed up to
persue your Passion, and Gift, RALLYING YOUR PEOPLES TO A BETTER TOMORROW!
@hyperbola
Arguably, those who were the most responsible for the slave trade were the Sephardic
Jews of Spain and Portugal. They knew where the slave markets of West Africa were,
having learned about them from the Moorish rulers of the Iberian peninsula -- that's
where the Moors and the Arabs got their slaves from. Ostensibly, these Jews were forced
to convert to Christianity after 1492 in order to be allowed to remain in Spain.
However, many of them became 'crypto-Jews' who continued to practice their religion in
secret, while only marrying other crypto-Jews in order to preserve their bloodlines.
Anyone who calls this an "American" empire is a blind fool. It is an empire of the point
one percent, an international collection of sociopaths, or sociopath-esque investors who
have been using US blood and treasure to enrich themselves. The Americans who comprise a
large share of that collection are no more American than the gd Saudis who are part of
it.
To paraphrase a famous tourist item: We enforced a global empire for the rich at the
cost of millions of lives, and all we got for it was an increasingly worthless
petrodollar, trade deficits, and all the gd debt.
So you know, as an American working person to the global riff raff: Up yours, losers.
The retraction of American power projection will make us richer and see you all robbing
and murdering each other like you always have.
@neutral
You might want to stop and think about how the United States became the political and
economic center of Western civilization before you claim it's all America's fault.
Here's a couple of clues. The United States didn't start the First and Second World Wars
and did everything they could to stay out of them, and the problems of the Mideast stem
in large part from British and French meddling in the regioin after both the World Wars.
After white hegemony comes Chinese leadership, many whites themselves are hoping.
So after peak White Man comes peak Yellow Man? The Jews are going to be none too
pleased about this, they consider the peak to be their rightful place on this planet.
@Alden
I read the OCC. I read Betty's ideas and noticed that no one on this website brings up
this point. I've read commentators on unz who are RCC and believe that the RCC is the
answer. Betty's comments are excellent and when I post them on unz, the RCCers are the
ones who can't refute my comments. Betty is correct in identifying the RCC as the worst
problem because of its "universality." Most comments are the same blather without
getting to the heart of the issue. I like Betty's comments because she always gets to
the point on what is really important: IQ and universalism. I modify them, so I hope she
doesn't mind. But I bet she won't mind, because the most important thing is to get these
ideas out to more and more people. She is absolutely correct in writing that the RCC is
a non-starter because of blacks/Asians.
RCC commentators can't deal with this stuff.
So they blame the "Jews." OCC blames the Jews too. But Betty is correct in that Jews are
minor issue in the struggle to save the West. It is the RCC and Zioevangizers who are
the problem. Did you read about that insane Zioevanger preacher Jeffress who said God
had given Trump permission to take out Kim in North Korea? Madness!!! Betty always
points to the Zioevangizers as evil degenerates.
The United States didn't start the First and Second World Wars and did everything
they could to stay out of them
FDR was the one mainly responsible for the outbreak of general European war in 1939.
He bullied Chamberlain into making the March 1939 blank check guarantees to Poland
(which the Brits knew they couldn't live up to) and encouraged the Poles to reject
negotiations with Germany. It's not like Hitler invented the Danzig and Corridor
questions-even the mildest Weimar Soc Dems complained about them. Neither did Hitler
create a fantasy of persecution of ethnic Germans by the Poles. Polish persecution of
its various ethnic minorities during the interwar period is well established. On Aug 17,
1939 there were 76,000 ethnic German refugees on the Polish-German border and another
18,000 in Danzig.
Sources on FDR's responsibility for the war:
Herbert Hoover:
Everything is fully documented and the sources are impeccable. The truth is readily
available, it's just that most people just swallow the govt, mass media and academic
industry propaganda.
@hyperbola
"Lots of research available that contradicts your statements. Here is one start about
the Dutch jews."
Of course Jews were involved in the slave trade. I never made a claim
to the contrary.
Let us provide context. In the 17th and 18th centuries, the Netherlands allowed Jews
a much larger degree of freedom to participate in economic and cultural life, so it is
other than surprising that Dutch mercantile participation in the slave trade also had
some Jewish members. To complicate matters, early Jewish communities in the New World
were generally Portuguese and Spanish marranos who endured religious persecution.
Now recall YOU made a specific contention–"Remember that ca. 90% of slave trading to
the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in the
respective colonies."
The link you just provided does NOT offer that particular statistic. Rather, it
discusses one Jewish settlement that contained slaves.
More importantly, the statistic given by a historian in that source is that Dutch
Jews reportedly controlled 17% of the Carribean trade. It was not noted that it was the
slave trade or non-slave trade. Regardless, there is no reference to the 90% statistic
YOU allege.
It would appear that you submitting Fake News.
Willie F. Page, professor of African American Studies at Brooklyn College, noted that
in Dutch Brazil, the Jews operated less than 6% of the plantations.
Seymour Drescher remarked in Immigrants And Minorities (July 1993) that Jews'
investment share in the Dutch West India Company "amounted to only 0.5 percent of the
company's capital". Dutch historians Pieter Emmer and Johanes Postma have argued that
"Jews had a very limited and subordinate roles even at the height of the Dutch slave
trade in the 17th century."
Are you prepared to retract your statement in light of the evidence here? Or do you
have a source that definitively proves your claim–"Remember that ca. 90% of slave
trading to the New World was carried out by British, Dutch and Portuguese jews based in
the respective colonies"?
White Manhood simply cannot co-exist with Black Manhood.
It wilts and withers at the Negro's feet.
In the end, it's about organicism, not ideology.
After all, Cuba is communist, but white men there are facing same problems vis-a-vis
the more muscular Negroes. Different ideology but same organic results.
Life exists because of sex. And whom white women have sex with will decide white
future. Jungle Fever is the most destructive force against whites.
I see it all over the place, even in National Parks.
Contrary to the view that the South is a land of segregationist rednecks, the fact is
lots of rednecks are actually interracist and have sisters or daughters with mulatto
kids. Rednecks are now Redcucks.
Afro and Freud = Afreudianism. It will destroy the white race. Sexual liberation
means women seek wildest sex with wildest men. And that means white women will run to
Negroes. White men are doomed unless they wake up and demand safe space for their
manhood to thrive again apart from the Negro.
A tree cannot grow under shades of bigger trees. It has to planted where there's
plenty of sunshine. Negro shadow will destroy white manhood, and that mans white women's
wombs will be shut off to white males.
Same fate in EU and US.
Since childhood, I've seen racial dynamics play out. Whites were scared of blacks.
Still, things were not so bad back then because whites had their own music/culture and
blacks had their own. But rise of hip hop changed all that. White girls began to dance
to black music by black thugs. End of history.
There is living culture and dead culture. Most of European Culture is dead. It is in
museums or for tourists. It no longer inspires. It's just legacy.
The living culture of the West is mostly worship of Negro and cuckery.
@Sam
Shama
Hi Sammy – my comment about guilt and shame was a reference to Frost's work. I miss him.
The hinterland is still English but the liberals have it in their sights; they are
determined to mix it up because as we all know, people who oppose immigration live in
areas where there are few migrants.
@Corvinus
A pretty devastating takedown of "hyperbola". Prediction: hyperbola will now retire its
Unz commenting handle and reappear under a fresh one, recycling the same unsupported
claims.
Susan Sontag in 1967, "The white race is the cancer of human history; it is the white
race and it alone!
Sontag ?? From the dung beetle bloodline tribe --
I don't think so, no. I looked at where this supposedly happened and it just doesn't
look possible. Cologne main railway station, serves 280,000 passengers on an average
day. (As compared to Grand Central in NYC, which serves 750,000 a day, so it's over 1/3
that level.) Granted, the 280,000 people aren't all there at the same time, but it's a
crowded place.
You are apparently willing to believe that hundreds of women were sexually assaulted
there with no visual record of any sort. ZERO. Finally, you remind me of a little boy
who clings to his belief in Santa Claus, that Santa is going to come down the chimney
and bring gifts.
Except the little boy lives in an apartment building and there is no chimney!
It is the ultimate Wunderwaffe against any accusations tarnishing reputation of
Muslims.
Well, anybody with a functioning brain should realize that, what I dubbed Revusky's
Razor has nothing to do with defending Muslims
specifically
. As a practical
question, in the current day, a huge amount of the false accusations are being made
against Muslims, but in principle, it has nothing to do with defending Muslims, as
opposed to anybody else.
In any case, what vicious little punks like you seemingly never understand is a
concept that, in Eastern religions, is called "karma". We also have the more long-winded
formulation "What goes around comes around." "Reciprocity" is another word. In this
case, this amounts to understanding that if you advocate vicious tactics against others,
those same tactics can (and probably will) eventually be used against you.
So, if you think it's a wonderful thing for the State to be able to round up Muslims,
put them in some black hole like Guantanamo and torture them endlessly, with zero due
process, it does not occur you that if the State can do that to some Ay-rab, they can do
it to YOU too! Legally speaking, what's the difference?
The same little bitch who, for a few bucks, will claim that she was raped by the
dirty Ay-rabs, for an extra few bucks, will claim that you raped her or that I raped
her. What's the difference to her? I mean, for example, this false accuser:
An intelligent military man is going to be opposed to torturing people they take
prisoner because he realizes that he also could be taken prisoner and then would
inevitably be tortured.
Of course, you lack that intelligence, so your notion is that if I am standing up for
people who are falsely accused, who, in this case, are Muslims, that it must just mean
that I just have some agenda to defend Muslims, because I, for some reasons have some
special love of Muslims.
Well, anyway, the combination moral degeneracy, mendacity, and willful stupidity that
you engage in is truly nauseating. You (and a few other people around here) really do
make me want to puke.
The United States didn't start the First and Second World Wars and did everything
they could to stay out of them
Not
entirely
true. FDR was hard at work in the late 30s deliberately trying to
provoke the Japs into a war. The US had had designs on the far east going back as least
as far as the Spanish American War, when they took over the Philippenes from Spain, and
the Boxer Rebellion in China. And modern Washington still does harbor designs on E. Asia -- hence the constant Kabuki theater with N. Korea.
As far as Europe is concerned, you're mostly correct, though both Woody Wilson, and
later FDR, did game the situation as best they could to try and establish a beachhead on
that continent as well.
And in the ME, Franco-British meddling has not been a significant factor there since
the Suez Crisis in the 50s. The vast majority of the ME-meddling since then has come
from Washington. This goes back at least as far as the 'Carter Doctrine' of the late
70s, if not to the coup in Tehran in 1953.
That first "r" in "razor" is also to be capitalized, isn't it?
I suppose that's true, since, uncapitalized, it would refer, properly speaking, to
the Gillette shaver in my washroom. However, it is hard to imagine there would be many
cases where this would lead to ambiguity in an sentence, so I don't think it's that
important.
Revusky's Razor: If an event of sufficiently large scale is alleged to have taken
place in a wide open public space full of people, yet there is no corresponding video or
photographic evidence, then it must be fake news.
This refers to incidents that have happened in the last few years, when, to all
intents and purposes, everybody has a video camera in his or her pocket.
Even though I live not far from where it happened, I hadn't been aware of the
incidents with Senegalese migrants that Linh refers to in this article. So I looked for
some visuals. Unlike Cologne, I came up with things very quickly. Specifically:
This is from 2015, some months before the alleged Cologne event. Somehow there's
plenty of video of the incident in Salou with the Senegalese but none (and I mean really
NONE) of the hundreds of women being sexually assaulted in and around Cologne railway
station on New Year's Eve. Why is that? My explanation would be that the Salou incident
actually happened while the Cologne one did not.
Not only is this the simplest explanation, it is, as far as I can tell, the ONLY
explanation. The above is Revusky's Razor (capital R) in action.
@attilathehen
The RCC is too cucked to be of any use to us anymore. But having grown up in the Bible
Belt, I have to confess that I have been thoroughly unimpressed with Protestantism, too.
It seems that all of the many, many Protestant denominations in the US basically fall
into one of the following categories:
1. Liberal SJW churches, which are no less
cucked than the RCC.
2. ZioRapture Christians (like Hagee) who worship at the alter of the 'Chosen People',
and think the world's about end (so why bother to save our civilization?)
3. Get-rich-while-you-pray Prosperity Gospel types who basically worship Capitalism and
call it God
4. Obscurantists like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have a powerful allergy to science
and logic.
Frankly, I don't see our salvation
as a civilization
coming from any of these.
As far as universalism is concerned, that's definitely not unique to the RCC.
Historically and presently, most Protestant denominations sought and made converts in
the Third World, too. After all, it does say in the New Testament, "He knoweth neither
Greek nor Jew." The only major exception to this that I can think of would be the
Orthodox churches. They accept converts from other nations, but generally don't
seek
them. Of course, this is probably just a consequence of not having had overseas
colonies.
So they blame the "Jews." OCC blames the Jews too. But Betty is correct in that
Jews are minor issue in the struggle to save the West.
Hmmm. So you're cool with the (((banksters))), (((media moguls))), (((zionists))),
and (((Cultural Marxists)))? Well then, keep on reading the OCC -- you'll wake up
eventually.
@Priss
Factor
Priss, where do you live? Detroit? I honest to God don't see all that many black/white
MRCs either in Europe or America. I don't deny that the Cultural Marxists are trying to
push this, but the only white chicks I see with black guys are massively overweight --
not the sort of chick a normal white man would be seen dead with.
Anyway, my main point was related to the White "self
hatred" underlined in the article.
I suggested that this hatred is not so "self" originated as implied, but has
significant outside causes in a specific foreign element promoting White guilt and "self
hatred" through its massive influence.
@Priss
Factor
"White Manhood simply cannot co-exist with Black Manhood.
It wilts and withers at the
Negro's feet.
etc "
I would say that this is not such a neutral, self developing phenomenon as you
suggest, but that there are significant political forces, dominating the modern Western
cultural space, actively and very intentionally destroying the image of a civilized but
patriarchal White masculinity, and promoting the general cultural frame of primitivism,
inside which, primitive Black masculinity consequently appears dominant.
Black masculine dominance over women (I hesitate to say "patriarchal", because it
implies an "archy", a social order nonexisting in that culturally promoted primitivistic
paradigm) is not questioned though in that anti White patriarcy propaganda.
At the same time, the affirmation of the patriarchal White masculinity is culturally
demonized.
A very specific foreign element plays the main role in this.
I will just supply a collage illustrating that influence through time, at the level
of small children:
@helena
There's a recording preserved at Harvard, of Frost reading
Acquainted With the Night
,
which I listened to only once, yet it still lingers, mostly when I catch that intonation
of speech in New Hampshire or at the Cape. I understand why you miss him. Have you had
occasion to visit his cottage at Beaconsfield?
@Jonathan
Revusky
Jonathan! Leave Priss alone!!
S/he may have a strident style but there is much
bioanthropological
intelligence
behind the long rambling comments.
@Sam
Shama
Robert? No, Peter, the bioanthropologist who had a column here for a while and got into
the same contretemps with Ron as Jonathan did regarding wanting to create a commentariat
that he could professionally engage with individually like in a schoolroom.
When I was
just as far as I could walk
From here today
There was an hour
All still
When leaning with my head against a flower
I heard you talk.
Don't say I didn't for I heard you say
You spoke from that flower on the window sill-
Do you remember what it was you said '
'First tell me what it was you thought you heard.'
'Having found the flower and driven a bee away
I leaned my head
And holding by the stalk
I listened and I thought I caught the word
What was it
Did you call me by my name
Or did you say
Someone
said "Come"
I heard it as I bowed.'
@Seamus
Padraig
Moldbug's Cathedral hypothesis laid the blame, I think, on the Unitarian churches. Did
you read that? The idea being that once the Trinitarian idea evaporated, it became
possible to dissolve all boundaries between people. Christianity became a force for
goodness stripped of (identifying) ritual and decoration. Quakers. Lego.
Humanitarianism.
I suspect that is just Prisses' way of saying what Thomas Jefferson said
not so long ago
"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are
to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in
the same government. Nature, habit, opinion have drawn indelible lines of distinction
between them."
~ T. Jefferson
my problem isn't so much with the blacks (or Negros or whatever we're supposed to
call them) as with the white liberals.
I'd like to start a program called the' Amy Biehl Foundation', that will fund the
emigration of white liberals to go live in Johannesburg or Harare, where they can go
make their penance where it will do some real good.
I would spend good money to send guys like this over there, and pronto!
@helena
One winter I lived down the road from the Robert Frost Interpretive Trail in Vermont.
Always a good walk, especially useful in banishing a hangover.
I think he sucks and it
isn't real poetry, but the signs on the trail were really pleasant, and put it in
context.
@hyperbola
It's understandable that in America only Black slavery is talked about and historians
who brought up the prominent role of Jews in slavery trade limit themselves to the
period from 15 century and down when America was discovered and the largest demand for
African slaves was created. Many people are surprised about it and wonder where did
these Jews come from and why they happened to be involved in Slavery. They ddi not come
out of nowhere. They were involved in slavery trade for many centuries before the
discovery of America. One has to go back to the first millennium when Arab Muslims
established themselves Northern Africa and Spain. Already then Jews were their favorite
slavers, however the slaves were also white Europeans. They were getting slaves
throughout whole Europe particularly form countries that haven't become Christian yet
and thus could not be protected by the Church because Church at least technically forbid
slavery in some places. The largest slave markets were in Prague, Lyon, and Rome where
slaves were brought from Germany and countries east of Germany like Poland, Bohemia and
so on. At the slave markets males were usually castrated and together with women and
children were send further to North Africa and Spain. This practice ended with
Christianization of Bohemia, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Interesting is the story of
St. Adalbert (born 952) who fought against slavery in Prague. Later he had to escape to
Poland and got killed in Prussia in 997. In 1175 a bronze doors was erected in Gniezno
Cathedral in Poland depicting his life where among others you can find these two
stories:
He has a vision of Christ telling him to save Christians from slavery by the
Jewish traders
He pleads with the Duke of Bohemia for the release of Christians slaves by
their Jewish masters
Also later when Crimea became a part of Turkish Ottoman empire it became a great
center of slave trade where the slaves kidnapped usually by Tartars in Poland, Ukraine,
Russia and even Finland were traded via mostly Jewish slavers to Turks and Arabs.
Bagdad, Istanbul, Damascus and Cairo were full of Slavic and Finn slaves. There are
quite a few books about it.
I am bringing this up to broaden the scope and make those who did not know that
slavery business was very Jewish from the very beginning. The slaves were white European
pagans and Christians.
@Talha
demanding a safe space for one's manhood is about as unmanly as it gets. Do white
males really want to publicly make that statement?
Manhood isn't just about being
like some Hulk Hoganish he-man. It's the combination of sense and strengths.
Consider sports. Why do high school sports exist apart from college sports? High
school kids will get crushed by college athletes. And why do college sports exist apart
from professional sports?
Because pros will crush college athletes.
So, manhood in high school needs safe space from college, and manhood in college
needs safe space from professional sports.
Indeed, this is true of humanity itself. Manliness can exist ONLY IN SAFE SPACE from
wild animals that are bigger and stronger. This is true of African Negroes themselves.
In African tribes, the men act tough with spears and drums and do their dance and stuff.
But they do this in their own villages that are guarded from wild animals. Even the
toughest Negro is no match for a lion, buffalo, hyena, leopard, or a hippo. Most hippos
can outrun Negroes and stomp their heads into Aunt Jemima pancakes.
So, manhood isn't just about raw strength of brutal sort. It can only exist within a
certain condition and context. Take manhood among coyotes. Coyote males fight for turf
and sexual access. But they fight among their own kind. But when wolves appear on the
turf, coyotes run like a mothafuc*a.
Coyote manhood cannot exist among wolves. It can only exist among coyotes. So,
coyotes need safe space from wolves in order to be coyote men.
This is true enough in Greek mythology. Heroes are weaker than many monsters and
enemies. They must use guile and trickery to win or make it to safety. Theseus, Perseus,
and Odysseus all use guile. Theseus had the string. Perseus had the reflective shield.
Odysseus made the wooden horse. And Odysseus used trickery and teamwork to get away from
the One-eyed giant, Cyclops.
Man to Man, the white man cannot win against the more muscular and more aggressive
Negro. Negroes will dominate sports teams while white boy is reduced to cucky
benchwarmer who sees best-looking white girls run off with Negro and have mulatto
babies.
So, white manhood needs to use guile, unity, solidarity, and other means to gain
power and seek safe space from the Negro. It's like what wolves do. A lone wolf's
manhood is no match against big moose or big bear or ferocious cougar. Wolf power comes
from unity and cooperation. Wolves can have wolfmanhood only within the safety of the
pack.
White males are losing because their stupid pride prevented them from making that
statement
that you're talking about.
If white males had been honest during the Jack Johnson era, they would have said, "Look,
that Africa-evolved Negro whose ancestors got tough by chucking spears at hippos are
kicking white male butts in US, UK, and Australia. And look at all those white women who
reject white male losers and go off to have sex with Johnson the big tough Negro. We
can't compete with such Negroes. We need to send them to Africa or give them a separate
nation. Our white manhood need sanctuary from Negroes just like Negro manhood need
sanctuary from hippos and hyenas."
Then, whites wouldn't be facing the mess they are in.
Also, if EU blocks black colonization on those grounds, white men in Europe can have
manhood. But since white men are too 'proud' to say such and pretend races are equal,
more Negroes come, beat up white boys, take over sports, and colonize white wombs.
It's like Negro Truth whupped all the slow white boys and impregnated all the white
girls at his school. He be delighted in his mastery over the pitiful white boy.
@utu
"They were involved in slavery trade for many centuries before the discovery of America.
One has to go back to the first millennium when Arab Muslims established themselves
Northern Africa and Spain."
To what extent were Jews involved? Do you have any source
material to provide insight?
It's like Negro Truth whupped all the slow white boys and impregnated all the
white girls at his school. He be delighted in his mastery over the pitiful white boy.
Bro, did we go to school together? Are you from Queens?
@Corvinus
To what extent were Jews involved?
– Major, dominant. Muslims were not allowed to
operate within the Christian Europe but Jews were permitted.
By the turn of the 6th to
the 7th century, Jews had become
the chief slave traders
in Italy, and were
active in Gaelic territories. Pope Gregory the Great issued a ban on Jews possessing
Christian slaves, lest the slaves convert to Judaism. By the 9th and 10th centuries,
Jewish merchants, sometimes called Radhanites, were
a major force
in the slave
trade continent-wide Jews were
one of the few groups who
could move and trade
between the Christian and Islamic worlds.
@anonymous
Nice satire !!!!!
Very cleverly crafted . Judging by the comments that followed , you evidently trolled
plenty of people.
Godspeed and thanks for the laughs
A month ago, after reading a desperate cry for help from the National Coalition of
Christian Organisations in Palestine (NCCOP) addressed to the World Council of
Churches, I emailed eight churches in my locality asking whether that heart-rending
appeal had trickled down to them at parish level ..
I think that these examples are far worse than anything happening to Christians in
Israel. Did you inform your churches about this mass murder of Christians and burning of
churches in the Islamic world ?
The 25 worst places to be a Christian. Israel is not on the list but Iran , Egypt ,
Sudan , Somalia ,Iraq ,Pakistan and everyones favorite " Syria" are all on the list .
'I already watched and this video [Chinese engineer
disses African who is about to explain how the 'White Man' caused all the problems of
Black Africa] or this point of view, invariably correct, don't change mine. Conservs luv
[to] "rationalize" their own historical faults."
Every human loves to rationalize. It's one of many cognitive communicative behaviors
that characterize humanity. I guess that's what you are doing when you say that what the
Chinese critic of African culture says – although "invariably correct" – fails to change
your views? So you consider that the Chinese fellow in the video is a "conserv"? Or are
y9u just saying that you have already been of the opinion that when Africans blame
colonialist exploitation for their lack of progress or development, that that's a bogus
argument?
(traditional song, not attributed, but a
version of it appears in
The Fiddle Book
by Oklahoma fiddler, Marion Thede, which
has music and lyrics to more than 150 old time fiddle tunes)
from 1906. Please
note that the same source stated that despite Church rule, many Christians also partook
in the slave trade, with church officials in one part of Europe collecting taxes on this
endeavor.
How many Christians compared to Jews? I don't know. But consider that Jews were a much
smaller percentage of the total population in Christian Europe compared to Muslim
dominate regions in the Middle East. No one knows exact numbers, but 250,000 Jews in a
community of 10-15 million people has been a common estimate.
One could infer from this source that non-Jewish involvement was also "major,
dominant".
@German_reader
Well, you have proven that your understanding of Christianity is really poor. If one
starts wandering away from his area of expertise, well, one is bound to be exposed as
fool or iliterate. I guess that German education standards when it comes to the teaching
of history have sunk very low.
Starting with your rather poor or misleading interpretation of the verse where Jesus
states that whoever loves his family or kin more than HIM is not worthy of HIM. Your
statement is rather ironic if we were to apply it to the current situation of the West
where, if a revolution is to occur in order to save it, Europeans will have to start
purging from OUR OWN PEOPLE and families the filth that taints our societies BEFORE
expelling the invaders. There is no way out of it specially in a place like Germany.
By the way how a community that lives with the moto "if any man will not work,
neither let him eat" can be classified as communist? Specially by someone who comes from
a society that has forsaken reason and history and whose TV channels and media 24/7
bleat about how accepting Germany and Europe should be of immigrants that share nothing
with Europe but a long history of hatred? From country that feeds millions who don't
work through taxation of another dwindling group that still numbers in the millions (who
forcibly support able bodied people who don't work)? Sorry pal but in this discussion
you win the prize of the Irrational and/or iliterate argument of the day.
Um, this story was about immigration, not NATO. Obviously, immigration is an
internal German matter.
Not so fast, Braga.
A month into the bombing of Yugoslavia, SACEUR Wesley Clark notoriously told a CNN
reporter:
"Let's not forget what the origin of the problem is. There is no place in
Europe for ethnically pure states. That's a 19th century idea and we are trying to
transition into the 21st century and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states."
It's unclear why a SACEUR would comment on immigration policy at all, much less
repeatedly use
"we"
if NATO had no say in the matter. If the patently criminal
bombing of Yugoslavia didn't "force" Merkel, it surely coloured the thinking of not only
German, but every other Euro politician. At any rate, his statement shows clearly that
NATO was an active participant in a program that had started well before 1999.
@Erebus
Interesting. I do not remember hearing this. What's ironic is that Yugoslavia was a
multi ethnic state at some point. Its disintegration with the help of NATO created
several mono-ethnic states. I could see him saying it when Kosovaars staged an exodus
claiming that they were being ethnically cleansed. Whether they were being cleansed is
another story. The end result was that mono-ethnic Kosovo was created.
@Anonymous
I'm not Middle Eastern. You compliment Derbyshire all the time (especially about his
writing – you did this recently for one of his articles) and I remember the comment
where you said you were 1/2 Jewish. Also, when I commented that Macron's wife was white
and not Asian (like Derbyshire's China woman) you told me to lay off Derbyshire and his
wife.
@Seamus
Padraig
I'm not cool with the banksters, cultural Marxists, etc. What I said is that I blame the
RCC/Zioevangizers for giving the "chosen" their supposed power. The RCC/Zioevangizers
think the Jews are smarter. They are not. But their universal Christianity keeps them
from addressing the JQuestion because then race would be involved. The RCC/Zioevangizers
will not criticize blacks/Asians. That's why I say, collapse the RCC/Zioevangizers and
you take care of the Jew/Muslim/black/Asian problems.
Its disintegration with the help of NATO created several mono-ethnic states.
Yeah, more than one pundit has commented on that unintended consequence.
Frankly, it's unclear to me what NATO's real purpose was. Their accusations against
Milosovic et al, via which they invoked their hypocritical R2P doctrine, were eventually
proved false. I never saw an analysis that explained it satisfactorily, but I haven't
looked very hard for one either.
@helena
The Unis are basically just another cuck church. But I really don't see them as the
driving force of SJWism. After all, is it they who control the banks, the media,
education and foreign policy? No, not really.
@Rurik
Very disturbing graphics, Rurik. But thanks for posting them. Sukant Chandan is an
especially vile POS. And BTW, I totally agree with your proposal!
@attilathehen
There are those of us in the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) that do not subscribe to the
current teachings on the supremacy of the jews. We are Catholics who,do not subscribe to
the changes that the Vatican II Ecumenical Council attempted to impose on us. It is no
secret that jews and Protestants were involved in this "Council" and wrought changes in
order to bring down the Church.
Jews DID take responsibility for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ. No amount of
"modernization" of the Catholic Church can change that fact.
Frankly, it's unclear to me what NATO's real purpose was. Their accusations
against Milosovic et al, via which they invoked their hypocritical R2P doctrine, were
eventually proved false. I never saw an analysis that explained it satisfactorily,
but I haven't looked very hard for one either.
this one from commenter Kiza is as good as I've seen:
the US goal in former Yugoslavia was primarily a rejuvenation of NATO which has
lost its meaning with the demise of SU. Also, the Demoncrats have a natural
propensity to package their imperialism into "humanitarian" interventions, the
Republicans are much less sleazy – the Republicans just say you are with us or
against us, no matter whether what we do is legal or illegal. Therefore, it was a
perfect little war for the Clintons:
1) breath a new life into NATO,
2) clean up the Southern Europe of any residual Russia and/or socialist influence and
3) do a dress rehearsal for attacking Russia (using NATO).
A final important reason was that the US intervention in the Balkans created a new
industry called Regime Change Industry (or should it be called an NGO Ecosystem).
This is the time when Gene Sharp finished his book on "non-violent" regime-change and
color-revolutions. Therefore, the illegal US intervention in the Balkans was the
first time this NGO Ecosystem was fully deployed. After the subsequent color
revolutions and regime changes , the travelling NGO EcoSystem now probably employs
around 300-500,000 people, the Westerners as management and consultants, the locals
on the coalface. This is why the regime-changes cannot stop – because there is now a
whole industry depending on them.
These are the positive outcomes for US from its interventions in the Balkans. We
should not forget also that Israel benefited greatly by taking focus off itself,
because the Bosnian war united temporarily both Shiites and Sunnis against the Serbs.
All of the subsequent US interventions and regime changes used experiences from
the wars in the Balkans, that is the benefit I am referring to.
I was talking about manhood. You are mixing up "manhood" and "maleness".
There are plenty of males running around, but a dearth of men.
Men recognize and honor the sanctity of other men – especially when it comes to the
women under their care and guardianship. This requires self-discipline and self-control.
The West lost much of this with the sexual revolution and thus is now dealing with
various males running around (including ours) trying to hump things like the wolves and
coyotes you speak about. And thus you need to cage the different breeds/species off from
each other.
In the past, men would recognize the role of the father and access to any of the
women under his care would have to proceed with his blessings. Men did this and knew
that it would be reciprocated when they became fathers and others came to seek the hand
of the women under their care. This is not ancient practice – there are people alive
today who saw these rules at work and the societies that these built. Whether black or
white, the suitor had to approach the father and, whether black or white, the father was
supposed to look out for his daughter's interest in making sure she wasn't going to get
into a detrimental relationship because the purpose was marriage – not sex. And society
honored that because they knew how important the family institution was.
Someone like Jack Johnson was an anomaly like Erol Flynn or any other man of fame.
What I keep hearing from you is that you don't necessarily want to roll back the
sexual revolution, you just don't want to share White women with the darkies – though I
don't hear you mentioning anything about White males colonizing darkie wombs (a couple
of my cousins are married to White men). Womb colonization only goes one way? That was
never a problem in the past because of the role of the father who could interdict a
pairing that he felt was culturally incompatible (White to Black, Italian to Irish, WASP
to Catholic, etc.) – but you don't want to bring that back because then no more fun
times for you in getting with their daughters left and right without consequences
because fathers might block you for not being serious or prepared enough or have enough
income, etc.
Eventually (I hope) some semblance of traditional manhood will arise again among the
Whites in the West (and the phrase "patriarchy" won't be considered a pejorative) and
the structures and institutions that it informs, and its arrival may resemble something
like this:
Well, Jefferson certainly had a more intellectual way to approach the
subject, eh? I got no problems with funding White liberals to help them resettle in the
third world if that'll help them finally deal with their guilt issues. I would however
also like to see a bunch of neo-cons and politicians prosecuted for destroying those
third world countries within our living memory and sent to the noose or to jail.
we'll advertise on moveon.ass and dailykos and offer trips to Liberia and Rwanda.
They can all get culturally equalized!
Parents whose daughters get Amy Biehl'd will have to pay more of course. You don't
get that kind of absolution for your guilt unless you pay for it. I mean if the church
can sell indulgences, then why can't we?!
It'll sort of be like the Christians making pilgrimages to Israel to bolster their
salvation. We'll use the 'Christians to Israel' as our fund-raising model. We can even
go straight to the churches and offer trips to Somalia. Just think, the Christians in
Minnesota won't have to settle all those Somalis in their communities, they can just
take a junket and purge their guilt in one fell swoop.
I can try to arrange for this Somali to be waiting, and we could advertise for
liberals and Christians both!
What I keep hearing from you is that you don't necessarily want to roll back the
sexual revolution, you just don't want to share White women with the darkies –
No Talha, as a Feller who enjoys the company of Fellers, I don't think that would be
in his best interest
White liberals to help them resettle in the third world if that'll help them
finally deal with their guilt issues.
Seamus and I are working on a venture and I think we're accepting partners. It's sure
to be a financial triumph, and save tones of souls and expunge unbearable guilt in the
process!
we're going to bridge the chasm between the religious right and the progressive left
and make lots and lots of sexually frustrated Somalis and guilt ridden liberals and
do-gooder Christians all manifestly happy (and
satisfied!
; ) all while we're
cashing in on the good works!
it isn't wrong to make money while you're 'doing good' in the world, is it?
I would however also like to see a bunch of neo-cons and politicians prosecuted
for destroying those third world countries within our living memory and sent to the
noose or to jail.
I've been told I harbor too much wrath for John McCain. That to wish suffering on
such a person is a sin, and I'll be worse off for it. True perhaps, but yet
I would have zero problem with sending every single neocon war pig criminal to meet
their fate at the hands of the people whom they've so diabolically wronged.
I'd send Bill O'Rielly to Fallujah
I'd send Hillary to Benghazi
I'd send Dick Cheney and W. Bush to hell itself if I could.
and all the rest of them too
they're a vile stain upon the character of America, (if anything's left of it) and an
affront to simple human decency. May their souls rot in hell for all eternity. And may
God have mercy on all of us who've watched with horror at what they have done (and why
they've done it), and on so terribly many innocent men, women and children.
It's beyond monstrous, and I only hope somehow we end this zio-madness in our time.
That is why, IMHO that the American people elected a guy like Trump, for whom there
isn't much respect as a noble paragon of virtue, but in whom we hold so much hope!
I pray he's an unlikely savior of sorts, who can leash the Fiend. If not him, who?
I would never get a deformed dog. So many the show psycho ring has ruined.
Would you bring into the world a dog that can't walk with ease and watch it suffer?
NO!
The white male is superior, he won't be wiped out, he won't disappear.
He is always under attack for the above reasons and he always rises to the occasion.
btw I am not a man, I am the natural mate of the white man.
@Seamus
Padraig
That is all true and probably sephardic groups were the main practitioners/purveyors of
slavery in the British, Dutch and Portuguese colonies. The "financiers" however were
mainly in London and Amsterdam (also partly sephardic).
Rothschild and Freshfields founders linked to slavery
Niall Ferguson, Laurence A.Tisch professor of history at Harvard and author of The
World's Banker: A History of the House of Rothschild, said the documents showed "how
pervasive slavery was in the structure of British wealth in 1830".
______________________________________
Remember also that Liverpool was probably the biggest shipping center involved in the
"three-way" trade.
@Stephen
Paul Foster
There is no "Left". The people you are referring to are those who have been manipulated
into service of the Jewish agenda.
Jews have controlled this demographic for centuries. ( Liberté, égalité, fraternité!)
Look for them wherever meritocratic Whites are being slaughtered.
"... " Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism ..."
"... Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance. ..."
"... My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern. There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration. 1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day. That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below. ..."
"... A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. ..."
"... As many others have argued, anthropologist Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged (if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286). ..."
"... Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism ..."
"... That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump. ..."
"... With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender our country or its people to the false song of globalism ". ..."
"... One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles that attracted significant support. ..."
"... state-subsidized ..."
"... shut up and keep working ..."
"... Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs, as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to his campaign. ..."
"... Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White House, with his reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently exalted that what " stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational elite (globalists) within the administration. ..."
"
Hey, I'm a nationalist and a globalist ," Donald Trump recently declared, "I'm both". The only
way in which the two (seemingly contradictory) positions can be reconciled is by introducing a third
term, one that is absent from Trump's vocabulary: imperialism .
Trump might not be conscious of the implication of his statement (nor would he be the only one
sleepwalking toward regime change ), but that makes the explanation all the more powerful. In
the absence of both conviction that matches his campaign platform, and a well developed program for
an alternative US foreign policy that transforms the international "order" which the US underpins
-- a very tall order --
Trump defaults to what is common, established, and respected in the history of Washington
politics. In other words, he turns to the only dominant understanding of American international politics
that anyone socialized in the US would possess: "American leadership," that is, US global dominance.
The equipment to fulfill that vision is already in place and ready to produce instant results that
can then be cast as "winning," "standing strong," or as Fox News' Sean Hannity likes to inexplicably
exclaim, "America is back" (from what?). So why did Donald Trump, the so-called outsider, default
to the established course in US politics?
One question is whether Trump drifted into this position out of disorder, confusion, lack of conviction,
and a government undermined by factions. Another is whether he was "placed" in this position (by
others and/or himself), in what would then effectively amount to the corporate oligarchy's biggest
ever electoral heist. Others will instead point to Trump craving respect and adulation, and thus
playing to the media to improve his image. Some have made what I think are misleading and self-serving
arguments: that Trump's changes reflect an encounter with "reality," or represent "learning on the
job". The assumption here is that reality is somehow hard-coded with neoliberal principles. If learning
on the job meant learning to continue the imperial presidency, then they might have a point, even
if it's not the one they wanted to make.
Other questions to ask include (in no particular order of importance):
In which ways does nationalist globalism relate to imperialism?
How does Trump's newfound globalism connect to issues of conflict of interest and nepotism?
What role does class play in charting Trump's actual domestic and foreign policy directions?
Are the ostensible changes traceable to Trump's preexisting and underlying ambitions and interests,
or were the changes forced on him by circumstance?
Is this a story about the workings of the "deep state"?
Is Trump's presidency good news, after all, for extending the life of global liberal capitalism?
How might Trump's presidency end up strengthening the hands of anti-imperialists?
This article (long as it is, it has been significantly abridged), begins by examining "nationalist
globalism". I then focus on changes to Trump's stated positions seen from a domestic angle, and in
particular on his stances regarding Obama and the Clintons, his declared interest in turning the
Republican party into a "workers' party" while in fact returning it to the hold of Wall Street, and
thus I look at the ties between his cabinet, Goldman Sachs, and Wall Street broadly --
this is also where we discuss the nature of the "oligarchic corporate imperial state". After that,
we see how this mutated policy extends internationally, from Cuba to Russia, Syria, North Korea,
NAFTA, NATO, and WikiLeaks. I end the essay by discussing whether we can still proclaim the "end
of liberalism" (short answer: yes), and consider how Trump's presidency could aid the cause of anti-imperialism.
I considered some of the prospects of a Trump presidency with respect to US imperialism in an
equally lengthy article last October. In "
Donald Trump and Empire: An Assessment " I got some things right, and some things wrong, as is
true of everyone else. I asked: "how can Donald Trump make the decline in US global power 'beautiful,'
and how can he turn withdrawal into 'greatness'?". This question is now null and void. I also wrote
that, "on foreign policy, globalization, and military intervention, Donald Trump is a transitional
figure" -- that might hold some validity, but not in any straightforward sense: he may be inadvertently
setting the conditions for a truly transitional figure yet to come (but that could be true of any
representative of the power elite).
I was mistaken however in suggesting that, "Trump would be leading the equivalent of a perestroika
for US empire". I also argued that what Trump was offering was, "not so much radical change as an
intermediate passage, and a way of managing imperial decline" -- from where we now stand, the
last thing that seems to be on Trump's mind is anything remotely to do with "managing decline". Where
the analysis was on slightly less thin ice was when I said that Trump appeared to be, "not much of
one thing, not much of another, and somewhere in between . neither an anti-imperialist nor pro-imperialist,
nor even an absolute non-imperialist" -- but that is perhaps because, inside ambiguity, one
can hide anything. I also pointed out that,
"Nowhere, as far as I have seen, does Donald Trump ever proclaim himself an 'anti-imperialist'.
Apart from using the word 'Empire' for one of his fragrances, there is little evidence of the
word in his writings and speeches. Likewise, he never identifies himself as 'pro-imperialist'
either. Donald Trump certainly does advocate for American power, and 'American strength,' and
even calls himself a militarist on some occasions -- but with more caveats than his political
adversaries".
The above still largely holds, I think. It is also still truer than ever that "there are multiple
competing editions of Donald Trump" -- and one can find support for almost any argument about
Trump's stated intentions, by using Trump's own past words. Where I did point out that Trump had
taken decisively pro-imperialist positions in the past (regardless of his choice of words) was on
Iraq and its oil, on Libya, and on Cuba, Mexico, and Venezuela.
Matters have now become considerably simplified. We no longer need to debate where Trump stands
and what he might do once he became president. Now we know what , even if we still debate
why . However, understanding why might tell us something about what comes
next.
My thesis revolves around facts such as senior Goldman Sachs executives readily jumping aboard
the engine of the "Trump train," after being denounced in Trump campaign advertising, which suggests
that they do not see Trump's much touted nationalism as anything that needs to cause them any concern.
There are now more Goldman Sachs figures in the Trump administration than in any previous administration.
1 This is perhaps the most fundamental "reversal" of Trump's course, that I argue points
to the proper framework for assessing all of the other reversals that pile up with each passing day.
That Trump plays to the media is a superficial sign of the deeper currents outlined below.
What is Nationalist Globalism?
A nationalism that extends itself globally, that projects its "interests" into other nations
and then proclaims the right to defend those interests, is best understood as imperialism. Nationalism
and globalization are not striking contradictions, when referring to the ideology of an imperial
state that maximizes its power over globalization processes in order to gain at the expense of other
states. Besides the observation that what we know of as globalization was largely the product of
state action (legislation, economic incentives, building the infrastructures of global commerce and
communications, the creation of multilateral organizations, and so on), one state in particular can
claim a leading role in globalization. Barack Obama could thus declare in 2010, "no nation should
be better positioned to lead in an era of globalization than America -- the Nation that helped
bring globalization about" (quoted in Forte, 2015, p. 10). As many others have argued, anthropologist
Bruce Kapferer made the point that "the concept of globalization disguises the emergence to unchallenged
(if momentary) global imperial dominance of the USA, whose own claim to international sovereignty
reduces the sovereignty of many nation-states" (Kapferer, 2005, p. 286).
... ... ...
Trump is now committed to a nationalist globalism -- or imperialism --
one that is all too familiar and has been described by anthropologist Neil Smith (2005) as "Americanism".
We will need to keep analyzing Trump's policies as the months and years pass, but right now
we have an outline of the kinds of imperialism that Trump upholds. One is an economic imperialism
that goes back to the first premises of the US
"new empire" of the late 1800s: belligerently opening up foreign markets in order to absorb US
overproduction. So far, Trump is using political and economic means to achieve that goal --
as in trying to intimidate Canada into opening up its dairy market to an even greater number of US
imports, while punishing it for exporting cheap softwood lumber to the US. However, he is apparently
willing to trade economic goals for military ones, as in the case of dropping any antagonism toward
China about trade issues, in return for China's promise to somehow alter North Korea's foreign policy,
just as the US escalates military maneuvers with a possible military strike actively being considered.
(Confusingly, he reverses this pattern with South Korea, where military measures were then
clouded
by talk of
revising a trade agreement and extracting payment for US missile defense.)
Added to the corporate capitalist imperialism, and military imperialism , Trump is also toying
with liberal-humanitarian imperialism in the case of Syria. However -- and this is very important
-- what he lacks here is a "soft power" platform of any size or credibility. The ability of
Trump to preside over an effective program of cultural imperialism is diminished to the point of
zero, and is likely far less than even zero. That the US and Western mass media continue to lampoon
Trump may thus unintentionally serve to undermine US foreign policy, since it is led by Trump.
With his statement that he is both a nationalist and a globalist, Trump is making a major
concession that contradicts a position he announced a year ago to the day: "We will no longer surrender
our country or its people to
the false song of globalism ". A year later he effectively declared himself an adherent
to nationalism, plus something false. His statement also marks the new release of yet another edition
of Trump, such that we can set up extensive debates between various versions of Trump as published
in past books, speeches, and interviews. Just on the question of Syria alone, one could produce a
loud debate between
anti-interventionist
Trump of years past and pro-interventionist Trump of today. Explaining this apparent bifurcation,
and attempting to read it into his past statements on US regime change, is a complicated matter,
and those who make light of it with statements of having known with certainty that what we have today
would be the inevitable result, are being disingenuous. 2
The only promise made by Trump that still rings true is that of his "unpredictability". Being
unpredictable and flexible might be virtues in some situations, but when it comes to charting a course,
standing by a campaign platform, and committing oneself to a
contract with voters, such qualities are synonymous with being capricious, unreliable, unsteady,
opportunistic, and even treacherous. That would also hold true in business, and especially when living
up to commitments one makes in deals. That Trump tries to lighten the nature of his apparent deficit
of principles and conviction -- that he essentially admits he will not permit himself to be
fooled by his own words -- only aggravates the problem. A man with such little political accountability
to himself, can hardly be expected to be accountable to everyone else. For his independent-minded
supporters, this will not look like a problem of having a two-sided coin; rather, it's a problem
of having no coin at all if there is no value.
Renewing the Corporate Oligarchic State after November 8, 2016
Among those few who
predicted Trump's victory , few or none predicted that Trump would then move on to defeating
Trump. Some partisans have come up with slogans like "Love Trumps Hate," but no one to my knowledge
has ever exclaimed, "Trump Trumps Trump" -- thankfully. A recent list of the
monumental
ruin to which standard, corporate-fueled and media-driven machine politics fell thanks to the
Trump campaign, provides only an incomplete story of 2016. Now we have to rewrite even the story
of 2016. While a candidate could win a presidential campaign, as an "outsider," even as he was reviled
by his own party elite, demonized by the mass media, shunned by the mass of corporate donors, and
so forth, it also means that the status quo can win on the cheap. The establishment won, and all
without the usual investments, and not so much as a single compliment to the winning candidate who
would uphold their order -- at little or no cost to them. The next US political candidate to
campaign on being an "outsider" will face a greater challenge in being taken seriously; by the same
token, the dominant elites may disarm themselves, thinking the next outsider will be easy to co-opt
or browbeat into submission.
One of the more difficult questions involves explaining what moved Trump to abandon his promised
foreign policy goals and his repeatedly stated anti-interventionist and anti-globalist principles
that attracted significant support. For example, where trade is concerned, Trump has consistently
opposed free trade deals for nearly three decades. He would say that he believed in free trade, but
only if it was fair, and he did not believe any of the existing free trade deals were fair. Yet here
too he would alter course -- what was unfair was something he could generally tolerate for
now. That was not to be predicted, because there was no evidentiary basis for predicting it.
... ... ...
The Workers' Party (brought to you by Carl's Jr.)
Turning to the working class, and Trump's talk of transforming the Republican party into "
the party of the American worker " -- a claim he made both
before
and
after the election -- here two significant acts stand out, and they deserve a longer essay
in their own right. Trump's first choice for Secretary of Labor was none other than
Andrew Puzder , who at
the time was the chief executive officer of CKE Restaurants, which owns Hardee's and Carl's Jr. Puzder
was notoriously anti-union, and his opposition to raising the minimum wage, his
cheating CKE employees of their wages, support for automation, and employment of an undocumented
domestic servant while not paying taxes for her services, hardly represented the qualities of a leader
of some new workers' movement. This is the person Trump chose to supposedly enforce labour regulations.
Later, after Puzder withdrew himself from the nomination, Trump replaced him with
Alex Acosta , dean of the Florida International Law School, who also served on the National Labor
Relations Board and received the support of AFL-CIO leader Richard Trumka. This belated correction
-- imposed by circumstances beyond Trump's control -- was among the reasons some still
claim that
Trump should be taken seriously on wanting to make the GOP into the workers' party. I would prefer
to remind the reader about Trump's actual priorities, and consider the person he chose as his
number one preference.
That there is no accident in Trump's choices has a lot to do with his class prejudices and his
class ambitions. His choice of cabinet members, with a preference for billionaires (or generals),
shows who he tends to trust and respect. Some historians have said that Trump's cabinet is
the richest in US history , with a combined worth estimated as ranging from
$11 billion to
$14 billion
. One can attempt to remodel Trump as a "blue collar billionaire," but it seems futile. He would
tell his supporters on the campaign trail that "we need the rich" (a statement which can be ambiguous
in its implications) and "no poor man ever gave you a job" (which is unambiguous). The way his decision-making
apparatus has been structured also reveals Trump's interests: billionaires in actual positions of
power in his cabinet, but only
consultations with union officials .
When it comes to trade unions, Trump's first weeks since the election reinforce this tendency
toward a top-down, patronizing approach. On the one hand, he in fact won the
support of many key unions , primarily private-sector unions in construction and trades, and
secondarily among autoworkers, machinists, and steelworkers. On the other hand, one of Trump's earliest
skirmishes since he was elected was with
Chuck Jones , president of the United Steelworkers local 1999, over Trump's inflated claims about
saving jobs at the Carrier plant in Indiana that was to shut down as the company relocated to Mexico.
That planned move and the layoffs it entailed played an important part in the 2016 election, underscoring
both Trump's and Sanders' arguments against NAFTA. It seems that Trump, at most, scored half
of a victory in persuading Carrier to retain some jobs in Indiana, while still moving a substantial
portion to Mexico, only now with the blessing of millions of dollars in tax credits. The irony is
that Carrier is now performing a state-subsidized transfer of jobs to Mexico. Trump claimed
Carrier would keep 1,100 jobs in place -- but Jones argued that the number included 350 jobs
that were never scheduled to leave (yet 550 other union members would still lose their jobs), adding
that Trump completely ignored the fact that Carrier's parent company, United Technologies, still
planned to completely shut down and transfer 700 factory jobs from Huntington, Indiana, to Monterrey,
Mexico. Some of
Jones' statements to the press were very sharp. In response, Trump proceeded to lambast Jones
in Twitter, with a couple of apparently
vindictive and inflamed smears .
First, Trump appears to blame workers themselves for the loss of their own jobs, as if they were
the owners of capital, or had a direct role in corporate decision-making, or were to blame for NAFTA's
existence. It's the kind of spontaneous anti-worker outburst that demonstrates where Trump's allegiance
ultimately rests. The second message repeats the claim that workers are the ones responsible for
keeping their jobs in place, thus more victim blaming, while adding a chilling new twist: shut
up and keep working , plus unions should have less money (and thus less power). Jones is likely
right in thinking that if Trump had
blamed the loss of the jobs on the union and its workers during the campaign, he would have lost
some votes. Jones is likely also correct when he stated about Trump that, "I'm not naive enough to
think he's going to be a friend to
the working class people". 3
None of this can take away the fact that Trump's victory was thanks primarily to working-class
voters, especially women and members of ethnic minorities among them. Though the numbers are not
definitive, the best knowledge we have is that
54.4% of Trump's voters were women and minorities , and 66% of whites without a college degree,
who are typically working class, also supported Trump.
The Wall Street Party (brought to you by Goldman Sachs)
As widely recognized by many others, one of the most glaring shifts in Trump's positioning concerns
Goldman Sachs. In his last, and very memorable television advertisement ending his electoral campaign,
Trump took direct aim at Goldman Sachs (featuring its president and corporate logo), the New
York Stock Exchange, and George Soros, all as representatives of a corrupt global power structure
that has robbed millions of Americans of their livelihoods. After the election, Trump nominated at
least five former Goldman Sachs executives to high-level positions in his cabinet -- though
not necessarily because of their varied associations with Goldman Sachs.
Steve Bannon , Trump's Chief Strategist, is a millionaire and was a former vice president of
Goldman Sachs until he left in 1990, and is perhaps the one pick that was not aligned with Goldman
Sachs' support for globalization.
Steven Mnuchin , a former senior partner at Goldman Sachs, and a hedge fund manager, was selected
by Trump to be the Secretary of the Treasury.
Gary Cohn , former president of Goldman Sachs, was chosen by Trump to head the National Economic
Council.
Dina Habib Powell , President Trump's senior counselor for economic initiatives, was recently
appointed as a deputy national security adviser for strategy -- Powell works closely with Jared
Kushner, and was recently the president of the Goldman Sachs Foundation.
Jay Clayton , who did not work at Goldman Sachs, was a partner at the Manhattan law firm of Sullivan
& Cromwell, 4 which represents Goldman Sachs, and his wife Gretchen works for Goldman
Sachs. Others have also reported that Trump's reversals are due to the sway of the
"Wall Street wing" of the White House.
As another writer noted, "
not since the Eisenhower administration have so many business executives landed top government jobs
, making Trump's Cabinet the wealthiest in American history". (Also, as mentioned in Note #1 below,
this chart shows some of the key ties that dominated the Eisenhower administration .) The list
of corporate executives in Trump's cabinet exceeds those mentioned above. Rex Tillerson, now Secretary
of State, was the CEO of Exxon. Ross Wilbur, a billionaire investor, is the Commerce Secretary. Of
course, we must also include the presence of the Trump corporation itself at the apex of the administration.
As some observed, Trump's choices send "the most powerful signal yet that Mr. Trump plans to emphasize
policies friendly to Wall Street, like tax cuts and a relaxation of regulation .that approach has
been
cheered by investors ". For weeks on end the stock market boomed, reaching new records, as if
celebrating a major victory. The fact that stock markets reacted so positively, and so quickly, to
Trump assuming the presidency almost suggests something akin to a coup, with some having had the
benefit of advance, inside knowledge. These features bring to mind Kapferer's discussion of the "
corporate oligarchic imperial state ":
"Current configurations of global, imperial and state power relate to formations of oligarchic
control. A major feature of this is the command of political organizations and institutions by
close-knit social groups (families or familial dynasties, groups of kin, closed associations or
tightly controlled interlinked networks of persons) for the purpose of the relatively exclusive
control of economic resources and their distribution". (Kapferer, 2005, p. 285)
Trump may have reversed himself in terms of the opportunistic targeting of Goldman Sachs,
as a symbol, but there is little point in evading the fact that he entered the electoral campaign
as the owner of a large family corporation. What is more difficult to explain is why Trump, as a
national capitalist, lent himself so quickly to supporting a transnational capitalist class with
economic and financial interests different from his own, which was also ideologically opposed to
his campaign. I see many taking matters for granted, by resorting to easy assertions that "they
are all the one percent," or "they are all oligarchs". That is broadly accurate, but also facile,
because such commentary focuses (knowingly or not) on capital, in broad terms, and not on the capitalist
class which is divided into competing factions. The elite political class of experts, managers, technocrats
and legislators, certainly remains more united than ever against Trump since his victory --
but the capitalist class is seeing some remarkable reconciliation thanks to Trump (at least for now).
So why did Trump choose to perform this service?
One hypothesis we should consider is that Trump, ever so concerned about his brand, preoccupied
with the futures of his children and grandchildren, and the future of his family's corporate empire
-- matters that are first and foremost for Trump -- wants to make a transition away from
a position as a national capitalist in order to enter the transnational capitalist
class, where the real global power lies. 5 It was a gamble, but we can surmise that Trump
(consciously or not) sees the presidency of the most powerful state of the world -- power that
was conceivably (and now actually) within his reach -- as being also the most powerful way
to boost the fortunes of the Trump brand. (Remember, this is a man who took the time to hold a press
conference during the campaign just to defend Trump-branded products in what resembled an
infomercial , and as president took to Twitter to shame chain stores for blocking sales of Ivanka
Trump's branded product lines.)
With the inevitable global networking that a presidency affords, conducted within the surroundings
of the Trump resort at
Mar-a-Lago
, Trump seems to be looking at the global expansion of his corporate interests. He had already started
to dip his toe in the pool of transnational capitalism by building hotels in a dozen different countries
(Canada, the UK, the UAE, Turkey, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Panama, the Dominican Republic,
Brazil, Uruguay, Argentina). Arguably the Miss Universe pageant also fits within the circuit of transnational
capitalism. The neo-regal style of Trump's lifestyle and his hotels, aided like a royal patriarch
by the ambassadorial service of his daughter Ivanka, may all be part of an expansionist, globalist
sales pitch of the Trump empire and the family that leads it.
Ivanka's husband, Jared Kushner, may also be a key to the globalist push in the White
House, with his
reputed financial ties to George Soros . A strategist for a financial services firm recently
exalted that what "
stopped nationalism in the White House " was an assemblage of super-wealthy members of the transnational
elite (globalists) within the administration.
Trump's pleasure at the remarkable absence of legal constraints on the presidency regarding nepotism
and conflict of interest, does not mean that conflict of interest and nepotism do not mark his presidency,
according to the commonly understood meanings of these terms. Germany's foreign minister, Sigmar
Gabriel, thus really could not be countered when he recently exclaimed, "it always bothers me when
members of a family, who have never been elected, show up suddenly as official state representatives
and are treated almost as if they were members of
a royal family ". Trump will now essentially rent out the US military in order to extract tribute
to advance his quasi-monarchic ambitions.
Margnistsky was an accountant. He never has been a laywer.
Notable quotes:
"... "Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US". ..."
"... There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends. ..."
"... I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy. ..."
"... The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure. ..."
"... The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU. ..."
"... Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic . ..."
"... Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008). ..."
"... A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987) ..."
"... According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/ ..."
"... Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done. ..."
"... And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white. ..."
"... On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true). ..."
"... Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom). ..."
"... What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong. ..."
"... It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. ..."
"... And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree. ..."
"... I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME. ..."
"... Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional. ..."
"... I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets. ..."
"... To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin. ..."
"... Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia. ..."
"... Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money. ..."
The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William Browder,
who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely accepted story
on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to promoting the
legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that. The grandson
of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party,
William Browder studied
economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.
From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up
to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing with
reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst for
Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the Russia team
at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.
He left Salomons in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish
banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage Capital Management Fund. Hermitage
is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It is a hedge fund that was focused
on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the
loans-for-shares
scheme under Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir
Putin's ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.
Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently
to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In
his bookRed Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice
he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to function in a
corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the loans-for-shares scheme that
made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption, an
arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy
of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder
was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and bribery.
As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually
charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia
in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country. Three
companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is not
clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia
in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.
Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully,
made his case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during
and since that time, though there have been
skeptics regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale
to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman,
always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians
and media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different,
which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.
Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been carefully
constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with Magnitsky's
mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured and that he
died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or treatment shortly
after he had a heart attack. A
subsequent investigation
ordered by then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received
medical treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even
though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.
Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from
English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual documents
sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant, not a lawyer,
which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a criminal investigation
of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was instead a suspected criminal.
Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not
file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by
Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to enable
the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were irrelevant to
how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by Hermitage other
than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.
In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but
that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered
by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme used
to carry out the deception.
To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case that
contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an intelligence
officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so considerable
care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the evidence being provided.
It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder and Magnitsky have been
the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the other way around. In my experience
perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to be incorrect.
Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right,
though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both
sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business
activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia
and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain,
Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what
the consequences of proposed action might be.
One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted
should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And
then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him huffing and puffing
to explain himself at times and he has
avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are
making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube
running away from a
server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.
A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov
Magnitsky was a sleazy accountant, not a lawyer and among his activities one was about getting
tax breaks for Browder, using fictitious hiring of disabled people to get a tax break.
Browder was one of the very bold and very suspicious "gold-diggers" in xUSSR space, who
tried to participate in the "economic rape of Russia".
During this time of gangster capitalism in Russia under drunk Yeltsin such a person, especially
a foreign one, could easily get a six grams of led if he stepped on some oligarchs foot, but
this did not stopped him. He was really reckless. I wonder why. Who protected him in Russia?
Here is pretty interesting and educational reading
"Ties with Russia run deep in his family; his grandfather was General Secretary of the US
Communist Party and, according to documents released in 1995, worked for the NKVD, running
a spy ring. Bill himself specialized in Eastern European markets, and when he felt the time
was right, he founded Hermitage Capital Management in 1996, along with the main investor, Edmond
Safra."
His real connection and why he renounced US citizenship and is hiding in UK suggest that
some influential British structures were behind his activities.
In a way Browder was very interested in Magnitsky death as dead Magnitsky was much more
useful for him that alive. Magnitsky knew way too much about Brower activities in Russia and
already started talking.
It's a pity that doublespeak and doublethink rule the world. Every time you read something
you now must decipher.
"Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than
it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the
Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US".
There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not
want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder
and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never
come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom
and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and
THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well. This
entire conflict is between the native colonial administration and the foreign carpetbaggers.
And the main point is who'll get the cash, either Browder and his friends or some unknown Russian
oligarchs and corrupt officials. But both the results are bad for Russians.
the Short Version: Putin's Russia is a large White pebble in the open-borders Judeo-globalist
shoe. The Zionists/neo-conz/cucks will do anything – even upbrink to a nuclear WW III – to
destroy Nationalist Russia
And something else about democracy, freedom, human rights and so on hypocritical demagogy
of the West.
I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia
or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely:
Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that
concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people.
Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human
rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy.
But the fact is that everyday for the last 25 years thousands of common Russians are faced
with the violations of their rights. But nobody in the West worry about them, nobody mention
them, they simply do not exist for the West. The only people that exist are those who are directly
or indirectly connected with the Western establishment. That is the Western establishment and
their tame press are concerned only about their personal interests.
And when another Western (or Russian) journalist or human rights "activist", while writing
another article about Russia, mention again and again just only that half a dozen of the names,
I just cannot help but despise those hypocrites.
The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream
press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during
the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state,
change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of
this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure.
Sergei Magnitsky like the US and EU was a Zionist clown whose strings were held by the Organized
Jewry.
In November 2015, in an interview with UK's No.1 Israeli propaganda media outlet, 'Jewish
Chronicle', William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as Putin's
"number one enemy" in his book: Red Notice, claimed that though Putin had met Netanyahu, Avigdor
Lieberman, and local Jewish leaders; supports Israel and donated $1 million to Moscow's Holocaust
Museum – his heart is filled with hatred towards Jews. Why? Because he tortured and killed
Magnitsky and supports Iran's ally Assad.
Madeleine Albright, who found her Jewish family roots while holding post of US secretary
of state, in a recent interview she gave to Austrian newspaper DiePress.com called Russian
president Vladimir Putin "a smart but a truly evil man." She claimed that Putin is trying his
best to destroy European Union and NATO, two of Israel's allies.
"He is smart but truly an evil man. An officer of KGB, who wants to exercise power and believes
that every body has come together to conspire against Russia. This is not true. Putin is playing
bad cards well, for the time being at least. I believe his goal is to undermine and split EU.
He want NATO to disappear from his sphere of influence," She said.
Thanks. The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even
more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened
to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU.
You omit taking notice of the author's shrewd observation that there might still be available
some large amount of money that even Nekrasov might find irresistable as way to quickly achieved
financial independence. Even if he is basically an honest man he might be able to rationalise
selling out if he knows that Browder is, anyway, a crook.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well.
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West? From here in the
(dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being
systematically murdered off
Personally, for me, what it feels like is that the worst elements in the population that
were in Russia (and Eastern Europe) during the 20th century have now emigrated over to the
West. And that just as Russia and Eastern Europe suffered unimaginable horrors during the last
century, under cruel and sadistic Bolsheviks (and the Cheka and NKVD), they are now over here,
fomenting genocide and looting the place blind.
It's as if when Putin came to power, the Fiend slithered over the Berlin wall into the West,
where it now molders in the assorted banking houses and think tanks plotting its next iniquitous
atrocity, whether financial or military or social/cultural.
That's how it seems to me anyways.
(thank you PG for your superlative and informative articles. They're very much appreciated)
I guess he doesn't have to be anti Jewish ,but being a proponent of prosperity at home and
peace abroad does create a monster out of a decent man in today's garbage land which defines
the western minds . It sure doesn't help the warmongering war readiness war friendly Zio
In some way Zio are doing what they did to other peace makers through the ages. Being against
war and being for peace automatically ensures extended definition of antisemitism will be attached
Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western
narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough
that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic .
Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky
Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim
McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named
after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
During his acceptance speech Jim McGovern said that he was a staunch supporter of Israel
and supported the US-Iran nuclear agreement because it would be good for Israel in long-term.
During his stay in London, Jim McGovern was interviewed by Israeli mouthpiece, Jewish Chronicle
– published on November 27.
"I understand the security concerns, but I also believe that ultimately, the way forward
in Israel is for there to be real negotiations with the Palestinians -- a two-state solution.
People need to learn to live with each other -- that's the solution all over the world," McGovern
said.
When asked does that include Hamas? McGovern replied: "I don't need to negotiate with my
friends. I need to negotiate with the people I consider my adversaries and my enemies."
He also criticized Israel's human rights abuses and warned such actions are isolating Israel
from the international community. "I think Israel does not have a perfect human rights record.
I think the settlement policies are very troublesome," he said.
@Anonymous
As Anonymous says,"
Q: Who is guilty of lying, Nekrasov or Browder?
A: Which one is the Jew?"
Agreed. Frequently you will find that to find the truth just see what the Jew is saying
and the opposite will be the truth or what they say will be so convoluted as to twist the truth
into a blaspheme of some sort.
Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a
Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' – named after
Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
God help us, that Jew jerk Lantos is still screwing over America. Wonder how many Palestinians
he is responsible for murdering?
@Anonymous
Are you just idly polluting UR with your prejudices or do you have some faintly relevant information?
The Browders who are descended from (non-Jewish) Communist Earl Browder seem to have good
mathematical brains which may be inherited from Earl Browder's Russian Jewish wife. But it
appears the Jewishness ended with her. The younger Bill Browder (who has a mathematician uncle
also called Bill) is the son of mathematician Felix who doesn't appear to have married a Jew.
Over to you to research Nekrasov. Will your brain suffer spasms or paraysis if you find that
neither of them are Jews.
A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when
everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director,
1981-1987)
If this is an accurate quote, and I assume that it is, .what is the point of it? I mean
what goals should the CIA have ? Shouldn't OUR CIA be doing everything in its power, (like
every other government agency which we employ) to shore up the health ,wealth and security
of our nation.? Every action it takes, clandestine or otherwise, should be designed to ensure
the safety, freedom , and prosperity of our nation and its citizens .
Period. End of story. If they are not doing that .Fire the bums.
I still don't get what the cute girl in the pic is all about? She doesn't look Jewish
or anything.
That cute girl is Elena Servettaz who edited the book, the cover of which is behind her.
Here's a lot more photos of her for your viewing pleasure. Including one with her and Crazy
John McCain, which probably tells you all you need to know.
@Greasy
William Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail, Elena Servettaz is a Russian Jew
who serves basically the same role in the international journalistic world as Pamela Gellar
serves in the right-wing talk-show host/U-tube world based in Jew York City.
@Wizard
of Oz Don't be ridiculous, Bill Browder is Jewish and has always strongly identified as
such. He has a mezuzah on his office door and only hires Jewish employees. I knew him personally
back in the 90s and 00s.
@Boris
N I agree with you wholeheartedly, Boris, with the comments you made on democracy in Russia,
as well as the role the foreign (US) carpetbaggers had played in Russian society.
However, you failed to mention Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had succeeded the drunken,
incompetent Boris Yeltsin, who had been installed by the Jewish Oligarchs, who were – during
his Presidency – looting the Russian Treasury and bleeding the nation dry. It was Putin who
salvaged the Russian economy by imprisoning and/or exiling these Oligarchs and seizing all
of their assets. He also restored Orthodox Christianity in Russia after 70 years of it being
underground under Bolshevik Communism. The magnificent Cathedral of Christ the Redeemer, which
had been built in the 19th Century, then demolished by Lazar Kaganovich under Josef Stalin's
orders, was restored (rebuilt) after Yeltsin became President in the 1990′s.
Democracy also came to Russia under Putin, along with the revival of Orthodox Christianity.
As a result, the Russian people are experiencing more freedom than people are in Western countries,
including the US. In a way, these two nations – Russia and the US – have switched ideologies.
Even as I type this reply, Boris, Christianity in the US has just come under attack by the
Federal Courts which, btw, is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution,
which guarantees, along with freedoms of speech, press and peaceable assemply, freedom of religion.
@Wizard
of Oz "as amongst the Jews what anti-Semites (and some Jews) would regard as "typically
Jewish"."
Don't be ridiculous. Jewish people define themselves as an ethnic group. The
fact that the ethnic group has considerably admixed is not the fault of those who merely observe
that fact.
@Eileen
Kuch A friend who ran a very big charity funded by Khodorkovsky told me that he is not
Jewish but Russian Orthodox and, indeed, his mother Marins seems to be Orthodox Christian,
so why would the Jerusalem Post online refer to him as Jewish? Did he convert?
I guess its just that, on balance, any group likes to claim the rich unless they are too
disreputable.
A related question is whether people with Jewish fathers, like K, got into the habit of
associating with others who were at least part Jewish because of the viciousness or at least
weight of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. After all one can get an idea of what it was like
from the mad snti-Semitism in UR comments where even Rupert Murdoch can be called Jewish out
of spite and envy even though he doesn't have a drop of known Jewish ancestry – pure Anglo-Celt
it seems in case some twisted mind picks on that "known".
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West?
Yes, absolutely. It is not just my mere assumption, and it is not a conspiracy either, but
clear open facts that anybody can see if one wants to see. It is not "as corrupt as", it IS
controled by the West. We must not be deceived by the trickery red herring play of the official
Kremlin (I do not like the cliche "Kremlin propaganda", but this is exactly it; unfortunately
the Western MSM use this term for absolutely different things; the Western MSM play in the
same duo, by the way).
Who is Putin and where has he come from in the first place? Apart from that he is a former
KGB officer, and, as they say, "there aren't former KGB officers" (and this is important as
a great deal of Russian oligarchs came from that organization), he has not come from anywhere
and suddenly but fairly won the presidential campaign in 2000. During the 1990s he was moving
around in the Russian oligarchic and Kremlin circles, in fact he once was the right hand of
the first mayor of St.-Petersburg Sobchak, which in turn was a friend of Yeltsin. You think
Putin is different, but he is the same, he is from the same circles, you has been tricked by
the made-up image of Putin, a fiend for oligarchs and a friend of people, whereas he is, in
fact, a friend of oligarchs, literally.
Then, what is more important. Even if we know little about Putin's life in the 1990s (everything
is deliberately hidden), we know, hey, the entire world knows, how Putin has come to power.
Putin was a protege of Yeltsin, and this Yeltsin's protectionism was not hidden, but absolutely
public and official. Putin is the successor of Yeltsin, directly appointed by Yeltsin, a "legacy
president" whose main goal is to maintain the status quo from the 1990s. I would rater call
him a CEO under the control of the real masters, than an independent leader of the state. How
can one at all believe "Putin is not Yeltsin", when it is contrary to the facts. And again
we know which circles Yeltsin represented, and we know that those circles have had close connections
with the West if not controled by the West, and here we've come to the most interesting part.
The entire post-Soviet Russian elite (oligarchs and government officials) has come come
from the Communist nomenklatura, from the KGB and from the Soviet black market mafia structures
(usually run by Jews, Ukrainians and Asiatics like Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and Uzbeks).
And everybody of them have had many connections with the West, particularly with London, thousands
of Russian oligarchs, higher officials or at least their families live in London, London is
a second (true?) capital of Russia.
So there is no reason, why we must take the Kremlin and the West at face value. Why must
we believe there is a conflict of the planetary scale, when there is none.
Well, I've said much enough (I hope MI6 will not find me; joke), but you can dig further
yourself, everything is in open, the Russian ruling clique does not much hide itself, you do
not need to be a secret agent trying to acquire the secret Kremlin (or rather Westminster?)
documents, you just need to know the right directions of your searches. Just don't allow them
to confuse yourself with the information noise, both from the Kremlin and the West. Sift attentively
thousands of articles about a good Putin and a bad Putin from both the direction, because their
real goal is just to hide the real truth.
from here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant,
while ours is being systematically murdered off
As for the Russian middle class. Of course, since 2000 the living standards of Russians
have improved greatly. We could argue if it is due magical Putin or high prices of natural
resources. But this only if we compare it with the Sovet pitiful existence and the extreme
poverty of the 1990s. But Even if Russians have now more money, cars, things and all, Russia
outside of Moscow and St.-Petersburg is still and will be for many decades a Second Word country,
in many places even a Third World one. I lived in Western Europe and I can tell the difference.
This is absolutely another different planet. Every bit there is better than in Russia, so Russia
seems quite backward. It is just simply pleasant to live in a First World country. You constantly
complain how bad the life in the West is, but you do not understand your luck that you were
born or live there.
And nothing much have changed since the 1990s, if not since the Soviet times. The entire
country is still ruled by the former Soviet nomenklature, the oligarchs of the 1990s and Western
companies still own and pwn Russia, gigantic bulks of the Russian wealth flow to off-shore
havens, the state budget still consist of >60% of the "natural rent", the high level corruption
is flourishing, a great deal of the budget is embezzled by officials. Maybe the reason why
the average Russians still live decent lives is Russia's wealth so immense, that even if half
of it is stolen by the upper 5-10%, the remaining half is enough for the well-being of the
other 90%. But imagine how well the Russians would live without the robbery by the Kremlin
oligarchic clique.
And don't take official Russian statistics at face value. The Russian middle class hardly
exists. And after 2014 the income of people has been dropping steadily. For the most provincial
cities the picture is following (at 70 roubles per USD):
Lowest 30% earn below $200 per month
Low Middle 40% – $200-$400
High Middle 20% – $400-$600
Upper 5% – $600-$1200
In Moscow, St.-Petersburg and some northern regions these number are 2 times higher, but
they comprise barely 15% of the population.
And we're left with 5%, the clique and their servants.
I can hardly name the people who earns under $400 the "middle class", and the country where
70% earns below that can hardly be called rich (though it is quite developed, comparing with
the Third World). So there are just 5%, max 25%, of the real middle class. And the average
pensions are around $200/month, so no less than 40 mln of senior Russians live for that small
amount of money, and with constantly rising prices it is very difficult to make both ends meet.
And the last. You will complain that Europe is being flooded with immigrants, but Russia
is a last stronghold. But I'll tell you what. Russia is on the second place by immigrant population
after the USA! And they are coming in. Russia has officially 10 mln and unofficially close
to 25 mln of immigrants from Asia. Moscow, in fact, must compete with London by the percentage
of Asiatic immigrants. The Muslim population is rising and the Kremlin openly favours Muslims
and Muslim immigrants.
@Eileen
Kuch You just reproduce the idealized image (either good or bad) of Putin that has been
created by the propaganda machine from both the sides during the past 15 years. As I said above,
Putin is hardly a threat to the oligarchs. Putin hardly persecute any oligarch. There are up
to 100 Russian billionaires, and some thousands of millionaires, but only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev
and maybe a couple of others were really imprisoned. No any other oligarchs have been persecuted.
Never the privatisation of the 1990s was questioned. Never the legacy of Yeltsin was questioned,
rather he is a "hero", an entire Yeltsin museum has been built. The very same oligarchs from
the 1990s, except for maybe some outcasts, are continuing to loot and rob Russian wealth. They
buy entire castles somewhere in England or France, they buy enormous luxury yachts, they have
bought a great deal of the London luxury realty, etc., etc. They roll in money, Russian money.
The only reason the average Russians still live decent is the enormous size of the Russian
wealth, that even scraps are enough for the entire nation to live.
And I'm not that religious, I do not think that the renaissance of religiosity in Russia
is any good, I rather agree with (a rare case) the Marx's opinion about "opium for the people".
It just makes Russian people stupid, superstitious and easy to manipulate. We live in the 21th
century, we do not need 2000-year old fairy tales to be good. Anyway, I have a great respect
for the PAST Russian Christian tradition, I think it is an important part of the Russian culture
and mentality, so I'm strongly against any destruction of it.
However, with both the economics and the culture you seem to present a false dilemma. You
imply that the only alternative to Yeltsin and Putin are Kaganovich and Stalin, whereas I strongly
believe there are many better alternatives.
@Boris
N The overall quality of life in any country and in any generation depends on much more
than annual income, reflected in the amount of money people have at their disposal. In fact,
it's becoming increasingly evident that the more money people have to spend on "toys" and other
unnecessary items, leads to major social problems including atomized families, wide-spread
drug addiction, high suicide rates, mental problems, obesity, and homelessness. Not to speak
of a lowering of moral standards that's simply off the charts – in the wrong direction. It's
obvious that rural Americans (in particular) in the 1920s and 30s, although having little money
at their disposal, enjoyed a much higher quality of life including extended and close knit
families, than the majority of Americans today. I could be mistaken, but I suspect the same
would be true for the average Russian today.
We all know Putin plays footsie with the oligarchs. We all know he pretends to like Bibi
and is a master at realpolitik. But the impression I get is of a man who wrested control of
Russia away from the worst of the oligarchs, while playing nice with the rest of them. That's
how it looked to us from thousands of miles away in the dying West, and firmly under the Zio/Rothschild
boot, that this was/is a great man. A world-class statesman and nationalist who crushed the
fanatical terrorists in Chechnya and mollified the moderate ones with reasonable policies,
and he returned the resources of Russia back the Russian state.
Sure there is massive corruption, and other problems, but considering what the Russian people
have endured with decades of (Jewish imposed) genocidal commie slavery, and then having it
all do a 180 and then being impoverished even worse under the cruel destitution of crony Jewish
'capitalism' that simply handed Russia over to a few Jewish and Russian minions of Rothschild-
to lord it over the dying and starving Russian people- for Putin to have turned this around
is incomprehensible. It's nothing less than an historic accomplishment of a truly great man.
A giant on the world's stage.
He has, it seems to me, nearly single handedly reined in the drooling, frothing Fiend, ripping
to shreds everything it could get its blood dripping teeth on. Libya was the final straw for
Putin, and he alone stood up to the beast when all of Europe were counting their shekels and
tossing their citizens and their nation's dignity onto the Moloch's pyres of war and slaughter
and cowardly appeasement of the Fiend.
Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was
wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with
a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands,
as Gadhafi had done.
That's sort of how I see it. Yes, he plays ball with some very unsavory types, and corruption
is rampant. But he has done something wonderful Boris.. he has given the Russian people back
their dignity. They have something today that I don't think they've had for generations..
Hope. A shred of pride at being who and what they are; Russians.
How do you put a price on that? How do you quantify that kind of thing. Sure, Americans
may be able to afford more flat screen TVs, with which to watch their culture and heritage
being relentlessly maligned, their identities excoriated as evil, and their culture turned
into a sewer. Oh joy. But how do you put a value on giving to your people a quiet sense of
personal dignity? Vs. pitting them endlessly against each other with raging identity politics
and a race down to the moral abyss of spiritual feculence, writ large.
That is our lot over here in the West Boris, and the SUVs and flat screen TVs just aren't
all that, when you consider the soul and the doomed future of your people.
I will strongly disagree. We have a lot of examples all around the world where the lack
of money and low living standards lead to the same bad things that you have listed. You do
not need to go far, just look at your neighbour countries in Central America, or else you even
might go to your own American poor minority (Black or Hispanic) neighbourhood, where the people
will strongly disagree with you that their living on $10,000/year gives them a great virtue,
like if they have no money to buy "toys" (in fact, first-necessity goods) then they live better
"spiritual" lives. When the poor speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means
a getaway from the harsh reality with the help of self-illusion. When the rich speak about
the spirituality of poverty, this usually means they try to cheat the poor.
We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik .
1. He's not pretending. There is a reason that Russian nationalists absolutely despise him.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's
deal.
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having
publicly good relations with Netanyahu. That tells you all you need to know about how indifferent
the Russian people are towards the Palestinians. Contrary to your delusions, Russia is not
some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists who actually live in Russia would
be quick to tell you.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted
Obama's deal.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted
in your quote! What he doesn't want is an all out war with the Zio-West!
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem
having publicly good relations with Netanyahu.
again, he's pretending to like Bibi because Bibi is the king of the Jews and therefore the
default king of the West today. He's Rothschild's number one stooge. Of course Putin has to
play nice with him. But be honest Greasy, no one on this planet actually likes Bibi. That's
like saying you like hemorrhoids. You deal with things like hemorrhoids or Bibi, as the case
may be, but sure as shit don't like them.
Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists
no, certainly not. But it's also not a cultural sewer of the Jewish id, that we in the West
all have to marinate in, thankyouverymuch.. not
Bibi rules purely by default. He's not the king of anything. Nasrallah knew what he was
talking about when he said that Sharon was the last King of Israel.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your
quote!
But Putin is democratically elected. The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the
middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians
or Palestinians. The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists,
who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.
@Boris
N Moral always come first, with money being secondary. Of course It takes a certain amount
of money for people to live, but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have
at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get. With Hollywood pukes being
living examples of what money without morals produces. I'm surprised you haven't figured this
out.
@Rurik
I can understand why you have a distorted view of Putin and the Russian life. Because Westerners
simply lack important sources of information about the reality in Russia, you simply do not
live in Russia, do not meet and hear the people everyday, you are not insiders. This is why
I always say that the voice for Russia in the Western media (at least in the non-mainstream
one, because I have no illusion about the MSM) must be given not to West-based either Russophobes
or Russophiles, who practically know nothing, but to middle-aged, middle-class Russians, who
love and understand best their own home. But even in such a case we must have many voices because
no two Russians have a similar point of view, for example, even if I become one of the voices
(I've written quite much here, that many of my comments deserve to become articles on their
own, ha-ha) many Russians will agree with me, many will disagree, and many may have totally
different third, forth, and so on views. The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there
is no false dichotomy like in the West.
And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the
Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always
means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it,
and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I
understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way,
so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something
is white.
On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously
do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic
individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but
whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and
know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive
interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be
true).
Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho
Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow
Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of
the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is
owned by Gazprom).
What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand
that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right,
and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed
to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion,
be it right or wrong.
Maybe our opinions are heavily influenced by our lives, both you and I may have been disappointed
by our lives in our respective countries, but you believe that there is somewhere a better
land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there
is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare, but I bet if you come to
Russia and do not become one of the high-paid Western expats who live luxury lives in Moscow,
you'll very soon run off home and your Putinism will fade immediately (though your love to
Russia itself may strengthen, as it has been with many Westerners).
@Greasy
William I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about, simply
because there are not THE Russian nationalists, but one or two dozens of diffused different
small groups with different if not opposite views, who may call themselves or other may call
them "Russian nationalists". Not to mention thousands of common non-partisan Russians who may
call themselves nationalists as well but as well may have thousands of different personal opinions
about the past and the current affairs.
Among those nationalists I know personally, most of them absolutely do not care about Iran,
Israel and Palestine and about the Middle East in general. The interest has only aroused since
the Syrian intervention, but the general opinion about it is negative, because many think that
the war in Syria is utterly inappropriate, when just at the border there is an ongoing unfinished
war with Ukraine. And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as
good examples of national states, of what Russia must become. And unlike many commenters here,
most (with some exemptions) are not so much obsessed with Israel and Jews, and they do not
care if Putin loves either Israel or Iran, they dislike Putin not for that, but for other mostly
internal problems.
I do not deny the need and the role of good moral, but I have a more materialistic
view of the world, an important if not the fundamental condition for good moral is the full
stomach. Again no need to go far for examples, there is Latin America where people theoretically
have good moral, they all are devoted Catholics, but they live in a chaotic criminal frenzy,
when Detroit would look like a safe haven compared to San Salvador. Do you really think that
if the USA will be as poor as but as "spiritual" as Latin America, the US life will improve?
It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means,
they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving
as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in
a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
In both the cases wealth does not guarantee good moral, but good moral is not an inevitable
result of poverty. Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor
but "spiritual" San Salvador?
Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual"
San Salvador?
But San Salvador is just as spiritually sick as the West, just in a different way. A spiritually
healthy society will have low corruption, low violence, respect for women's rights and concern
for the welfare of the weak (the poor, the disabled, the sick). Poverty *can* breed evil, but evil always ultimately breeds poverty.
I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed
on their asses.
And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples
of national states, of what Russia must become.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the
different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite
rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Have you ever read the Kreutzer Sonata? It is the only piece of Russian literature I have
ever read and I really liked it a lot.
The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the
West.
well from what I can glimmer, the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either
'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.
Perhaps it has something to do with hard politics on the ground, and the reality that it's
this guy that is running things today in Russia, for better or worse.
I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite
way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it
as something is white.
I wouldn't quite characterize it in this way. It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't
mean they never tell the truth. Sometimes they mix a little truth in with the lies,
and sometimes they say what's really going on, because by doing so it suits their agenda(s).
When they say the Olympics are happening in Sochi, I believe them. When they say Putin shot
down MH17, I think they're lying. And then with most things in between, I think it's a combination
of lies and truth, always with an agenda in mind. If Putin were assisting with the destruction
of Syria today, like they (the occupied West) did to Iraq and Libya, I think they'd be calling
him a great statesman, and partner in freedom and democracy. It all depends on if he toes the
line.
but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn,
believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both
the places and I can compare
It's true I've never been to Russia, at least not yet. The closest I've came is Slovakia
and Hungary, (but I did meet a beautiful Russian girl when I visited Cuba a few years ago!)
I've never thought life was better in Russia. We do have many blessings in the West. But
today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and
chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West. And the
trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country
on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
My short take is that after the revolution and the murder of the Tsar and his family, the
Fiend took control of Russia, and set about slaughtering the best of the Russians (and everyone
else they could get their feculent hands on), and imposing a genocidal slavery on those people
for generations. And then one day when they (Rothschild) decided that commie slavery was too
expensive (you had to feed and house the people), they decided to impose a system even more
cruel and fiendish. They'd simply use their puppet, quisling government in Moscow to loot the
wealth and resources of Russia outright, and make Rothschild's minions some of the richest
men in the world overnight, while impoverishing the Russian people to the point of near starvation.
(it's what the do ; )
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her
hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was
an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler – especially when he jailed
on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he
played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten
billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing
to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree.
But then came Libya, and Putin saw that the Fiend was in absolute control of the
West, and must not be fed anymore, lest the Fiend grow and fester and become a dire threat
to Russia itself, (again). So Putin put the kibosh on Syria, and now he's locked in a death
struggle with the Fiend, who is insane with power-lust.
It's a difficult situation to be sure. And that's how I see the West vs. Putin's Russia,
and why I like Putin even with all his warts and faults. At least he's trying to make Russia
great again, and that's why there are many of us in the West who pine for a man like him to
take on the Fiend that has its fangs locked deeply into the jugular of the West.
The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia
public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians.
I think they do care what happens to Iran, since it's a close trading partner. And the Palestinians
are just a distant, tragic people to the Russians. Why should they wring their hands, it isn't
them who're foisting the evils upon the Pals, it's us Americans that are doing that.
The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I
have said, hate Putin's guts.
how many Russian nationalists do you know or speak to who are not Jewish, Greasy?
From what I understand, the IDF is chock full of Russian émigrés, and their take on things
must be skewed by Putin's thwarting of Israel's designs on the Golan.
here's a forum run by an ultra-Russian nationalist
Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable.
As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.
having linked to the Pravda forum, I just took a moment to peruse the Pravda front page.
This from an article on Russia today:
Putin has saved the country before and he is saving the country now. We despise all the
fifth column "dissent" that is based on your taxpayer money. Russia will never behave like
Soros, who maintains institutions to overthrow governments, because our leaders are Orthodox
Christians. Capitalism is not our religion. You are addicted to a beautiful body, and we
are addicted to a beautiful soul.
more:
Our aggressiveness exists only in your imagination. The reunification of the Russian
people with the Crimea passed without one single shot, because Russia is more than just a country.
Russia is a territory, which shares a common language, history and culture. We see any attempt
to "reprogram" Russians in Ukraine as a hybrid warfare against us. One can welcome the Scottish
Premier and discuss the likelihood for the UK to fall apart, but one can not support the population
of southern lands of the former Russian Empire in their aspiration to withdraw from Ukraine?
Is this not a double standard?
.. we do not like your determination to make us be like you. We change. Moscow has become
one of the most beautiful capitals in Europe. We do not live up to Western lifestyles, and
we do not "give a damn" if you do not like our way.
I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius
to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named
by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who
bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME.
Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked
it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it
has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine
that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional.
I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the
other discredited western "news" outlets.
the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I
don't like Putin'.
To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does
not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but
one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other
a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult
to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just
one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin.
I cannot say for sure for the Western public but I hardly saw such a variety of views. Maybe
the reason why Russians cannot unite and change something, because they are so disintegrated
on many issues.
It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth.
OK, I did not mean that. Of course, when they say that somewhere there has been a tornado,
or, as in your example, a sporting event, or some other trivial factual thing they simply cannot
not to say truth. But when they are trying to create some sort of analysis about hot global
political affairs they usually back up the agenda of their Washington-Brussels masters.
But the agenda of the Kremlin is hardly better . The best option is not to listen them
both.
But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption
and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West.
Again, you say this because you simply has a very limited range of sources of information.
You just repeat a made-up image of the Russian government or, precisely, of just one person,
Putin. But this is just an image for the outside (non-Russian) public . You need know
more, much more, form a variety of Russian sources, for a long period of time, and then you
might have not the right, but at least a less distorted view. The actual Russian government,
if we put Putin (pun) aside, is comprised of very ugly, greedy, treacherous, hypocritical people,
I simply cannot find the right words for those bastards. They are utterly disgusting. They
have been ruining the country for the past 25 years.
And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as
like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements
of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position.
And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered
a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia.
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave
her hope,
Putin did not turn out of blue, he was a member of the 1990s robbing elite, he is a continuation
of Yeltsin, I explained it in my other comments colorfully. Not to mention Putin's "team"
are the very same people from the 1990s. Take anybody and they all were doing some ugly things
in the 1990s, but now they are "respected" officials and "businessmen". The only thing he has
done is to hide this ugly truth under the cover. And millions around the world believe his
deceit, how naive.
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas
tattooed on their asses.
If you speaking seriously, what I doubt, then they are a very small, marginal minority.
Since the 2000s being 1488 is a mauvais ton in the Russian national circles, nobody take those
Racial Holy Warriors and fans of Hitler seriously, they are just nutheads.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where
the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent
elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state,
with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while
a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the
West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake
of "earning" money.
Of course, no Russian nationalists want this, even the Nazi nuthead minority. When I said
Israel was taken as an example I meant something like
that .
lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the
Russian nationalists are on about
(they love Putin ; )
No, you cannot accidentally pick up some obscure bulletin boards, hosted on a free-hosting
site, which boards nobody knows and cares about.
The actual whole Russian national movement has been being thought through, discussed and
constructed for many years entirely in Russian, in the Russian part of the internet, and not
in English by some pro-Russian foreigners or Russian emigres.
Vyatrovich has announced the complete de-Russification of Ukraine
The warnings of many experts, namely, that de-communization is just an excuse, the first
preparatory stage or a smokescreen for the principle action, namely the de-Russification of the
Ukraine, has acquired real and official confirmation.
The Director of the so-called Institute of National Memory, Vladimir Vyatrovich, who is,
in fact, the main ideologist of the current regime in Kiev, has announced that the end of
de-communization will conjoin with the start of a campaign for the complete de-Russification of
the Ukraine. De-communization does not solve the basic problem of the Kiev regime, that of a
complete separation from Russia. De-Russification, if it is successful, will make the process
complete.
"We understand that for the formation of the Ukraine as a strong, independent state not
only is de-communization necessary, but also de-Russification", he said.
In 2004 Vyatrovich, a graduate of L'vov University and true son of Galitsia, defended his
doctoral thesis:
"UPA raids beyond the Ukrainian borders as part of the creation of an anti-totalitarian
national-democratic revolution among the nations of East-Central Europe".
He had already had a book published on the same subject in 2001.
It seems that butchering Poles and Jews -- including men, women and children -- was, according
to him, part and parcel of an "anti-totalitarian national-democratic revolution among the
nations of East-Central Europe".
I wonder if he has ever tried to present his thesis in Poland?
I enjoyed this post, Outis, even though I'm going to be a bit critical of it. I am pleased
to just to be able to talk about this stuff from time to time.
In Asimov's original
Foundation
stories, Hari Seldon devised an actual plan for the
future history of an empire.
But historical dialectical materialism is not a plan. It is a theory which one may use to
develop hypotheses.
Does Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection determine which species happen to
survive? Would evolution by natural selection fail to happen, if nobody ever wrote about
it?
So why would Marx's theory of class struggle alter the course of history?
If one reads the
Communist Manifesto
, one finds that the work is almost entirely
devoted to the bourgeoisie and to the history of capitalism.
The bourgeoisie, after centuries of struggle against the nobility, the clergy, and the
petty bourgeoisie, at length became the dominant class in society. Obviously the bourgeoisie
didn't need Marx to help them do that!
Marx hypothesizes that for as long as the bourgeois class is what it is, and does what it
does, a class struggle will result in which proletarians will assume power.
Marx points out that the vast majority of the job of obliterating private property is
actually being performed by the bourgeois class themselves. Marx points out that most of the
job of reducing differences between nations is actually done by the bourgoisie. Marx points
that it's the bourgeoisie who dissolve traditional family institutions.
But that's observation and extrapolation, not a plan. For a revolutionary programme of the
proletariat, Marx only offers a short list of points to consider.
Little of the
Manifesto
is devoted to the subject of the proletariat. That's not
surprising, since proletarian history had scarcely begun.
For the sake of argument, ask yourself how much could one write about bourgeois history,
or bourgeois political prospects, in the 12th century? At that time the Occidental
bourgeoisie was in its political infancy. Few would imagine that these harried, oppressed,
vulgar little burghers would eventually become the dominant class in society. I mean, the
whole notion would seem "not even wrong."
It was difficult for Marx, and it is still difficult for us, to contemplate what a society
would look like, or what life would feel like, if the proletariat were the politically and
culturally dominant class. One only gets tantalizing glimpses, half-fanciful, such as
Orwell's first impression of Barcelona.
To extend my 12th century bourgeois analogy, it would be like trying to envision Planet
Bourgeois, based on a day trip to 12th century Venice.
Marx does offer brief critiques of those socialist programmes which do not focus on the
proletarian class.
For our present purposes, the most interesting of them is Marx's anticipation of the
welfare state, which he refers to as "bourgeois socialism."
For decades after WWII, many in the developed nations thought that the welfare states had
solved the worst problems of capitalism. I used to be one of them. But it took Marx just a
single page of the
Communist Manifesto
to raise, evaluate, and dismiss the idea.
"But historical dialectical materialism is not a plan. It is a theory which one may use
to develop hypotheses.
Does Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection determine which species happen to
survive? Would evolution by natural selection fail to happen, if nobody ever wrote about
it?"
Well said! This is very close to the sort of defense that most MMT theorists deploy–
when critics decry the possible negative consequences of "adopting" their theory. "We are not
proposing, merely describing" is the refrain. I myself have never been a Marxist, yet I find
the historical analysis of some Marxist scholars quite perceptive. In my former life as a
medievalist I often relied heavily on excellent work, authored by conservative Catholics,
without ever feeling the urge to become one myself!
"We are not proposing, merely describing"
Actually, based on what I've seen about it here on NC, that is a misleading half-truth. It's
true that the theory itself is descriptive, and I think true on its face, though I might
quibble with some emphases.
OTOH, the theory is Keynesian: in most examples, at least that we see, it comes with
policy prescriptions – in particular, deficit spending to stimulate the economy
(environmentally a losing proposition) and serve human needs.
What makes the theory interesting and new is that fiat currency, in the modern sense,
hasn't existed very long. I remember when Nixon (a Republican!) took us off the gold standard
– in the 70s, wasn't it. That was when the shackles came off. So people are still
figuring out what it all means.
I suspect that the biggest objection to the theory is that it would delegitimize,
especially, taxation, which depends on largely voluntary compliance. Would people go along
with it if they really thought it didn't "pay for the government," but instead served to
regulate the amount of money in circulation, plus some useful social engineering?
"... Postcards from the End of America has just been released by Seven Stories Press. He maintains an active photo blog . ..."
"... You cannot have nationalism without nation states and nation-states raison d'etre is conflict with each other. This crazy old world has got on rather well with all the scarcity and resultant wars and selfishness and religious or national myths . It wont last long with peace (because there is) plenty . Technology powerful enough to give lifestyles even beyond John Lennon's imaginings to the Western population. I speak of the Singularity. When there is nothing to fight about, there will soon be nothing, or no one, at all. Progress is greasing the skids toward humanity's tomb. ..."
"... Are you aware that Prez Trump ran as an opponent of American empire and pointless intrusion into other nations? ..."
An empire, by nature, must trample on nationhood, even its own, for it presents the empire's
ambitions as the nation's necessities, for how else can you get Americans, for example, to go
die and fight in Afghanistan or Iraq? Though citing love of nation constantly, our Washington
rulers are essentially anti-American, and that's why a genuine nationalist like Edward Snowden
must flee to Russia.
Nationalism is simply the love of one's language, culture, history and heritage, one's very
identity in short, but as wielded by an empire, nationalism becomes a murderous tool to violate
one nation after another. The American empire is destroying the American nation.
Good point about egregious John Lennon and his spaced-out partner Yoko.
When JL was assassinated I mentioned to a class that the same Beatles who preached
forbearance and non-acquisitiveness broke up over petty jealousies and money squabbles. The
class was devastated – for my callousness toward their premier modern day saint!
Your article covered a lot of ground and made many good points- very much appreciated
@Dan
Hayes I like the article, Linh particularly the last sentence and the anti-mixmaster
world sentence in general. 'There is no here' is asinine.
I prefer Brett Ellis, 'Disappear here.'
Ono may be a drip, but some of her pre-Lennon art is very good, I am not talking about Cut
Piece, but sculpture and her mail art, among others.
A few of her early seventies tracks, too.
Arguably, parts of her more recent 'dance' outing.
It is funny, she was very much disliked in Japan (thinking being not 'she broke up the
Beatles' but 'if Lennon had to marry a Japanese woman, why did he not have the good taste to
avoid a spoilt brat drama queen with a couple of fake suicide attempts behind her?')
Don't forget, she was born with a set of golden chopsticks, i.e, very wealthy, which is
why she could afford to live as she did before she met Lennon. Never a day of work.
That has all changed, with her John Lennon museum in Saitama and all, media are non-stop
positive nowadays.
His relationship with her, a little sick, vis. the photo of him naked in foetal pose in
front of clothed and unbent Ono.
Nationalism is simply the love of one's language, culture, history and heritage, one's
very identity in short, but as wielded by an empire, nationalism becomes a murderous tool
to violate one nation after another. The American empire is destroying the American
nation.
You cannot have nationalism without nation states and nation-states raison
d'etre is conflict with each other. This crazy old world has got on rather well with all
the scarcity and resultant wars and selfishness and religious or national myths . It wont
last long with peace (because there is) plenty . Technology powerful enough to give
lifestyles even beyond John Lennon's imaginings to the Western population. I speak of the
Singularity. When there is nothing to fight about, there will soon be nothing, or no one, at
all. Progress is greasing the skids toward humanity's tomb.
You gonna dox me again? Not that it matters. I'm retired and can't be blacklisted. Nor can
I be easily found. Sold out everything in retirement and virtually vanished from recorded
existence.
Religion is also part of the deal. Religion is the oral history of our fathers and their
fathers. It is the story of where we come from.
Are you aware that Prez Trump ran as an opponent of American empire and pointless
intrusion into other nations?
"Imagine no possessions"
You can only completely disdain materialism if you are absurdly rich. Lennon had a
refrigerated room for his fur coats. I've only seen the attitude of "wouldn't it be great if
we could live without money" among the rich. It's especially common in upper middle class
students. The most anti-materialist religion – Buddhism – came from a bored
prince.
"Imagine there's no countries"
I'm imagining it, John, and it's pretty horrific. Borders are the last thing protecting
countries from being a mush of multiculturalist capitalist slop protecting us from selling
our inheritance for a globalist mess of pottage. Starbucks and Sharia. This 'no countries'
idea can only come from a transnational elite. It can only be believed by natives who are
deracinated from their own culture, or newcomers who are escaping some shithole.
You are absolutely dead on with this essay. I point out to "nationalist" friends who like
this song and then they change their minds "Imagine no country" or "nothing to die for"? I
may as well ignore my chain of ancestry "god willing!"
Ukraine periodically tries sweet talk to lure the east back, but the time to do that was immediately
after the Maidan – instead, nationalist fervor gripped the capital and giddy nationalists went
hard the other way with proclamations that they would delegitimize the Russian language. If anything
about those lunatic days can be said to have been the catalyst which set subsequent events in
motion, the fatal mistake, that was it. The mayor of Lvov, no less, made a speech the very next
day – in perfect colloquial Russian – in which he tried to walk back the disaster and reassure
the easterners that there would not be legal action to discriminate against them because of their
habitual language, but the die was cast and it was too late.
Had the nationalists not had their way or had they not given in to the temptation to indulge
their hatred of Russia and everything about it, there is every chance regime change would have
succeeded in gathering Ukraine to the EU's bosom. Russia might still have made a grab for Crimea,
and for me it would still have been legitimate since it was once part of Russia and was never
ceded legally to Ukraine as its other territories were. But the stab in the back over the use
of Russian, which once again was only a treat the nationalists foolishly allowed themselves as
a reward for victory, provided a perfect catalyst for rebellion and the rapid decision-making
it entails. I would be willing to bet Washington and the State Department are still cursing over
that tactical blunder, since they are now lumbered with the great corrupt mass of Ukraine, with
an active rebellion simmering on its eastern edge, but without the sparkling prize of Crimea.
I don't know if Putin actually said he did not want to be welcomed by NATO sailors in Sevastopol,
as he is reputed to have done, but that most certainly was part of the plan.
This is a very good comment. I think you caught the essence of what happened. Nationalists first
destroyed the country territorial integrity, and after that, they destroyed its economics. Essentially
acting as US stooges, helping the USA to achieve its geopolitical goals (and Ukraine remains the
major geopolitical victory of Obama administration).
Now the majority of Ukrainians exist on around $2 a day. So the social explosion is possible.
And they continue digging the hole deeper and deeper. This is a real Ukrainian tragedy: they managed
to replicate all the horrors of 90th again.
Also, idealization of the West promoted by nationalists serves as a trap, consequences of which
are yet to come. Being Germany resource base is not a walk in the park. Ask Bulgarians about this
experience. Or Greece.
At the same time Donbas tragedy was partially the result of Putin's policy (or lack thereof)
because there was a vague promise that if on the referendum they vote for joining Russia they
will be accepted like Crimea. But he decided not do that. Or, most probably, somebody helped Putin
to decide that way. Of course, after Yeltsin drunk orgy Russia remains weak and can't challenge
the USA directly. And that would do just that. But truth be told after Odessa civilians burning
in the building all Eastern Ukraine up to Kiev was probably ready to accept Russians as liberators.
At least nationalists in Kharkov felt that the city has been already lost.
I talked with a couple of Ukrainian refugees from Donbas area and they were not actually too
exited about Putin's policy and think that he shares the blame with nationalists.
This was a trap that helped to provoke the civil war: the USA pushed for the military solution.
May be in order to destabilize the region, and by extension, Russia, which they incorrectly consider
the main geopolitical enemy after China. But as a result, they destroyed remnants of Ukrainian
economics, and now somebody needs to pick the bill. This process of deindustrialization is continuing
as Ukraine lost the major market for its production. 300% devaluation of grivna reflects just
that. Just think about it: 300% in three years: from 8 to a dollar to 26
In essence, the USA position on Donbas conflict was to the right of Ukrainian nationalists.
Especially US neocons like Nuland and McCain. I remember Yatsenyuk speech (in Russian) at this
time in which he backtracked from "Ukrainian language uber alles" position; might be a tactical
maneuver, but still
In any case, Ukraine remains the worst defeat of Putin in foreign policy area for his whole
term in office (Libya was under Medvedev). And the major geopolitical victory for the USA. Nobody
cares if Ukrainians will starve. And if Russia stops transiting of gas as they plan to do, the
economic situation in Ukraine will become much worse. At this point they might arrive as close
to the failed state as one can get.
Thank you, likbez. Yes, Putin several times referred carelessly to 'Novorossiya', which created
the impression that Russia was considering accepting it. Also, he obtained the advance approval
of the Duma to conduct military operations as he saw fit in order to protect eastern-Ukrainian
ethnic Russians. That was perhaps the biggest mistake he ever made, and he withdrew it, but it
was too late and it very much played into western hands. Washington was able to portray Russia
as ready to invade Ukraine, and it was convincing.
I think Putin has known all along that eastern
Ukraine would be an asset as a frozen conflict, like Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in Georgia,
whereas if Russia were to take them in they would be a liability, as Russia would be forced to
defend them. But those former Donbas residents who grumble because Putin did not absorb eastern
Ukraine should ask themselves if they would be better off if Kiev won and subjugated them, and
they joined the people who are living on a couple of bucks a day. Russian commerce still goes
on with the east, but not with the rest of Ukraine.
And it's true Ukraine represents a major defeat for Russia, but there was little Russia could
have done to stop it. Russia was not going to go to war against NATO to prevent it from seizing
Ukraine, but NATO is not likely to go to war to hold on to it, either. Russia played by the rules
and stayed out of what it labeled Ukraine's business, but the west had no such scruples, and it
meddled, meddled, meddled and instigated a coup. Only a coup will take it back.
"... And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War 3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North Korea problem and Syria, so they U.S. has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their cooperation. ..."
"... Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times ..."
"... Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force, an opportunity described by Foreign Policy ..."
"... What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior CIA analyst Paul Pillar sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking" of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel, both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf. ..."
"... You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel. Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort to false flag operations to start a war with Iran. ..."
"... The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican opponents will not let him. ..."
"... That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not withstanding. ..."
"... The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard. ..."
"... Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago. ..."
"... The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest. ..."
"... The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer. ..."
"... Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them. ..."
"... There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them? Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals. ..."
"... Mattis still seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt. Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential. ..."
"... Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that. ..."
"... Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control. Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new resistance. ..."
"... And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway. If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country. ..."
"... The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans. ..."
It is one of the great ironies that the United States, a land mass protected by two broad oceans
while also benefitting from the world's largest economy and most powerful military, persists in viewing
itself as a potential victim, vulnerable and surrounded by enemies. In reality, there are only two
significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists of the only two non-friendly countries
– Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery systems that could hit the North American
continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous danger represented by international terrorism.
And even given that, I would have to qualify the nature of the threats. Russia and China are
best described as adversaries or competitors rather than enemies as they have compelling interests
to avoid war, even if Washington is doing its best to turn them hostile. Neither has anything to
gain and much to lose by escalating a minor conflict into something that might well start World War
3. Indeed, both have strong incentives to avoid doing so, which makes the actual threat that they
represent more speculative than real. And, on the plus side, both can be extremely useful in dealing
with international issues where Washington has little or no leverage, to include resolving the North
Korea problem and Syria, so they U.S. has considerable benefits to be gained by cultivating their
cooperation.
Also, I would characterize international terrorism as a faux threat at a national level, though
one that has been exaggerated through the media and fearmongering to such an extent that it appears
much more dangerous than it actually is. It has been observed that more Americans are killed by falling
furniture than by terrorists in a year but terrorism has a particularly potency due to its unpredictability
and the fear that it creates. Due to that fear, American governments and businesses at all levels
have been willing to spend a trillion dollars per annum to defeat what might rationally be regarded
as a relatively minor problem.
So if the United States were serious about dealing with or deflecting the actual threats against
the American people it could first of all reduce its defense expenditures to make them commensurate
with the actual threat before concentrating on three things. First, would be to establish a solid
modus vivendi with Russia and China to avoid conflicts of interest that could develop into
actual tit-for-tat escalation. That would require an acceptance by Washington of the fact that both
Moscow and Beijing have regional spheres of influence that are defined by their interests. You don't
have to like the governance of either country, but their national interests have to be appreciated
and respected just as the United States has legitimate interests within its own hemisphere that must
be respected by Russia and China.
Second, Washington must, unfortunately, continue to spend on the Missile Defense Agency, which
supports anti-missile defenses if the search for a modus vivendi for some reason fails.
Mutual assured destruction is not a desirable strategic doctrine but being able to intercept incoming
missiles while also having some capability to strike back if attacked is a realistic deterrent given
the proliferation of nations that have both ballistic missiles and nukes.
Third and finally, there would be a coordinated program aimed at international terrorism based
equally on where the terror comes from and on physically preventing the terrorist attacks from taking
place. This is the element in national defense that is least clear cut. Dealing with Russia and China
involves working with mature regimes that have established diplomatic and military channels. Dealing
with terrorist non-state players is completely different as there are generally speaking no such
channels.
It should in theory be pretty simple to match threats and interests with actions since there are
only a handful that really matter, but apparently it is not so in practice. What is Washington doing?
First of all, the White House is deliberately turning its back on restoring a good working relationship
with Russia by insisting that Crimea be returned to Kiev, by blaming Moscow for the continued unrest
in Donbas, and by attacking Syrian military targets in spite of the fact that Russia is an ally of
the legitimate government in Damascus and the United States is an interloper in the conflict. Meanwhile
congress and the media are poisoning the waters through their dogged pursuit of Russiagate for political
reasons even though nearly a year of investigation has produced no actual evidence of malfeasance
on the part of U.S. officials and precious little in terms of Moscow's alleged interference.
Playing tough to the international audience has unfortunately become part of the American Exceptionalism
DNA. Upon his arrival in Warsaw last week, Donald Trump
doubled down on the Russia-bashing,
calling on Moscow to "cease its destabilizing activities in Ukraine and elsewhere and its support
for hostile regimes including Syria and Iran." He then recommended that Russia should "join the community
of responsible nations in our fight against common enemies and in defense of civilization itself."
The comments in Warsaw were unnecessary, even if the Poles wanted to hear them, and were both
highly insulting and ignorant. It was not a good start for Donald's second overseas trip, even though
the speech has otherwise been interpreted as a welcome defense of Western civilization and European
values. Trump also followed up with a two hour plus discussion with President Vladimir Putin in which
the two apparently agreed to differ on the alleged Russian hacking of the American election. The
Trump-Putin meeting indicated that restoring some kind of working relationship with Russia is still
possible, as it is in everyone's interest to do so.
Fighting terrorism is quite another matter and the United States approach is the reverse of what
a rational player would be seeking to accomplish. The U.S. is rightly assisting in the bid to eradicate
ISIS in Syria and Iraq but it is simultaneously attacking the most effective fighters against that
group, namely the Syrian government armed forces and the Shi'ite militias being provided by Iran
and Hezbollah. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that at least some in the Trump Administration
are seeking to use the Syrian engagement as a stepping stone to war with Iran.
As was the case in the months preceding the ill-fated invasion of Iraq in 2003, all buttons are
being pushed to vilify Iran. Recent reports suggest that two individuals in the White House in particular
have been pressuring the Trump administration's generals to escalate U.S. involvement in Syria to
bring about a war with Tehran sooner rather than later. They are Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Derek Harvey,
reported to be holdovers from the team brought into the White House by the virulently anti-Iranian
former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.
Cohen-Watnick is thirty years old and
has little relevant experience for the position he holds, senior director for intelligence on
the National Security Council. But his inexperience counts for little as he is good friend of son-in-law
Jared Kushner. He has told the New York Times that "wants to use American spies to help
oust the Iranian government," a comment that reflects complete ignorance, both regarding Iran and
also concerning spy agency capabilities. His partner in crime Harvey, a former military officer who
advised General David Petraeus when he was in Iraq, is the NSC advisor on the Middle East.
Both Cohen-Watnick and Harvey share the neoconservative belief that the Iranians and their
proxies in Syria and Iraq need to be confronted by force,
an opportunity described by Foreign Policy magazine as having developed into "a pivotal
moment that will determine whether Iran or the United States exerts influence over Iraq and Syria."
Other neocon promoters of conflict with Iran have described their horror at a possible Shi'ite "bridge"
or "land corridor" through the Arab heartland, running from Iran itself through Iraq and Syria and
connecting on the Mediterranean with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
What danger to the U.S. or its actual treaty allies an Iranian influenced land corridor would
constitute remains a mystery but there is no shortage of Iran haters in the White House. Former senior
CIA analyst Paul Pillar
sees "unrelenting hostility from the Trump administration" towards Iran and notes "cherry-picking"
of the intelligence to make a case for war, similar to what occurred with Iraq in 2002-3. And even
though Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster have pushed
back against the impulsive Cohen-Watnick and Harvey, their objections are tactical as they do not
wish to make U.S. forces in the region vulnerable to attacks coming from a new direction. Otherwise
they too consider Iran as America's number one active enemy and believe that war is inevitable. Donald
Trump has unfortunately also jumped directly into the argument on the side of Saudi Arabia and Israel,
both of which would like to see Washington go to war with Tehran on their behalf.
The problem with the Trump analysis is that he has his friends and enemies confused. He is actually
supporting Saudi Arabia, the source of most of the terrorism that has convulsed Western Europe and
the United States while also killing hundreds of thousands of fellow Muslims. Random terrorism to
kill as many "infidels and heretics" as possible to create fear is a Sunni Muslim phenomenon, supported
financially and doctrinally by the Saudis. To be sure, Iran has used terror tactics to eliminate
opponents and select targets overseas, to include several multiple-victim bombings, but it has never
engaged in anything like the recent series of attacks in France and Britain. So the United States
is moving seemingly inexorably towards war with a country that itself constitutes no actual terrorist
threat, unless it is attacked, in support of a country that very much is part of the threat and also
on behalf of Israel, which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against Iran rather
that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not
only involve coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some serious
thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all over Asia
and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have a go. Saudi financing
and Washington's propensity to go to war and thereby create a deep well of hatred just might be the
principal causative elements in the rise of global terrorism. Do I think that Donald Trump's White
House has the courage to take such a step and change direction? Unfortunately, no.
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire.
By the height of the Victorian era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half
of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was pro-Arabic/Islamic. And by the
time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house of Saud. So,
our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world, including
all the whites ruled by WASP Elites.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists
of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery
systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous
danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW
and may drastically alter parts of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster,
but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their
kind to Anglo nations. Unlike Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still
growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops
that turned Detroit into a hellhole. It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma,
Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive
purposes only. The real missiles that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to
destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of cold war. But millions of Negro
puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so
potent that even Japanese women are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these
kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with few blacks is turning like this,
imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering
the white race and spreading the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW
will be the real undoing of the West.
Besides what Priss Factor said above the following is to be reinforced with every real
American man, woman and child.
Israel , which for its part would prefer to see Americans die in a war against
Iran rather that sacrificing its own sons and daughters.
Israel, the REAL enemy! ,
@K India is looking to unload hindus to U.S? Quite the opposite. India is 'losing' its
best brains to the U.S so its trying to attract them back to their country. For eg: The
chief- architect of IBM's watson is a hindu indian and so is the head of IBM's neuro-morphic
computing. These people are advancing western technology.... civilian and also defense (IBM
is collaborating with the american defense organisation DARPA) instead of helping india
achieve technological competence. And most of other super intelligent indians also india
is losing them to the west.
(i dont hate the west for doing that. Any country in amercia's place would have done
the same. It is india's job to keep its best brains working for it and not for others. And
india is trying its best to do that albeit unsuccessfully.)
100 Words #UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op,
Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign influence on US. Also, check out Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG – Robert David Steele Weekly Update
@Durruti Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed - with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet - both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish
it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military
financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated
the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his
government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian
civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by
encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare
subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers
$13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard
working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability.
Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion.
This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of
the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest
rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as
their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain
700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest
of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent
on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared
by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as
with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates
a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured.
The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic
and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population;
the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress,
is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the
Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government,
with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices
for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous
debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student
Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and
in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the
1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth
would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful
government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of
speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means
economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free
people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal
politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian
governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists
of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery
systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous
danger represented by international terrorism.
You forgot the third significant potential threat from a friendly nation, i.e. Israel.
Israel will sabotage any effort to normallize relations with Russia or even Iran. They will resort
to false flag operations to start a war with Iran.
The problem with this White House, as well as the previous ones, is that none of the so-called
experts really understand the Middle East. The US is not interested in having friendly relations
with all nations. All her efforts are towards one goal, the world domination. Even if President
Trump wanted to normalize relations with Russia, the MSM, the democrats, as well as, his republican
opponents will not let him.
That is why the constan drumbeat of Russia's meddling in the 2016 election despite the
fact that no proof has been given so far. Similarly, the "Iran has nuclear weapons" narrative
is constantly repeated, the reports by IAEA and the 17 Intelligence Agencies to the contrary not
withstanding.
The elevation of Muhammad bin Salman to the Crown Prince position will only make the Middle
East situation worse. Israel will be able to manipulate him much more easily than the old guard.
The western world is dependent on oil, especially ME oil. Saudi Arabia was made the USA's main
oil supplier at the end of 1944. The Saud dynasty depends on the USA. That the Sauds would sponsor
terrorism, why would they ? And which terrorism is Muslim terrorism ?
Sept 11 not, Boston not,
Madrid and London very questionably. We then are left with minor issues, the Paris shooting the
biggest. That Saudi Arabia is waging war in Yemen certainly is with USA support. The Saudi army
does what the USA wants them to do.
Mr. Giraldi, you forgot to mention Israel as one of America's biggest liabilities besides Saudi
Arabia. But with such amateur dramatics in the White House and on the Security Council, the US
is destined for war but only against the wrong enemy such as Iran. If the Saudis and the right-wing
Netanyahu regime want to get after Iran they should do it alone. They surely will get a bloody
nose. Americans have shed enough blood for these rascal regimes. President Trump should continue
with his rapprochement towards Russia because both nation states have more in common than expected.
I'm a little disappointed in this article. Not that it's a bad article per se: perfectly rational,
reasonable, academic even. But unfortunately, it's simply naive.
"Realizing who the real enemy actually is and addressing the actual terrorism problem would not
only involve coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia rather than Iran, it would also require some
serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all
over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Realize who the real enemy is ? Come down hard on the Saud's ? No -- really ?
The titanic elephant in the room -- that US foreign policy is not governed by "rationality"
but by "special interests" seems .missing. Israel, the Saudi's themselves, the MIC & so on & so
forth ARE the special interests who literally "realise" US Policy.
200 Words Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those
who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members.
Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the
"White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure
captured by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass
media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing
any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media.
But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins,
grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing
will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using
terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan
and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this
question.)
I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag affair
covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any of
it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? ,
"The White House is targeting Iran but should instead focus on Saudi Arabia"
Trump has no control of most government functions, particularly foreign affairs. The Deep
State takes care of that for him. The Deep State has been calling the shots for decades and all
Presidents who weren't assassinated have complied. Democracies never work and ours quit long ago.
I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand why Saudi
Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has been
so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status
was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control.
Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally
also has the all the oil reserves.
USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted
it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw.
It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against
the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical
left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The
Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new
resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway.
If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't
be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood – "it would also require some
serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all
over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because
the pro-Arabic/Islamic English Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and
the House of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud,
Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use
blacks to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
In reality, there are only two significant potential threats to the U.S. The first consists
of the only two non-friendly countries – Russia and China – that have nuclear weapons and delivery
systems that could hit the North American continent and the second is the somewhat more amorphous
danger represented by international terrorism.
No, the only threats are the following three:
Too many Meso-Americans invading from the border. These people have totally changed the SW
and may drastically alter parts of US as well. This is an invasion. Meso-Americans are lackluster,
but Too Many translates into real power, especially in elections.
The other threat is Hindu-Indian. Indians are just itching to unload 100s of millions of their
kind to Anglo nations. Unlike Chinese population that is plummeting, Indian population is still
growing.
The other threat, biggest of all, is the Negro. It's not Russian missiles or Chinese troops
that turned Detroit into a hellhole. It is Negroes. And look at Baltimore, New Orleans, Selma,
Memphis, Oakland, St. Louis, South Side Chicago, etc.
Afromic Bomb is more hellish than atomic bomb. Compare Detroit and Hiroshima.
Also, even though nukes are deadly, they will likely never be used. They are for defensive
purposes only. The real missiles that will destroy the West is the Afro penis. US has nukes to
destroy the world, but they haven't been used even during peak of cold war. But millions of Negro
puds have impregnanted and colonized white wombs to kill white-babies-that-could-have-been and
replaced them with mulatto Negro kids who will turn out like Colin Kapernick.
The real missile gap is the threat posed by negro dong on white dong. The negro dong is so
potent that even Japanese women are going Negroid and having kids with Negro men and raising these
kids as 'Japanese' to beat up real Japanese. So, if Japan with few blacks is turning like this,
imagine the threat posed by Negroes on whites in the West.
Look at youtube of street life and club life in Paris and London. Negro missiles are conquering
the white race and spreading the savage genes.
Look how Polish women welcomed the Negro missile cuz they are infected with jungle fever. ACOWW
will be the real undoing of the West.
Replies:
@Sowhat And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are connected. The deposing of our
puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural resources. I have the impression
that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their coast and the decades
long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
The BIGGEST threat to the USA is from within, as we are nothing more than an occupied
colony of Apartheid Israel, paying that bastard state tributes each year in the form of free money
and weapons, political backing at the UN, and never tire of fighting her wars of conquest.
You
won't see Israeli troops in the streets, since their confederates control the economy thru their
control of the FED and US Treasury and most of those TBTF banks, which we always bail out, no
matter the cost.
The also have a choke-hold on Congress, which is always eager to wag their tail and hope their
Yid Overlord gives them a treat and not a dressing-down in the Jew MSM, which is a career killer.
The WH is also Israeli territory, especially now with a Jew NYC slumlord now Trump's top adviser
and his fashion model faux Jew daughter egging Daddy on to kill more Arab babies, since she can't
stand the sight of dead babies
@Paul Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those
who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members.
Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the
"White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element of the power structure
captured by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass
media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing
any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media.
But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins,
grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing
will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using
terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan
and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this
question.) I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false flag
affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if any
of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report?
@eah The WH should focus on the USA. And what grudge is that? The only two I can find are
connected. The deposing of our puppets, the Assads and the nationalization of their natural resources.
I have the impression that it removes around future hegemon and the rich gas reserves off their
coast and the decades long desire to run a pipeline west to the Mediterranean.
Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES. Once again,
Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems
to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked. In fact, one could safely
argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as
"lesser human beings", or in Judaism's take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be
used for the advantage of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who
transgress against "outsiders"–goyim or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments
against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective "tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who
has a disagreement with an "outsider" will always have the advantage of a judicial system which
almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of
the world should follow, demanding that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that
they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands moslems (who are guests
in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran you will find virtually identical passages that demonize
and marginalize those of us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses
Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel has the right to define
and defend her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi says above. No nation
or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial
similarities between Islam and Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that
the Jewish genome is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians--except for that of
Ashkenazi Jews who are more than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with
their European half whereby they acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest
contributions to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can go with their
atavistic Semitic side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture,
Drama and Music or blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now
dwell in the ME where if they try to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their
neighbors as apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe. ,
@bjondo Jews/Judaism bring death, destruction, misery.
Muslims/Islam (minus Western creation of "Muslim"terrorists) brought golden ages to many
areas.
Christianity and Islam elevate the human spirit. Judaism degrades.
June 7, 2017 We Have Met the Evil Empire and It Is Us
Life in America was pure injustice, the
lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford and Rockefeller
Foundations who "re-invented" America and its history through taking control of public education
in the late 1940s. You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned.
The threat represented by advances in communications and other technology was recognized and dealt
with, utterly quashed at birth.
@anarchyst Israel's current "agreements" and its "kowtowing" to Saudi Arabia speaks VOLUMES.
Once again, Israel is about to get others to do their "dirty work" for them.
The point that everybody seems to miss is the fact that Judaism and Islam are inextricably linked.
In fact, one could safely argue that Islam is an arabicized form of Judaism.
1. Both Judaism
and Islam promote their own forms of supremacy, relegating non-adherents as "lesser human beings",
or in Judaism's take "no better than livestock, albeit with souls, to be used for the advantage
of the jew".
2. Both systems proscribe lesser (or no) punishment for those of each respective "tribe" who
transgress against "outsiders"--goyim or infidels. Both systems proscribe much harsher punishments
against "outsiders" who transgress against those of each respective "tribe".
3. When it comes to "equality under law", Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia, as a jew who
has a disagreement with an "outsider" will always have the advantage of a judicial system which
almost always rules for the jew.
4. Both Judaism and Islam have taken it upon themselves to be arbiters of what the rest of
the world should follow, demanding that "outsiders" conform to what THEY believe, thinking that
they know what is best (for the rest of us). Just look at the demands moslems (who are guests
in western Europe) make of local non-moslem populations.
Read the jewish Talmud and islamic Koran...you will find virtually identical passages that
demonize and marginalize those of us who are "goyim" or "infidels".
A pox on both their houses... Now before I say what I'm going to say I want to say that Israel
has the right to define and defend her interests just as China, Russia and USA do, as Geraldi
says above. No nation or people can be denied this (without force).
Having said that, I am grateful to you, anarchyst, for having pointed out the familial similarities
between Islam and Judaism. In addition to what you say there is the fact that the Jewish genome
is virtually identical to that of the Palestinians–except for that of Ashkenazi Jews who are more
than half European.
As far as I can see, Ashkenazi Jews have an existential choice. They can identify with their
European half whereby they acknowledge that the Greeks and not Moses made the greatest contributions
to humanity (and more particularly, their humanity) or they can go with their atavistic Semitic
side and regress to barbarism. Science, Logic, Math, History, Architecture, Drama and Music or
blowing up Buddhas and shrouding your women. Take your pick.
Of course, this is sorta unfair in as much as they were kicked out of Europe and now dwell
in the ME where if they try to act like Europeans they will be persecuted by their neighbors as
apostates. The Jews do indeed have a tough row to hoe.
Trump is torn between Israel's permanent need to weaken its powerful neighbors (Iraq, Iran) and
the necessity to protect the USA from terrorists attacks.
Iran is an hypothetical threat to
Israel, Saudi Arabia has proven to be a threat to the world.
In Tehran and other Iranian cities including Iran's holiest, that is, most conservative cities
like Mashad. there are taxi companies owned and run by women.
Tehran traffic makes NYC look like Mayberry RFD; many Iranians use small motorcycles to commute
and take care of daily chores. It's not at all uncommon to see an Iranian woman in full chador
driving a motorcycle with a child and parcels in tow.
Iranian women could offer to teach the women of Saudi Arabia to drive.
@Wizard of Oz I am beginning to get interested in why some people are sure 9/11 was a false
flag affair covered up by a lot of lies. So may I try my opening question on you. How much, if
any of it, have you read of the official 9/11 commission report? A better question: Have YOU read
The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation by Phillip Shenon?
There's no alternative to Saudi royal family rule of the peninsula. Who's there to replace them?
Any other group, assuming there might be one somewhere waiting in the wings, would probably be
anti-American and not as compliant as the Saudis. They've spent gigantic sums in the endless billions
buying military equipment from the US, weapons they can't even fully use, as a way of making themselves
indispensable customers. Many other billions of petrodollars find their way westward into our
financial systems. They collaborate with the US in various schemes throughout the Muslim world
using their intelligence services and money in furtherance of US goals.
They live the royal life thanks to being able to use the money from their nation's resource
wealth as their own personal kitty, living in palaces, buying obscene amounts of jewelry and other
luxury goods, and so on. They'll never give that up and being a close ally of the US affords them
protection which of course they pay for. They may be seen as an enemy by the average person but
not at the elite level with whom they all consort and roll around in the money with.
Mattis still
seems stuck with his Iran obsession. Shame I thought he had the intellectual curiosity to adapt.
Trump has good instincts, I hope Tillerson comes to the fore, and Bannon stays influential.
Iran is US enemy #1 not only because it is against that country smaller than New Jersey
with less people (Israel) but also because Iran has been a model for other countries to follow
because of its intransigence to US oppression and attacks, financial political and cyber. As the
world becomes multi-polar, Iran's repeated wise reactions to the world hegemon have been an inspiration
to China and others to go their own way. The US can't stand that.
@Paul Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those
who planned the 9/11 false flag. Those who sent the Anthrax letters to resisting congress members.
Those who pre-planned the wars of aggression in the whole middle east.
So any appeal to the "White House" is almost pointless since the White House is one element
of the power structure captured by the war-criminal lunatics.
To change something people in the US should at first stop buying their war criminal lying mass
media.
Then they should stop supporting ANY foreign intervention by the US and should stop believing
any of the preposterous lies released by the media, the state dept., or any other neocon outlet.
Actually Trump was probably elected because he said he was anti-intervention and anti-media.
But did it help?
The US needs mass resistance (demonstrations, strikes, boycotts, non-participation, sit-ins,
grass-root information, or whatever) against their neocon/zionist/mafia/cia power groups or nothing
will change.
We need demonstrations against NATO, against war, against false flag terrorism, against using
terrorists as secret armies, against war propaganda!
B.t.w. Iran has always been one of the main goals. Think of it: Why did the US attack Afghanistan
and Iraq? What have those two countries in common? (Hint: a look on the map helps to answer this
question.) "Well, the real enemy of the people are the real terrorists behind the scenes. Those
who planned the 9/11 false flag."
Saudi Arabia is THE worst nation in the Middle East.
Why does the US follow along blindly? Well, it is a WASP thing. We are the new Brit Empire.
By the height of the Victorian era, virtually all English Elites were philoSemitic. Roughly half
of the UK WASP Elite philoSemitism was pro-Jewish and half was pro-Arabic/Islamic.
And by the time of WW1, the English Elite pro-Arabic/Islamic faction came to adore the house
of Saud.
So, our foreign policy is merely WASP culture continuing to ruin most of the rest of the world,
including all the whites ruled by WASP Elites. SECOND worst,my friend.
@Chad I fully agree that attacking Iran would be yet another disaster but I don't understand
why Saudi Arabia is portrayed as an 'enemy', the 'real' one, no less, in alt-media circles like
this.
I mean let's be honest with ourselves. KSA is the definition of a vassal state. Has
been so since the state established established relations with the USA in the 1940s and the status
was confirmed during the 1960s under King Faisal. Oil for security.
Why pretend that they have any operational clearance from the US?
Contrary to the popular view, Wahabism is necessary to keep the local population under control.
Particularly the minority Shia population who live along the eastern coast, an area, which incidentally
also has the all the oil reserves. USA fully understands this. Which is why they not only tolerated Wahabism, but strongly promoted
it during Afghan jihad. The operation was by and large very successful btw. It was only during the '90s when religion became the new ideology for the resistance against
the empire across the Muslim world. Zero surprise there because the preceding ideology, radical
left wing politics was completely defeated. Iran became the first country in this pattern. The
Iranian left was decimated by the Shah, another vassal. So the religious right became the new
resistance.
And as far as the KSA is considered, Wahabi preachers aren't allowed to attack the USA anyway.
If any individual preacher so much as makes a squeak, he will be bent over a barrel. There won't
be any "coming down very hard on Saudi Arabia" because USA already owns that country.
So what's the answer? Well, props to Phillip as he understood - "it would also require some
serious thinking in the White House about the extent to which America's armed interventions all
over Asia and Africa have made many people hate us enough to strap on a suicide vest and have
a go."
Bingo. Your analysis starts too late. The US supports Wahhabism and the House of Saud because
the pro-Arabic/Islamic English Elites of 1910 and 1920 and 1935 supported Wahhabism and the House
of Saud.
The British Empire 'made' the House of Saud. Thinking it wise to use Wahhabism to control Shia Islam is like thinking it wise to use blacks
to control the criminal tendencies of Mexicans.
1,000 Words
@RobinG#UNRIG adds AMERICA FIRST, NOT ISRAEL to Agenda.
..................."A.I.P.A.C.. you're outta business!"
Due to slanderous attacks by a Mossad internet psy-op, Steele now prioritizes Israeli malign
influence on US. Also, check out Cynthia McKinney's twitter.
#UNRIG - Robert David Steele Weekly Update Nice action approach to cure ills of society.
Enclosing copy of flier we have distributed – with a similar approach at a cure.
*Flier distributed is adjusted & a bit more attractive (1 sheet – both sides).
The key is to Restore the Republic, which was definitively destroyed on November 22, 1963.
Feel free to contact.
Use this, or send me a note by way of a response.
For THE RESTORATION OF THE REPUBLIC
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form
of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish
it and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles "
The above is a portion of the Declaration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson.
We submit the following facts to the citizens of the United States.
The government of the United States has been a Totalitarian Oligarchy since the military
financial aristocracy destroyed the Democratic Republic on November 22, 1963 , when they assassinated
the last democratically elected president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy , and overthrew his
government. All following governments have been unconstitutional frauds. Attempts by Robert
Kennedy and Martin Luther King to restore the Republic were interrupted by their murder.
A subsequent 12 year colonial war against Vietnam , conducted by the murderers of Kennedy,
left 2 million dead in a wake of napalm and burning villages.
In 1965, the U.S. government orchestrated the slaughter of 1 million unarmed Indonesian
civilians.
In the decade that followed the CIA murdered 100,000 Native Americans in Guatemala .
In the 1970s, the Oligarchy began the destruction and looting of America's middle class, by
encouraging the export of industry and jobs to parts of the world where workers were paid bare
subsistence wages. The 2008, Bailout of the Nation's Oligarchs cost American taxpayers
$13trillion. The long decline of the local economy has led to the political decline of our hard
working citizens, as well as the decay of cities, towns, and infrastructure, such as education.
The impoverishment of America's middle class has undermined the nation's financial stability.
Without a productive foundation, the government has accumulated a huge debt in excess of $19trillion.
This debt will have to be paid, or suffered by future generations. Concurrently, the top 1% of
the nation's population has benefited enormously from the discomfiture of the rest. The interest
rate has been reduced to 0, thereby slowly robbing millions of depositors of their savings, as
their savings cannot stay even with the inflation rate.
The government spends the declining national wealth on bloody and never ending military adventures,
and is or has recently conducted unconstitutional wars against 9 nations. The Oligarchs maintain
700 military bases in 131 countries; they spend as much on military weapons of terror as the rest
of the nations of the world combined. Tellingly, more than half the government budget is spent
on the military and 16 associated secret agencies.
The nightmare of a powerful centralized government crushing the rights of the people, so feared
by the Founders of the United States, has become a reality. The government of Obama/Biden, as
with previous administrations such as Bush/Cheney, and whoever is chosen in November 2016, operates
a Gulag of dozens of concentration camps, where prisoners are denied trials, and routinely tortured.
The Patriot Act and The National Defense Authorizations Act , enacted by both Democratic
and Republican factions of the oligarchy, serve to establish a legal cover for their terror.
The nation's media is controlled, and, with the school systems, serve to brainwash the population;
the people are intimidated and treated with contempt.
The United States is No longer Sovereign
The United States is no longer a sovereign nation. Its government, The Executive, and Congress,
is bought, utterly owned and controlled by foreign and domestic wealthy Oligarchs, such as the
Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and Duponts , to name only a few of the best known.
The 2016 Electoral Circus will anoint new actors to occupy the same Unconstitutional Government,
with its controlling International Oligarchs. Clinton, Trump, whomever, are willing accomplices
for imperialist international murder, and destruction of nations, including ours.
For Love of Country
The Restoration of the Republic will be a Revolutionary Act, that will cancel all previous
debts owed to that unconstitutional regime and its business supporters. All debts, including Student
Debts, will be canceled. Our citizens will begin, anew, with a clean slate.
As American Founder , Thomas Jefferson wrote, in a letter to James Madison:
"I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, 'that the earth belongs in usufruct
to the living':"
"Then I say the earth belongs to each of these generations, during it's course, fully, and
in their own right. The 2d. Generation receives it clear of the debts and incumberances of the
1st. The 3d of the 2d. and so on. For if the 1st. Could charge it with a debt, then the earth
would belong to the dead and not the living generation."
Our Citizens must restore the centrality of the constitution, establishing a less powerful
government which will ensure President Franklin Roosevelt's Four Freedoms , freedom of
speech and expression, freedom to worship God in ones own way, freedom from want "which means
economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peace time life for its inhabitants
" and freedom from fear "which means a world-wide reduction of armaments "
Once restored: The Constitution will become, once again, the law of the land and of a free
people. We will establish a government, hold elections, begin to direct traffic, arrest criminal
politicians of the tyrannical oligarchy, and, in short, repair the damage of the previous totalitarian
governments.
For the Democratic Republic!
Sons and Daughters of Liberty [email protected]
are studying US states and ranking them according to financial stability measures. The states
with biggest problems -- Illinois, California, New Jersey, Connecticut -- are in the mess they are
in largely because of pension liability issues: some pensions are unfunded or underfunded.
I recall that ten years ago about a dozen Jewish organizations formed the "Iran Task Force,"
** whose primary activity was to persuade managers of State pension funds to divest from Iran-connected
companies; that is, corporations & banks, etc. that did business with Iran. I recall very clearly
that Arnold Schwartznegger was the poster child for California's vanguard role in divesting from
such nasty nasty companies, in accord with the wishes of Jewish Israel-firsters.
Perhaps the Mercatus scholars could prepare an exercise in alternative financial history: What
shape would the US economy, and the various States's economies, be in if the US were NOT so overwhelmingly
influenced by Israel firsters, and were NOT persuaded, Against Our Better Judgment, to
entangle themselves in Israel's nefarious activities?
____
** The 2007 Iran Task Force is NOT the same as the group formed in 2015 or so, embedded
in US House/Senate, with Joe Lieberman and Michael Hayden playing prominent roles in attempting
to influence the Iran Deal.
The 2007 initiative was sponsored by groups such as ZOA, RJC, AIPAC, etc., and / or spun off
groups such as Foundation for Defense of Democracy, United Against Nuclear Iran.
As any fule kno, the way to get a good grade in higher education is to buy it.
Or so it seems in Lviv, ground zero for Ukrainian nationalism, where
a recent survey and study found that 48% of undergraduates had paid bribes to get a better
grade or to falsify attendance, while nearly all (the data sample was pretty small, 600) admitted
to cheating on exams or tests.
When a Briton or American speaks about a "four-letter word", he means a vulgar sexual term, a
word not to be mentioned in polite society. In Israel we also have such a word, a word of four letters.
A word not to mention. This word is "Shalom", peace. (In Hebrew, "sh" is one letter, and the "a"
is not written.)
For years now this word has disappeared from intercourse (except as a greeting). Every politician
knows that it is deadly. Every citizen knows that it is unmentionable. There are many words to replace
it. "Political agreement". "Separation". "We are here and they are there". "Regional arrangement".
To name a few.
And here comes Donald Trump and brings the word up again. Trump, a complete ignoramus, does not
know that in this country it is taboo.
He wants to make peace here. SH-A-L-O-M. So he says. True, there is not the slightest chance that
he really will make peace. But he has brought the word back into the language. Now people speak again
about peace. Shalom.
Peace? What is peace?
There are all kind of peaces. Starting from a little peace, a baby-peace, to a large, even mighty
peace.
Therefore, before opening a serious debate about peace, we must define what we mean. An intermission
between two wars? Non-belligerence? Existence on different sides of walls and fences? A prolonged
armistice? A Hudna (in Arabic culture, an armistice with a fixed expiry date)?
Something like the peace between India and Pakistan? The peace between Germany and France – and
if so, the peace before World War I or the peace prevailing now? The Cold War between the Soviet
Union and the United States, or the Hot Peace between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump?
There are all kinds of peace situations. What kind of Israeli-Palestinian peace are we talking
about? The peace between a horse and its rider? The peace between a people of masters and a people
of slaves? Something like the peace between the South African Apartheid regime and the Bantustans
it had created for the Blacks? Or a quite different kind of peace, a peace between equals?
It's about this peace I would like to speak. Not "real" peace. Not "perfect" peace. Not "complete"
peace.
About peace. Peace pure and simple. Without qualifications, please.
When did it all start? The conflict that now dominates the lives of the two peoples, when did
it begin?
Hard to say.
It is easy to say: it started when the first Jewish immigrant reached these shores.
Sounds simple. But it is not altogether true.
It seems that the pre-Zionist Bilu immigrants, who came here in the early 1800s, did not arouse
hostility.
I have a theory about that: some time before the Bilu (short for "House of Jacob, Go!") came here,
a religious German sect, the Templers, settled in this country. They had no political aims, just
a religious vision. They set up model villages and townships, and the locals were grateful. When
the first Jews arrived, the locals assumed that this was more of the same.
Then came the Zionist movement, which definitely had political aims. They spoke only about a "national
home", but the founder, Theodor Herzl, had previously written a book called "The Jewish State" (or,
more accurately, "The Jewstate"). The aim was hidden for a time, because the country belonged to
the Ottoman Empire.
Only very few of the local population realized right from the beginning that this was a mortal
danger for them. A large majority of the Muslims saw the Jews only as an inferior religious community,
which the Prophet had commanded them to protect.
So when did the conflict start? There are various theories about that. I adhere to the theory
of the almost-forgotten historian Aharon Cohen, who pointed to a particular event. In 1908, the revolution
of the "Young Turks" broke out. The Islamic Ottoman Empire turned into a nationalist state. As a
reaction, there arose in Palestine and the neighboring countries an Arab national movement, which
called for the "decentralization" of the empire, giving autonomy to its many peoples.
A local Arab leader approached the Zionist representative in Jerusalem with a tempting offer:
if the Jews support the Arab movement, the Arabs will support Zionist immigration.
In great excitement, the Zionist representative rushed to the then leader of the Zionist world
movement, Max Nordau, a German Jew, and urged him to accept the offer. But Nordau treated the offer
with contempt. After all, it was the Turks who were in possession of the country. What did the Arabs
have to offer?
It is difficult to know how history would have evolved if such a Zionist-Arab cooperation had
come into being. But a European Jew could not even imagine such a turn of events. Therefore the Zionists
cooperated with the Turkish – and later with the British – colonial regime against the local Arab
population.
Since then, the conflict between the two peoples has intensified from generation to generation.
Now peace is further away than ever.
But what is peace?
The past cannot be obliterated. Anyone who suggests that the past should be ignored and that we
"start again from the beginning" is dreaming.
Each of the two peoples lives in a past of its own. The past shapes their character and their
behavior every day and every hour. But the past of one side is totally different from the past of
the other.
This is not just a war between two peoples. It is also a war between two histories. Two histories
which contradict each other in almost every particular, though they concern the very same events.
For example: Every Zionist knows that until the 1948 war, the Jews acquired land with good money,
money contributed by Jews around the world. Every Arab knows that the Zionists bought the land from
absentee landlords who lived in Haifa, Beirut or Monte Carlo, and then demanded that the Turkish
(and later the British) police evict the fellahin who had tilled the land for many generations. (All
the land had originally belonged to the Sultan, but when the empire was bankrupt the Sultan sold
it to Arab speculators.)
Another example: Every Jew is proud of the Kibbutzim, a unique achievement of human progress and
social justice, which were frequently attacked by their Arab neighbors. For the Arabs, the Kibbutzim
were just sectarian instruments of displacement and deportation.
Another example: Every Jew knows that the Arabs started the 1948 war in order to exterminate the
Jewish community. Every Arab knows that in that war, the Jews evicted half the Palestinian people
from their homeland.
And so forth: nowadays the Israelis believe that the Palestinian Authority, which pays a monthly
salary to the families of "murderers", supports terrorism. The Palestinians believe that the Authority
is duty-bound to support the families whose sons and daughters have sacrificed their lives for their
people.
And so forth, without end.
(By the way, I am very proud of having invented the only scientifically sound definition of "terrorist",
which both sides can accept: "Freedom fighters are on my side, terrorists are on the other side.")
There will never be peace if the two peoples do not know the historical narrative of the other
side. There is no need to accept the narrative of the opponent. One can deny it totally. But one
has to know it, in order to understand the other people and respect it.
Peace does not have to be based on mutual love. But it must be based on mutual respect. Mutual
respect can arise only when each people knows the historical narrative of the other side. When it
understands that, it will also understand why the other people acts the way it does, and what is
needed for peaceful co-existence.
That would be much easier if every Israeli Jew learned Arabic, and every Palestinian Arab learned
Hebrew. That would not solve the problem, of course, but it would bring the solution much closer.
When each of the two peoples understands that the other side is not a bloodthirsty monster, but
acts from natural motives, it will discover many positive points in the culture of the other side.
Personal contacts will be established, perhaps even friendships.
This is already happening in Israel, though on a small scale. In the academic world, for example.
And in the hospitals. Jewish patients are often surprised to discover that their nice and competent
doctor is an Arab and that Arab male nurses are frequently more gentle than the Jewish ones.
That cannot replace dealing with the real problems. Our two peoples are divided by real, weighty
controversies. There is a problem about land, about borders, about refugees. There are problems of
security and innumerable other issues. A war of more than a hundred years will not end without painful
compromises.
When there is a basis for negotiations between equals, a basis of mutual respect, insoluble problems
will suddenly become soluble problems.
But the precondition for this process is the return of the four-letter-word to the language.
It is impossible to do something big, something historic, if there is no belief that it is possible.
A person will not plug an electric cord into a wall if they do not believe that they will be connected
to electricity. They must believe that the lights will go on.
Nobody will start peace negotiations if they believe that peace is impossible.
The belief in peace will not make peace certain. But at least it will make peace possible.
Uri Avnery is a peace activist, journalist, writer, and former member of the Israeli Knesset.
Read other articles
by Uri , or visit Uri's
website .
As far as Europe's far right is concerned, Trump is a loser.
He is the nemesis of
an intensifying European far right movement that has suddenly turned sour. Like the
Black Plague of mid-14th century Europe, whatever happens, stay away from him! Poll
numbers as well as voting for far right candidates throughout Europe drop with a
hair-trigger when candidates associate with Trump.
Conversely, Trump may be the best that ever happened to establishment policies,
like neoliberalism. Unwittingly, he's pulling neoliberalism out of a very deep hole;
i.e., a failure to perform for the public at large both economically and socially. As
it happens, hopelessness describes neoliberalism's impact on much of the bourgeoisie
and all of the proletariat, as modern-day society reverts to an awkward form of
economic feudalism but without fancy titles. Still, the serf count remains about the
same.
Back in the day, meaning 2016 and during the initial months of 2017, the far right
in Europe gravitated to Trump's right side or hardnosed libertarianism,
unaffectionately known as Los Destructo, under direction of Bannon, which leaves
little or no room for those who voted for Trump in the first place. Remarkably,
comatose bewildered American voters in November 2016 essentially bequeathed votes to
reality TV flat screens nestled in their basement family rooms.
Did they waste votes?
Nowadays, but not in 2016, Europe's far right would likely say: "Yes, they wasted
their votes."
Whereas, only a few short months ago on November 9, 2016:
Cas Mudde, a Dutch political scientist at the University of Georgia, says,
'Trump's win gives a narrative of success, of possibility, to far-right parties in
Europe, because Trump won despite all the predictions. So they can say to people,
'You're not wasting your vote if you come out and vote for us. We will actually do
much better than what everyone says.'
1
How quickly things change once reality exposes delusion. As of today throughout
Europe Trump's burgeoning affliction is like an outbreak of small pox, stay away. The
hard evidence is found in polling and voting data. Continent-wide anybody associated
with Trump is standing in a deep pile of doo-doo. Proof: Since Trump won the White
House, every major European election crushes far right candidates. The true reality
of Trump has turned the world to the value of neoliberalism as a safety valve, warts
and all.
For example, in France, Marine Le Pen's National Front only won 13% of the vote in
the French legislative elections, a crushing defeat that seriously underperformed her
prior standings in the polls. Without reservation, Trump mentioned Le Pen favorably.
More telling than Le Pen getting hammered so badly, Austria's liberal candidate
Van der Bellen, a month after Trump won the presidency, in a revote for the
presidency, beat the daylights out of far right Freedom Party's Norbert Hofer. Six
months earlier the candidates were neck-in-neck with only 0.6% separating them. Hofer
cited Trump as "inspirational." Hofer got creamed.
Not surprisingly, the Trump factor is AC/DC; it goes both ways, wide right or near
left. For example, Germany's Chancellor Merkel is no fan of Trump.
Ipso facto
,
Merkel is rising fast in the polls. In fact, her advisors refer to her newfound
popularity as the "Trump Factor." Today, 64% of Germans are satisfied with Merkel's
job. Thanks to Trump, she's the most popular politician in Germany.
Meanwhile, Germany's far-out right wing-nuts, known as Alternative for Germany,
which sympathizes with Trump, has lost 50% in the polls since Trump's November
election victory. If Alternative for Germany, that advocated shooting immigrants, do
not follow the Trump bandwagon, then who's left?
Interestingly, the Trump affliction seemingly has no boundaries. For example,
establishment neoliberals that show affection for Trump, like PM Theresa May of the
UK, plummet in popularity, same as far right extremists. She was the first head of
state to visit Trump and the only head of state seen holding hands with him while
walking along the corridors of the White House. Her conservative party blew apart a
commanding 17% lead in the polls, losing its majority in Parliament and deleveraging
their influence at the very moment when strong leadership is required for Brexit
negotiations.
Meanwhile, Dutch voters crushed the Netherlands far right leader Geert Wilders
aka: #WeWillMakeOurCountriesGreatAgain, the Party for Freedom, who praised Trump's
example as the second coming in Europe but dropping almost 50% in poll numbers after
Trump's win.
"By mid-February, when the race in the Netherlands began, Trump had been in office
for several weeks, and Dutch voters had gotten a chance to observe him as president.
They didn't like what they saw."
2
Nate Silver's Fivethirtyeight.com article "Donald Trump is Making Europe Liberal
Again" carries a list of far right parties that have fallen since Trump was elected,
no victories, thus providing strong empirical evidence that association with Trump is
a kiss of death.
Fortunately for Trump, his constituency ends in America where cartoons reflect
politics.
While U.S. intelligence agencies investigate claims that Russia secretly hacked
emails to help tip last year's elections in favor of Donald Trump, Russia's push
to bolster far-right populist politicians in Europe has been far more blatant.
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is working to empower Europe's far-right
and Eurosceptic parties with offers of cooperation, loans, political cover and
propaganda. Such love has not gone unrequited: European populists are answering
back with fulsome praise for Russia, its foreign policy and its strongman leader.
If Russia blatantly, in the raw, offered "loans, political cover and propaganda"
to Europe's far right, then what of America's far right?
Eleanor Beardsley, "Trump's Election
Gives Hope To Europe's Far Right", NPR, November 9, 2016. [
]
David A. Graham, "Is Trump Dragging
Down the European Far-Right?"
The Atlantic
, March 16, 2017. [
]
Robert Hunziker (MA, economic history, DePaul University) is a
freelance writer and environmental journalist whose articles have been translated
into foreign languages and appeared in over 50 journals, magazines, and sites
worldwide. He can be contacted at:
[email protected].
Read other articles by Robert
.
"Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and
rightly consider it abhorrent)"
This is laughable, the term "anti-semitism" was invented in the first place to silence criticism,
this whole surprise about the broadening of the definition to include Israel is nothing.
You know what are other "shut-up" words? Racist, Islamophobic, Homophobic, Xenophobic, Sexist,
etc that along with "Anti-Semitic" make up the bulk of the Capital Sins of the new Globalist Religion
(of course, made by and for Jews).
I have the right to hate, speak badly and denounce anyone I want. It would be a crime if I
infringed one's rights, which means, physical violence – but then again, physical violence alone
is enough of a crime without motive, so it doesn't discriminate and doesn't need special snowflake
groups and orwellian newspeech laws.
I have little patience for Jewish victimization propaganda, but Israel does have a right to
exist: there were a substantial number of Jews in the Ottoman Empire, and when it was broken up
after WWI, everybody got their own country, except the Kurds and the Jews.
Antisemitism is a logical absurdity. It creates an offense that relies solely on the identity
of the victim for its definition.
This is an anomaly for it can be committed against only one class of human beings, regardless
of their behavior. Thus it differs from prejudice against gender or class.
In actuality, the offense referred to is fully described by the term "racism", for all practical
purposes Although many Jews do not claim to be a "race", by claiming antisemitism they are self-identifying
as such. Singling out a race for special treatment defines racism.
What is being proposed here is a consequence of a greater absurdity – a State that claims special
status for one class of human being and that, like the World-bearing Elephants on a Turtle, is
dependent on another absurdity – a chosen race. From there, it is turtles (absurdities) all the
way down.
The jewish identity is 'eternal innocent victim'.
Therefore any criticism of jews, jewry, or the judaic religion, is antisemitism.
It is like the Armenians, their identity is the genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman
regime...
Likewise, the present German identity is guilt about two world wars, no chance to make them
understand that the great majority of Germans never wanted any war.
The USA identity is saviours of the world, that all over the world people have quite other
ideas about the USA, they simply are wrong.
Terrorism by Muslims, they must be 'deradicalised', this means make them think that western
atrocities against Muslims are for their own good, or caused by bad Muslims.
As John Maynard Keynes long ago already knew, ideas are the most powerful in the world, even
if they have no relation with reality whatsoever.
CO2 is a very weak greenhouse gas, yet people all over the world believe that CO2 does great
harm to us, despite the simple fact that climate changed as long as the earth exists, when humans
had little influence, except when they began agriculture.
Its unbelievable.
Makes the term "Örwellian" look weak.
Words that come to mind are " ďnsidious", "sneaky", "fascistic", "devious", ëvil".
Ironically - sadly ? - this "new" antisemitism seems perfectly designed to inspire traditional
antisemitism. Such a cynical manipulation of nation states by another state & a particular ethnic/cultural
group (often working against the interests of their own citizens/nations) seems perfectly adapted
to generating hate & fear in the recipients of this wholly anti-democratic, anti-humanistic program.
International Campaign Is Criminalizing Criticism of Israel as 'Antisemitism'
Yes, this is certainly true as a matter of observable fact and personal experience, but this
is merely one aspect of a much broader societal trend, exploited in this particular case by the
supporters of Israel.
It is not the fact that the enemies of liberty are falsely conflating criticism of Israel with
antisemitism that is the problem, but the fact that they seek to define antisemitism as inherently
evil and illegitimate, to ban the expression of any opinions classed as antisemitism from the
public sphere, and wherever possible to criminalise it. The former would not be a problem were
it not for the latter.
Spreading the New Definition Under Cover of "Anti-Racism" Movement
In the never-ending war on liberty waged by the powerful, for whom the freedom of ordinary folk
to say and do things that annoy or offend them, or that threaten their position, is an eternal
impertinence, the most vital front is freedom of speech. To the extent that freedom of speech
is restricted, to that same extent is democracy negated. That front is also currently the most
active in the war against liberty, and the attempt to separate and suppress "hate speech" is the
schwerpunkt of the efforts by the enemies of liberty.
Those who call people or their opinions racist or anti-Semite or homophobic or islamophobic
or whatever, and thereby seek to define their opinions as illegitimate per se, are the most dangerous
enemies of liberty in the societies of the modern US sphere.
The apposition of 'antisemitism' to any 'phobias' has a long history (it was just the list
of phobias that grew overtime):
"The International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism-or Ligue Internationale Contre le
Racisme et l'Antisémitisme (LICRA) in French-was established in 1927, and is opposed to intolerance,
xenophobia and exclusion.
In 1927, French journalist Bernard Lecache created "The League Against Pogroms", and launched
a media campaign in support of Sholom Schwartzbard who assassinated Symon Petliura on 25 May 1926
in the Latin Quarter of Paris. Schwartzbard viewed Petliura as responsible for numerous pogroms
in Ukraine. After Schwartzbard's acquittal, the league evolved into LICA (Ligue internationale
contre l'antisémitisme-or international league against anti-semitism). Schwartzbard was a prominent
activist in this organization
The LICRA keeps fighting neonazism and Holocaust denial. This was demonstrated when it supported
the Klarsfeld couple (Serge and Beate Klarsfeld), and during Klaus Barbie's trial in 1987.
In the last few years, LICRA intensified its international actions by opening sections abroad,
in Switzerland, in Belgium, in Luxembourg, in Germany, in Portugal, in Quebec and more recently
in Congo Brazzaville and in Austria.
Since 1999, with the arrival of president Patrick Gaubert, LICRA has extended its area of action.
It now addresses social issues such as work discrimination, citizenship, and disadvantaged youth".
"Likewise, anti-Semitism is a universally accepted notion, but goy-hatred is not.
These are just two amongst many other such 'one-way mental blocks" Friends, this is not a coincidence.
This is a *system* designed to make us all stupid and gullible."
This is how Jews always get themselves into trouble. They have no "off" switch on advantage-seeking.
They can't not press an advantage. Someone needs to tell them that bullying people into assent
isn't the same as making them forget – people do tend to remember this stuff.
The mechanism of this crackdown is the redefinition of "antisemitism"[1] to include criticism
of Israel, and the insertion of this definition into the bodies of law of various countries.
And what if, as has been the norm at a great many points in history, humanity decides to redefine
"anti-semitism" as "good"?
Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and
rightly consider it abhorrent)
Not if Jews get their way, apparently. I am reminded of a (very memorable) book title: Jews and the State: the Fatal Embrace.
Second, Sharansky declared that it's antisemitic to apply a "double standard" to Israel
- in other words, to criticize Israel for actions that other states may also take. However,
if one could never criticize, protest or boycott abuses without calling out every single other
similar abuse, no one would ever be able to exercise political dissent at all.
If it's bigotry to apply double standards (it's a double standard to limit the conversation
to anti-semitism, by the way), then Jews have been the world's greatest bigots beyond living memory. This was a long piece, I hope I have time to read it all closely at some point.
Criticizing Israel or Jewish organizations is a hate crime because, you see, Israel and Jews
acting collectively have never and can never do anything wrong.
This follows from those purported
standards of proof being textbook examples of logical fallacies and thinly veiled hate crimes
themselves, requiring us to look elsewhere for the implicit justification. Jewish martyrology
and absolute goodness, therefore, must become the one, supreme ontological truth before which
all peoples, nation states, and religions must genuflect. Maybe Chris Smith has the courage to
introduce a new preamble to the Constitution enshrining this as the ultimate law of the land.
"Where most people would consider "antisemitism" to mean bigotry against Jewish people (and
rightly consider it abhorrent), for two decades a campaign has been underway to replace that definition
with an Israel-centric definition."
I pretty much wrote this piece off as soon as I read the above quote. Any non-Jew, especially
white Christians in America and Europe, who doesn't at least have a prejudiced or bigoted view
of Jewish organizations or power is an idiot. If Jews want less antisemitism, then they need to
police their own for signs of hostility, bigotry, racism and corruption towards others, but I
doubt that will happen, since the hostility, bigotry, racism and corruption seem organic to Jews
in general.
Maybe if "activists" like Ms. Weir would concentrate on taking on Jewish power of all kinds,
then the West could reform and Israel would be forced to reform, go extinct, or whatever. As it
is, they just play a shell game with "Palestinian rights," while going full SJW on the rest of
us. I don't give a damn about Israel, neocon Jews, Palestinians or leftist Jews. I care about
my people and my country, and Jews of all political stripes are far more of a threat to both than
Palestinians or whatever Muslims who are allowed to infiltrate will ever be.
I state everything above understanding full well that Palestinians are the victims of Jewish
power and the world-wide Jewish community. Unfortunately, outside of the Israel issue, most Palestinians
and Muslims side with the multicult, anti-Western, heavily Jewish (phony) left. In the end, I
can't see how Jews will be able to play all the different groups against each other for their
own benefit, and I don't care. I just want to be rid of Jewish influence and Jewish power.
Jews always forget basic Newton laws:
"For every action there is an equal or opposite reaction".
In a long run you can not silence people, it will backfire.
Feb 24, 2017 Israeli Spying in the US: A Brief History
NOTE: This video was produced for BoilingFrogsPost com on April 11, 2012. It is being made
available in its entirety here for the first time.
The knowledge that Israeli-connected companies and intelligence agents have been involved in
detailed and elaborate spying operations in the US is of course nothing new. The phenomenon has
been painstakingly documented over the years by numerous journalists and sources. Indeed, the
documented cases of Israeli spying on their supposed ally - the self-same American government
that is supplying it with $3 billion in grants each year - are nearly too numerous to document.
"... America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them. ..."
"... I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking through what would happen later ..."
"... A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it through? I don't think so. ..."
"... Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany, probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect their elites? I don't think so. ..."
"... Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level you need to read "200 years together." ..."
The US nuclear forces modernization program has been portrayed to the public as an effort
to ensure the reliability and safety of warheads in the US nuclear arsenal, rather than to enhance
their military capabilities. In reality, however, that program has implemented revolutionary new
technologies that will vastly increase the targeting capability of the US ballistic missile arsenal.
This increase in capability is astonishing - boosting the overall killing power of existing US
ballistic missile forces by a factor of roughly three - and it creates exactly what one would
expect to see, if a nuclear-armed state were planning to have the capacity to fight and win a
nuclear war by disarming enemies with a surprise first strike.
It continues:
Because the innovations in the super-fuze appear, to the non-technical eye, to be minor, policymakers
outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed
its revolutionary impact on military capabilities and its important implications for global security.
This study was co-authored by America's top three scientists specializing in analysis of weaponry
and especially of the geostrategic balance between nations: Hans Kristensen, Matthew McKinzie, and
Theodore Postol. Their report continues:
This vast increase in US nuclear targeting capability, which has largely been concealed from
the general public, has serious implications for strategic stability and perceptions of US nuclear
strategy and intentions.
Russian planners will almost surely see the advance in fuzing capability as empowering an increasingly
feasible US preemptive nuclear strike capability - a capability that would require Russia to undertake
countermeasures that would further increase the already dangerously high readiness of Russian
nuclear forces. Tense nuclear postures based on worst-case planning assumptions already pose the
possibility of a nuclear response to false warning of attack. The new kill capability created
by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will be used
in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred.
The authors explain why an accidental start of World War III or global annihilation would be
likeiier from Russia than from the U.S.:
Russia does not have a functioning space-based infrared early warning system but relies primarily
on ground-based early warning radars to detect a US missile attack. Since these radars cannot
see over the horizon, Russia has less than half as much early-warning time as the United States.
(The United States has about 30 minutes, Russia 15 minutes or less.)
In other words: whereas Trump would have about 30 minutes to determine whether Putin had launched
a blitz-first-strike attack, Putin would have less than 15 minutes to determine whether Trump had
- and if at the end of that period, on either side, there is no certainty that no blitz-first-strike
attack had been launched by the other, then that person would be obligated to launch a blitz attack
against the other, upon the assumption that not to do so would result not only in a toxic planet
with nuclear winter and universal starvation, but also in a humiliating and scandalous absence of
retaliation against that perpetrator, which would be a humiliation on top of an annihilation, and
thus a sharing of blame along with the actual perpetrator, which sharing, for whatever term might
remain during that passive party's continued existence, would probably be an unbearable shame and
result quickly in suicide, if that national leader's own surviving countrymen don't execute him before
he kills himself.
Inevitably, the strictly personal morality and self-image of a nation's leader in that type of
situation are factors other than the very public global consequences that will determine the person's
decision; but, with only (at most) 15 minutes to decide on the Russian side, and 30 minutes to decide
on the American side, there is an inestimably high chance now, that a nuclear war will terminate
the lives of everyone who currently exists and who doesn't soon die from the ordinary causes before
then. Even the most dire projections of the dangers from global warming come nowhere close to matching
that danger.
The question, now, then, is: How did the world come to this extraordinarily ominous stage? The
co-authors repeatedly refer to the secretiveness at the top of the American government as one essential
source, such as " which has largely been concealed from the general public " and " policymakers
outside of the US government (and probably inside the government as well) have completely missed
," and these passages refer to an ordinary phenomenon in conspiracies at the top of a large criminal
operation such as corporate criminality, where only a very small circle of individuals, commonly
a half-dozen or even less, are made aware of the operation's chief strategic objective and of the
main tactical means that are being put into place so as to execute the plan. In this particular instance,
it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor anything nearly so broad as that; but,
clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze" on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic
missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the principal person reasonably to be blamed for this
situation. However, Trump as the person who has inherited this situation from his predecessor has,
as yet, given no indication at all of reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic
objective of conquering Russia. The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public
that he has inherited this morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of
the super-fuses, the more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan. Typically in such
a situation, the leader who has inherited such a plan will be assassinated if he gives any clear
indication of an intention to reverse or cancel it (the key insiders are typically obsessive about
'success', especially at so late a stage in it); and, so, if Trump were to try to do that, he would
almost certainly try to hide that fact until the inherited plan has already become effectively deactivated
and no longer a threat.
The key turning-point that led up to the present crisis was the gradual and increasing acceptance,
on the American side, of the concept of using nuclear weapons for conquest instead of only for deterrence
- the prior system, for deterrence, having been called "MAD" for Mutually Assured Destruction, the
idea that if the two nuclear superpowers were to go to war against each other, then the entire world
would be destroyed so catastrophically as to make any idea of a 'winner' and a 'loser' in such a
conflict a grotesque distortion of the reality: that reality being mutual annihilation and an unlivable
planet. A landmark event in the process of reconceptualizing such a war as being 'winnable', was
the publication in 2006 of two articles in the two most prestigious journals of international relations,
Foreign Affairs and International Security , both formally introducing the concept
of "Nuclear Primacy" or the (alleged) desirability for the U.S. to plan a nuclear conquest of Russia
. Until those two articles (both of which were co-authored by the same two authors), any such
idea was considered wacky, but since then it has instead been mainstream. As the final link above
(the article that's linked-to immediately before) explains, the source even prior to George W. Bush
goes all the way back to 24 February 1990 when his father, then also the U.S. President, secretly
initiated the operation ultimately to conquer Russia, and within that article are links to the ultimate
source-documents about that origin of the path toward world-ending nuclear war; so, getting to the
original causes of the steady progression after 24 February 1990 in the direction of a conquest of
Russia by the U.S. (assisted by its allies) can now be addressed by historians, even though only
now is it finally being revealed to the public as news, though 27 years after it had actually begun
in a very fateful decision by George Herbert Walker Bush, which has already cost American taxpayers
trillions of dollars for no good purpose and resulting perhaps in the ghastliest ultimate end.
This article is being submitted for publication to all news-media without charge, in the hope
that the current U.S. President will comment publicly upon it, even if only to ridicule it so as
to avoid being assassinated for referring to it at all. This is an extremely dangerous time in history,
and Donald Trump is now on a very hot seat, which any intelligent and accurately informed person
recognizes to be the case. If ever the world needed courageous great leadership, now is the time;
because, without that, we might all soon be entering hell. To avoid it, starting now 27 years after
the U.S. government initiated this path, would be enormously difficult, but not yet totally impossible.
This is where we are at the present time; and,
ever since the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring
as a result.
This extreme danger is the new global reality. If the elimination of the threat does not come
from the U.S. White House, the culmination of the threat will - regardless of which side strikes
first. The decision - either to invade Russia, or else to cancel and condemn America's decade-plus
preparation to do so - can be made only by the U.S. President. If he remains silent about the matter,
then Putin can reasonably proceed on the assumption that he'll have to be the one to strike first.
He didn't place himself in that position; the U.S. regime did. Let's hope that the U.S. will stand
down the threat, now.
100 Words What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements with
Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching
nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises
to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim!
Read More
100 Words I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but I' skeptical
that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The Pentagon's
claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude above the
reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make
meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa
Rica, let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. Read
More
300 Words It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the
Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have
caused, and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared
to spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs – calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as
a crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. Read More
A global coalition of former military leaders and diplomats who had responsibility over
nuclear weapons is launching a "shadow security council" to offer advice to world leaders on
how to reduce what they consider to be the growing danger of a nuclear conflict fueled by the
rhetoric of President Donald Trump and destabilizing moves by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
I wonder what these "destabilizing moves" are. Today we have launch-on-warning, precise nukes,
stealth delivery services, hacks in hardware and software, weird stuff in orbit, and "missile
defense against Iran" in Europe which can be repurposed in a second to attack Russia. Unless the
airheads notice that the "destabilizing moves" come from the US, there won't be much progress.
We survived the MAD phase only through tremendous luck, there were more computer errors, brown
pants moments and lost nukes than one would like to think possible. Let's not waste this break
that God has given us.
100 Words Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be
preferable to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They
have their own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.
They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership
of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and
promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at
full $ while they kept their bonuses).
If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it.
Read More Agree:
Z-man
200 Words If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach
front property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department,
and other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.
Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when
there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by
the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them – you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe,
and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her
off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and
you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by
local animosity – maritime disputes, arming India, etc).
Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation
– called living on the same planet – where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear
fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties
that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.
Unless you don't have nuclear weapons then your country and lore is up for the taking on a
whim. Read More
200 Words Well. Now we know what constitutes the true Obama legacy: "The new kill capability
created by super-fuzing increases the tension and the risk that US or Russian nuclear forces will
be used in response to early warning of an attack - even when an attack has not occurred."
This is in addition to the Obama-approved mess on the Russian borders with Ukraine ("ever since
the coup in Ukraine in 2014, the purchases of 'nuclear-proof' bunkers have been soaring as a result")
and the Israel-pimped war in Syria where Russians have been fighting ISIS along with the legitimate
government of Syria, while Israel and the US were caught on helping the ISIS- and Al Qaeda-affiliated
"freedom fighters."
Is there any honest and knowledgeable person in a vicinity of the "deciders" to explain them the
consequences of a high-level radiation for their grandkids? The deciders care not about the hundreds
of thousands of other-peoples' children that died as a result of US-led "humanitarian interventions,"
but maybe they could get some resemblance of empathy rush when picturing their own progeny hit
by a nuclear force? Idiots. Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments Quartermaster
,
May 5, 2017 at 12:10 pm GMT \n
100 Words Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans,
insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant
damage to the US or the world?
Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence
is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.
America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic
Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked
would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that
if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.
Put that pair together, and the entire world should fear.
Read More
100 Words The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences
which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of
"mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming
first strike.
So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long
as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on
the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats"
Read More
200 Words A great article by Eric Zuesse, the best I have seen on the subject. A devastating
nuclear war is almost inevitable if the situation is allowed to persist. There were several nearly
catastrophic incidents in the last cold war when warning times were much more generous. Similar
incidents, in the near future would likely be game over for human civilisation and even the human
race itself.
It really doesn't matter whether the US/European oligarchy is really planning to nuke Russia
and/or China or not, the situation is just as dangerous either way. The setting up of what is
evidently a first strike capability while simultaneously degrading their potential opponents warning
times is well nigh suicidal. One could hope that there is someone in the US/NATO military who
is not too functionally autistic to see things from the other guys point of view but I doubt it.
If such a person existed, they might reflect on the fact that if the roles were reversed, most
of their colleagues would be clamouring for a first strike of their own before the missile "defence"
is fully operational.
Finally, it doesn't even matter whether the missile "defence" works or not. Unless both sides
know it doesn't work, and can also be sure that the other side knows that it doesn't work, and
also that it can't be made to work, it is just as dangerous.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
100 Words Frankly, it's about time "compellence" replaced deterrence in dealing with Russia.
For all his faults, Putin seems more or less sane, but he's already 64 years old. When Russia
has its next succession crisis (they're good at this stuff), the new incumbent may be much less
tractable and dangerous.
100 Words Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.
We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze"
has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield
and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.
How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability?
Read More
Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill
the bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive,
we win!
Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command
Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid
of skulls. Read More
@Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded
obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor
of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious
days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories
of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands
the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral
damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps
towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers
cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that
blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source
of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the
Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave
it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests
is secure. Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling as
you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul.
Read More Pandos
,
May 5, 2017 at 2:12 pm GMT \n
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
200 Words
@Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but
I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The
Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude
above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable
to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica,
let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed
explanation of how they work. Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly
hard for the Russians and the Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession
of the same technology would NOT reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple – unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness – once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks – there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback – in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this – it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited
$ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality.
Read More
100 Words This "investigative historian" confects his bad dream out of very little substance.
Quotes from the respectable enough Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists plus a great deal of imagination
and major omissions allow him to paint a fantastic picture of raving lunatics thinking of "conquering"
or "invading" Russia. (Yes he did use those words despite positing a scenario in which the Dr.
Strangeloves would wipe out Rusdia with a first strike! His psychic medium clearly has forgotten
to consilt the ghosts of Napoleon and Hitler).
One major omission is to note what a quick search for "super fuze" immediately discloses, namely
that the US Navy's upgrade is already old news and largely complete so far as the increase in
capacity that Zuesse describes is concerned.
Restraint? Why are you so concerned with saving their lives? The whole idea is to kill the
bastards. At the end of the war if there are two Americans and one Russian left alive, we win!
Thomas S. Power, CIC, Strategic Air Command
Apparently, breathing the cold, dry air of madness takes you to the top of Washington's pyramid
of skulls. Useless quote without a believable source and still needs to have the context provided.
Read More Anonymous
White Male ,
May 5, 2017 at 2:37 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. "If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed,
no doubt the reaction would be the same – indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from
moral responsibility , and only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically
or financially."
@Miro23 It's hard to disagree with this article but the missing background is the US public.
Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000's of civilians in the Middle
East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have caused,
and show zero empathy for their victims. Also keep in mind that young Americans ARE prepared to
spend a lot of time on the rights and wrongs of so called campus "micro-aggression" and transgender
"toilet rights".
If Russia was destroyed overnight and 50 million Russians killed, no doubt the reaction would
be the same - indifference. The US public has truly disconnected from moral responsibility , and
only has interest in things that affect it directly, either physically or financially.
If for example, the public had had to pay a supplementary war tax of $2000 per person for each
Middle East war, there would no doubt have been a major outcry, and the wars would probably never
have happened, but in the event, the FED was there to quietly provide the funding and unobviously
put the public in debt. Their grandchildren will pay the bill, and truthfully, they're not really
bothered about that either.
Equally, as an extra precaution, the public is carefully sheltered from the reality of bombed
cities and murdered and homeless families. The war party MSM excludes every trace of human interest
related to the wanton murder of Arabs - calling them "Terrorists" which the dumb American public
accepts while "nuke em" seems to be the even dumber and brainless reaction.
If a nuclear bomb did actually explode on Washington D.C. the public would be as helpless as a
crowd of babies, same as after the New Orleans disaster.
It seems that Joseph de Maistre wrote, "toute nation a le gouvernement qu'elle mérite". Translated,
this means "Every country has the government it deserves" but now it's a true disaster for the
whole world, not just America. "Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder "
Apparently you haven't heard of what England, France and other colonial nations had been doing
in centuries past, and heck, even up till now (Libya, anyone?).
200 Words
@another fred Is this article mis-information or dis-information? I get those two confused.
We have been able to put a nuke in a 100 ft circle anywhere on earth for a long time. The "super-fuze"
has nothing to do with the guidance system or speed of delivery but enhances perhaps the yield
and the accuracy (elevation of detonation) of an already devastating weapon.
How is this destabilizing? How does this yield a first-strike capability? For an explanation,
read my previous comment and this one.
START treaties have limited the number of missiles on both sides, at a time when super-fusing
did not exist. This means that each side had enough missiles to destroy a percentage of the missiles
of the other side (probably around 40-50%), but not all of them, thus MAD. With super-fusing,
the side which strikes first can destroy a much higher percentage of retaliatory missiles on fixed
and mobile launchers (90-95%) and still have some left over to threaten civilians in large cities,
especially if ABMD can destroy all of the remaining 5-10% of retaliatory missiles.
The hardest to destroy will remain the submarine launched missiles, but US military feel confident
that they are tracking all Russian nuclear missile submarines with their attack submarines (and
all the new and noisy Chinese submarines as well) and they could destroy them all on command.
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have no
command any more. Read More
In this particular instance, it wouldn't include the head of every Cabinet department, nor
anything nearly so broad as that; but, clearly, since the key decision, to implement the "super-fuze"
on "all warheads deployed on US ballistic missile submarines" was made by Obama, he is the
principal person reasonably to be blamed for this situation. However, Trump as the person who
has inherited this situation from his predecessor has, as yet, given no indication at all of
reversing and eliminating the now-operative top U.S. strategic objective of conquering Russia.
The more time that passes without Trump's announcing to the public that he has inherited this
morally repulsive operation from his predecessor and is removing all of the super-fuses, the
more that Trump himself is taking ownership of Obama's plan.
Reading statements like this one, and other observations by Philip Giraldi, have reluctantly
made me into a conspiracy minded person when it comes to politics. After all, does anyone seriously
believe that the pretentious, metro-sexual Barry Obama entertained any such "Dr. Evil" like plots
to concur the world prior to being sworn in as POTUS? Of course he didn't. He, even less than
Trump, probably had no idea what he was getting himself into by running for president. It must've
been a shocker for both of these men when they found out just how much potentially damaging intel
that the CIA and NSA has on them through perfectly legal NSA spying. Would the CIA assassinate
a president who got in the way of America's interests (as defined by them)? Maybe, but why would
they need to?
The Deep State is in complete control of our foreign policy now. Our democracy and freedom
were already largely lost due to giant asymmetries in knowledge between the US Citizenry and elected
officials on the one hand, and the Deep State on the other. "Knowledge is power" as they say.
This state of affairs was gradually imposed on an unsuspecting public through such legislative
gems as the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995 and the Patriot Act.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
100 Words
@Pandos Russia ;and China must target Israel and Saudi as the primary targets in any nuke
exchange. It is their fault.
Russia should release the soviet archives to show the holocaust is a giant exaggeration - a lie.
Rip that shield from their hands. You have hit upon something that is extremely important, and
studiously avoided by most: the Israeli-Saudi alliance. The worst of the Arabs are Saudi Arabians.
The worst of the Sunnis are Saudi Arabians (and on average, Sunnis are worse than Shites). No
doubt, the worst ruling caab in the Middle East,. whether royal family or political party (such
as Likud), is the House of Saud.
200 Words One of the WWII planners was Frankfurter, also the writer of the Lend Lease Law
that enabled Roosevelt to give war aid to any country.
Bruce Allen Murphy, 'The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, The Secret Political Activities of Two
Supreme Court Justices', New York, 1983
After Hitler began deporting jews to concentration camps, one of them escaped, and was smuggled
tot the USA, the Vichy France, Spain, Portugal route.
This jew told Frankfurter what was going on.
Frankfurter answered 'I do not believe one word you're saying'.
Much later Frankfurter explained 'I did not say he was lying, I said I did not believe him'.
In 1939 Hitler threatened jews with 'ausrottung', the exact meaning of this word then is debated,
'if they again started a world war'.
My interpretation of the Frankfurter statements is that he had not expected Hitler to carry
out his threat.
100 Words
@Jake Is the NeoCon foreign policy establishment, which rules both Democrats and Republicans,
insane enough to think it can pull of a nuclear first strike against Russia without any significant
damage to the US or the world?
Probably. Many of the individuals are bluffing, but mob mentality inside military intelligence
is the same basic mess it is on the inner city streets.
America's NeoCons are a combination of two cultures: Germanic (in Anglo-Saxon form) and Rabbinic
Jewish. The cultural Germans always have Gotterdammerrung to fall back on, and the globe nuked
would turn that trick. The Jews, even the atheists, always think like Pharisses and assume that
if they do something totally insane, that God will send their idea of a messiah to save them.
300 Words Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion.
China is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now
(but advancing in leaps and bouts).
The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites"
in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise
missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well
as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which
target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered
by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to
target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any
on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least
two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian
missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian
submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia
has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any
given time.
Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at
least two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to
shoot down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which
are also almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor
is the US ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make
even a partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US.
Read More
100 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann Well, in their defense, Russia is pretty fascist. "Russia is pretty fascist."
Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land
of the "chosen" handlers?
For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made
a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:"
https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish
Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the
Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa:
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton
that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli
citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
Read More
@Seraphim Conquest of Russia (the 'Heartland' of the 'World-Island') was the single minded
obsession, followed with uncanny determination, of the 'Anglo-Zionist' Empire (supposed successor
of the not so mythical 'Arthurian Atlantic British Empire') from its bastard birth in the glorious
days of the 'Gloriana', the hideous 'Virgin Queen' witch and her 'Magus' John Dee, to the theories
of Mackinder ("Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands
the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World."), masked by the 'collateral
damages' of the 'colonization' (i.e. conquest) of 'The Indies' (America and India proper), steps
towards the encirclement of the 'Heartland'. The 'Great Game' the Viking merchant-adventurers
cum pirates (financed by the Jewish money lenders and receivers) played against the Powers that
blocked their way to the gold and spices of the Eldorado of East Asia and the inexhaustible source
of slaves that was 'East Europe'. That block was the Orthodox Russia since the 'betrayal' of the
Baptism of the Viking Vladimir. The 'Vikings' and the receivers of stolen goods never forgave
it. They realize that as long as the 'Heartland' is not conquered none of their other conquests
is secure. I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
Read More SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 4:13 pm GMT \n
200 Words Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying the
authors of these dire policy statements:
Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also
a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown -
For 2
Professors, Like Father, Like Son
Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description,
Like Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster
who has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to
be carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that
they are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration
bombing of Kosovo
https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond
; then the Persian Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait
https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war
and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts
Read More
@Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work.
Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the
Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT
reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
As I explained, ABMD is the weak link in this - it is far from effective yet, but give it unlimited
$ printing and another 10 years or so and this scenario could become reality. This just sounds
like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things where they relabel something
and remarket it? Read More
100 Words
@Kiza Here is a simplified First Strike plan by US on Russia and China, in my opinion. China
is more of the same as Russia, just at a lower level of military sophistication right now (but
advancing in leaps and bouts).
The First Strike starts with the launch of nuclear tipped cruise missiles from the "ABMD sites"
in Poland, Romania, Ukraine, Japan, South Korea and any other new ones in the future. These cruise
missiles are launched against Russian military communications, command and control sites, as well
as early warning radars. The second wave are the ballistic missiles from the silos in US, which
target the Russian silo based missiles and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered
by US satellites. Simultaneously, the US bombers with nuclear bombs on board are launched, to
target any remaining Russian military infrastructure. Also, a command is issued to destroy any
on-duty Russian ballistic and cruise nuclear missile submarines. The ABMD sites on land (at least
two in Canada in the future) and on ships now switch to defence to try to destroy any Russian
missiles that got launched. At the same time US propaganda to dissuade the commanders of the Russian
submarines, not destroyed already by the US attack submarines, fills the radio. Apparently, Russia
has only eight nuclear missile submarines, and not more than 4-6 would be on active duty at any
given time.
Ok this could be the US plan, but what do Russians have to counter it? The Russians have at least
two tools in development. The first is the Bulawa MIRV, which is virtually impossible to shoot
down with ABMD. The second are the submarine launched hypersonic cruise missiles, which are also
almost impossible to shoot down by ABMD. Neither of these two are ready yet, but nor is the US
ABMD. Therefore, the Russian approach is to make ABMD never effective, which would make even a
partial retaliatory strike too expensive to US. "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based)
discovered by US satellites."
Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised
from the real ones.
Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2′s.
Iran's underground silo's are even atomic bomb proof.
Read More SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 4:45 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.
US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal
Adolf did NOT "share the goal" of "conquest and enslavement of mankind."
Adolf's goal was nationalistic, not global; the clue is hidden in plain sight:
National sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)
Is this a voice from the Kagans' clan' sinecures (AEI, Brookings) or directly from the land
of the "chosen" handlers?
For your information, even the Israel-occupied US Congress accepted an obvious truth and made
a decision re real fascists: " US Congress ends funding for Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion:"
https://theduran.com/us-congress-ends-funding-for-ukraines-neo-nazi-azov-battalion/
One wonders when the US Congress will finally discover that it was a leader of the Ukrainian Jewish
Community Mr. Kolomojsky who had been financing the Ukraine's neo-Nazi Azov Battalion when the
Azov's thugs were burning the civilians alive in Odessa: https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1d0_1462104943&comments=1
Similar to you, The Wall Street Journal (the nest of ziocons) cries in unison with Mrs. Clinton
that "Putin is Hitler." The same WSJ published a fawning article about Mr. Kolomojsky, a Ukrainian/Israeli
citizen and financier of the neo-Nazis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/ukraines-secret-weapon-feisty-oligarch-ihor-kolomoisky-1403886665
If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem to have internalized
every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other side as well, once
in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US? Read More
200 Words
@Randal The other requirement to make a counterforce first strike viable is missile defences
which, although not effective enough to see off a full Russian launch, would be very capable of
"mopping up" the much smaller numbers of missiles launched in response to an incomplete disarming
first strike.
So we don't need to worry too much about this kind of improvement to the US capability so long
as we don't see the US regime simultaneously installing missile defences everywhere they can on
the pretext, say, of defending against non-existent, propagandist third party regional "threats"
...... Even that wouldn't be enough.
Even if the US government was installing a huge global missile system while simultaneously
building a potent first-strike capability, we'd only have to worry if they also had a history
of attacking many other countries without provocation. Also if their political elite was pushing
for military confrontation with Russia, like proposing to implement no-fly zones in Syria where
Russian planes are flying missions (legally), with some members of the US establishment (people
like Senator McCain) even calling for the downing of Russian planes if needed to accomplish that.
Even in that hypothetical scenario it would only be really really dangerous if in the past some
random senior US general (someone like General Wesley Clark) had already proposed to attack Russian
troops – otherwise we could rely on the sanity of the generals to prevent such insanity.
300 Words I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however, a
plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack Russia
with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies
just happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities
relative to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone
thinking through what would happen later , or what would be the logical consequence of the
actions which they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia,
for example I find it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of
such. Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously,
it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result.
Did anyone think it through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the
end of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing.
Read More
" Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the
EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist
than the US?"
Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic,
ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement
with Israeli brass.
" maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian
Federation."
A truly amazing observation! Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and
therefore from an immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed
feel somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with
Russians on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper
level you need to read "200 years together."
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter Display
All Comments
100 Words I am very much appreciating this article and many comments.
Having some military time, at peace, thankfully, and interest in arcane English words, I am
knowing the diff.between material and materiel, fuze and fuse, etc.
What this article and all of the comments are to lacking is a definition of 'super-fuze'.
I am suspecting that it is just a mis-use of the word 'fuze'.
@Miro23 Or rather than have the US destroy Russia, or Russia destroy the US, it would be preferable
to root out the activist Jewish Neo Bolshevik war party that is behind it all. They have their
own agenda, and regard themselves as above the law.
They gave the US the WMD lies, 9/11 and destroyed the Middle East. They've also taken ownership
of the US media to push their war agenda, apart from attacking Anglo America, sowing discord and
promoting their financial interest (e.g. forcing the US public to bail out their 2008 loses at
full $ while they kept their bonuses).
If the US public can't wake up soon and deal with this cancer they've had it. Absolutely right.
Read More
Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher
in Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied
by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts
the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"
When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting
to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head,
carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher
- Child - British propagandists - New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with
USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.
American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by
numerous venues –
We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long
history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
@annamaria This is a long and passionate anti-war article by Michel Chossudovsky, which includes
a nice picture of Bin Laden teaching Brzezinski how to handle a rifle, Afghanistan:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/reversing-the-tide-of-war-say-no-to-nuclear-war/21866
The neocons used the mujahaddins with great success, particularly on the US soil on 9/11.
In short, "America's biggest foreign policy problem is that the U.S. cannot be trusted."
100 Words Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA
DECEMBER 25, 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, U.S. president George H. W. Bush through his secretary
of state James Baker promised Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that in exchange for Soviet cooperation
on German reunification, the Cold War era NATO alliance would not expand "one inch" eastwards
towards Russia.
100 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem
to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other
side as well, once in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US?
But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO
or the EU.
comedygold.jpg
NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the
US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration,
imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That
would be awkward.
While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe
), being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And
then again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not
happening. Read More
This is not Bin Laden on this picture with Brzezinski! It looks like a guy with Pakistani or Indian
paratrooper markings demonstrating the use of Russian RPD machine gun.
But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or
the EU.
comedygold.jpg
NATO brings obligations, and Israel already get all the dough they demand directly from the
US without going through the "US occupation forces Europe" gentleman's club. In case of integration,
imagine that there would be Israeli forces in islamic countries far away from the homeland? That
would be awkward.
While Israel would be happy to be in some new model European Trading Zone (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_trade_areas_in_Europe),
being "in the EU" is another kettle of fish entirely. First, Israel is not European. And then
again, obligations. In particular to stop shooting people held in reservations. Nyet, not happening.
In fact NATO already trains jointly with Israel, and Israel has narrow ties with the EU.
Israel also participates in the European Song Contest.
El Al uses Schiphol, Amsterdam airport, as its main base in Europe.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@Nils If you think the President makes final decisions on all matters, I have a beach front
property to sell you in Iowa. He is the public face of career Pentagon, State Department, and
other Deep State proxies. Not a capstone critical thinker but a fall man.
Nuclear war isn't a reality, it's a game of chess bluffs and the winner defeats the loser when
there is only a logical option of loss. Because when supremacy is achieved, and understood by
the opponent, you don't suddenly nuke them - you take its periphery (Ukraine, Baltics and E. Europe,
and other color revolution hot-spots), you destabilize it's source of income (oil), you cut her
off from the financial world (sanctions), you ostracize them politically (media/hacking), and
you deny them future income (Syria) while cementing their future (denying the New Silk Road by
local animosity - maritime disputes, arming India, etc).
Real sudden catastrophic loss never materializes because we live in a non-zero sum situation
- called living on the same planet - where abrupt destabilization backfires onto you from nuclear
fallout and global market failure. It's just a check-mate scenario understood by both parties
that begets a slow suffocation due to 'pawn sacrifice'.
Unless you don't have nuclear weapons...then your country and lore is up for the taking on
a whim. US is losing military ground in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to the Russian, while USA
is losing economic ground in SE Asia, Africa, South America and North America to the Chinese,
are you saying the super-fuze is a fake news? And the American understood they are being check-mated
by the Russian and Chinese? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@SolontoCroesus Zuesse's very important essay could be improved immeasurably by identifying
the authors of these dire policy statements:
Keir Lieber, professor in the Edmund Walsh school at Georgetown, is son of Robert Lieber, also
a professor of foreign policy studies at Georgetown --
For 2
Professors, Like Father, Like Son
Papa Lieber is one of the driving forces behind creating -- rather, demanding that Georgetown
agree to create-- the department for Jewish Civilizational Studies at Georgetown. https://www.georgetown.edu/center-for-jewish-civilization-launch
Based on a quick review of Robert Lieber's dozen appearances on C Span, the description, Like
Father like Son is apt: the senior Lieber is a an unabashed zionist and Israel firster who
has operated behind the scenes to implement neoconservative policies that favor Israel, to be
carried out at the expense of American blood and treasure, under the mendacious gloss that they
are "in America's interest." Those policies date back at least to the Clinton administration bombing
of Kosovo https://www.c-span.org/video/?100370-1/bosnia-russia-gulf-beyond ; then the Persian
Gulf war to "liberate" Kuwait https://www.c-span.org/video/?23811-1/anniversary-persian-gulf-war
and the war in Afghanistan where "Afghanis welcomed our liberation of Afghanis from the Taliban."
https://www.c-span.org/video/?168019-4/postcold-war-conflicts Good to know, SolontoCroesus. I'm
sure we'll remember to thank that cuddly pair of parasites when they manage to kill a few tens
of millions of Russians to get their 21st century war groove going. It's really too bad about
Christianity having bred the spirit of vengeance out of the white man. Do Russians thirst for
revenge? Does anyone? Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments Randal
,
May 5, 2017 at 8:44 pm GMT \n
100 Words
@reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however,
a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack
Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just
happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative
to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking
through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which
they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find
it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they
feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have
led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it
through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end
of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. Probably correct,
but as the events surrounding Able Archer in 1983 highlight it's not whether the Yanks have such
intentions that matters, but whether the Russians think they might have them.
Why did they feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously,
it could only have led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result.
Did anyone think it through?
The ones who thought it through, like Kissinger, cautioned against it and were proved correct.
100 Words
@Proud_Srbin US goal is conquest and enslavement of mankind.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Russia, China, DPRK are not Serbia, Iraq, Libya, Siria.
Adolf shared that goal, humanity will prevail, again.
Where did you hear that?
FYI: "Adolph" faced some real threats, not phony ones like we use as excuses to go to war.
Since yer on a first name basis with the dude, you oughta know the truth.
Here's a primer.:
" this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese,
is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either
completely untrue or not entirely the truth.
If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin
to ask questions, and searching questions "
I wish we Brits really were the evil geniuses we are supposed to be.
From where do you think many Americans internalized the characteristic that Miro23 pegged:
"Americans have shown no remorse whatsoever for the murder of 100.000′s of civilians in the
Middle East. They are indifferent to the WMD lies, don't care about the destruction they have
caused, and show zero empathy for their victims." http://www.unz.com/article/americas-top-scientists-confirm-u-s-goal-now-is-to-conquer-russia/#comment-1860779
Britain's Lee Child created superhero Jack Reacher. In "Night School" Child locates Reacher in
Hamburg, where he beats up young Germans who call out that they are fed up with being occupied
by USA; having delivered the characteristic chops to the face then kick to the nuts, Reacher taunts
the downed German patriots, er, neo-Nazis, "how does it feel to lose a war?"
When, still in Hamburg, Reacher ultimately confronts the head of a group of Germans attempting
to revitalize German identity and culture, Reacher shoots him in the heart and then the head,
carrying out the ideals he had learned in West Point Military Academy bull sessions. For Reacher
-- Child -- British propagandists -- New York publishers, a German who is not fully on board with
USA (Anglo-zionist) demands is, by definition, a Nazi deserving only to be extrajudicially exterminated.
American (Anglo-zionist) popular culture reinforces "lack of remorse" at every turn and by numerous
venues --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9r0haVPDAo
We'll put a boot in your eye, It's the American way . . .
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long history:
it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
I can't think of anything more evil than lying to an entire population in order to induce them
to hate, and then kill, another entire population.
"Who sins not with the tongue sins not at all." -
As Ron Unz and Dr. Stephen Sniegoski revealed on this forum, British propaganda has a long
history: it was their efforts that lied the American people into World War II
200 Words
@Sebastian Puettmann If you ever need money, you'd make a good Russian propagandist. You seem
to have internalized every of their talking point. May you have the power to investigate the other
side as well, once in a while.
By the way, maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their
Russian Federation. But Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to
joining NATO or the EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion,
is not more fascist than the US? This post was intended for you, Sebastian:
" Israel is talking to the Western establishment about the possibility to joining NATO or the
EU. What could be the reason for this, since Russia, according to your oppinion, is not more fascist
than the US?"
Are you serious? Israel has been caught red-handed on cooperating with ISIS. Following your logic,
ISIS is much, much better than Russian Federation. Though in this case you are actually in agreement
with Israeli brass.
http://news.antiwar.com/2016/06/21/israeli-intel-chief-we-dont-want-isis-defeated-in-syria/
" maybe you have not noticed that Israel is not talking the Russia to joining their Russian
Federation."
A truly amazing observation!
Considering the role of Russian federation in stopping the ziocons from destroying Syria (and
therefore from immediate annexation of the Golan Heights by Israel), the Israelis do indeed feel
somewhat unfriendly towards Russians. There is also a much deeper "dissatisfaction" with Russians
on a part of Israelis, which takes its roots in the history of the USSR; for this deeper level
you need to read "200 years together." Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
@reiner Tor I actually think there is no master plan to attack Russia. There is, however,
a plan to create capabilities for the US which would enable the US government to attack
Russia with the possibility of winning such a war.
I think the US elites are incapable of such grandiose strategic thinking. Their policies just
happen as a result of general guidelines (like, weaken Russia, strengthen US capabilities relative
to Russia, push for wars that might benefit Israel or weaken Russia, etc.), without anyone thinking
through what would happen later, or what would be the logical consequence of the actions which
they take. A lot of "decisions" are probably made by institutional inertia, for example I find
it possible that the whole anti-Russian thing in the 1990s was the result of such. Why did they
feel the need to bomb Serbia, when Russia was ruled by Yeltsin? Obviously, it could only have
led to the alienation of the Russian elites, which did happen as a result. Did anyone think it
through? I don't think so.
Similar thing with immigration. It's obvious that France will be majority nonwhite by the end
of the century. It's likely that the UK will be majority nonwhite by that time as well. Germany,
probably, too. The US will be minority white by mid-century. Was this policy thought out in terms
of how it would affect the power-projection capabilities of these countries? How it would affect
their elites? I don't think so.
The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing. "The most frightening
thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."
Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking
Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse.
Read More
100 Words
@Intelligent Dasein I do not doubt that the Deep State's objective is to destroy Russia, but
I' skeptical that this "super-fuze" amounts to any kind of decisive step in that direction. The
Pentagon's claimed effectiveness for its gosh-wow gadgetry has latterly been orders of magnitude
above the reality of the situation. We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable
to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan , for crying out loud.
Frankly, I do not think that America's transgendered military could so much as conquer Costa Rica,
let alone take on a nuclear armed Russia. " We've just spent the better part of two decades being
unable to make meaningful progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."
The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus
making billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards it's a snap.
Read More
100 Words
@Max Payne This just sounds like an air burst detonation. Is this one of those American things
where they relabel something and remarket it? Not exactly. The super-fuse is an envelope around
the target which is underground, in which the explosion results in the destruction of the target
even if the missile has not hit the ground within the radius of destruction for its potency. The
optimum destruction envelope around the target looks like a church bell, as one would expect.
Therefore, it is in air-burst detonation, but this is not the essence of the super-fusing technique.
An air-burst too early or too late, still does not destroy the target . The essence is
to "save" a missile which would have missed the target and still destroy the underground silo.
A computer on-board the missile decides when to detonate the missile for its existing trajectory.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments SolontoCroesus
,
May 5, 2017 at 11:07 pm GMT \n
400 Words
@El Dato Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
Is this a plot for a new Spielberg movie.
No, it's the prequel:
Mackinder -> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)
Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things - listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan,
Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's
theories.
The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:
"Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or
a tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson,
a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him
(and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from
Germany's point of view:
It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press ** the British Empire
must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers
and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured
better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged
defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in
the 7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany - and Germany alone - the "militaristic"
desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating
the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the
"huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction,"
Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status
quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal
of the unalloyed virtue of American life.
{ ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of
the entire world.)
** Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues –
Read More
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have
no command any more.
I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.
How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence
agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And
if so where is the intelligence value in such?
Are you a movie script writer? Have you ever heard of counter-intelligence? Yes, maybe, never?
Who cares if you "won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding
of the super fuses"? You have made zero contribution to the debate on his topic and I recognise
a troll who is too ready for personal insults from the peak of his/her superior knowledge which
does not exist.
200 Words
@jilles dykstra "and the mobile platforms (truck and train based) discovered by US satellites."
Forget about it, the real ones can be parked in any farm, the inflatable ones cannot be distinghuised
from the real ones.
Even in Saddam's Irak USA planes were unable to find Saddam's mobile V2's. Iran's underground
silo's are even atomic bomb proof. I do not dispute what you wrote – the Russians would not be
keeping their mobile launchers in plain sight, certainly not parading them around the country
ready for photo- and video-shoot, just like the BUK battery according to the utterly ridiculous
Dutch-lead Investigation of MH17 shoot-down.
However, the issue is always – how much of "own" damage are the US/NATO leaders ready to accept?
Somehow, my feeling is that if the bombs are not falling on Tel Aviv the damage becomes acceptable.
Lately, there has been a very powerful push in the media to disapprove nuclear winter and radiation
damage to the population. Some commenters here are trying the same tack. In other words, if
you are not killed by the nuclear explosion, you will be ok , so say the warmongers, those
who claim the destruction of the planet are fools , again so say the warmongers. I have no
doubt that "someone" is trying to sell the advantages of the nuclear war to the population.
Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
100 Words
@annamaria "The most frightening thought is that they have no idea what they are doing."
Their sick psychopathic heads could well contain the "grandiose strategic thinking" for attacking
Russia and China with nuclear weaponry, on some opportunistic impulse. Let us look at it this
way – MAD was a destruction of the two opponents, were the one which strikes first is destroyed
say 60% and the one which was struck first is destroyed 90%. This is looking only at the effect
of the explosions, not at any residual effects.
On top of all this, the US intelligence has been tasked with collecting psychological profiles
of all Russian commanders of nuclear missile submarines. The plan is to try convince them not
to launch, once the Russian command has been destroyed by the First Strike – once they have
no command any more.
I won't even go into the loony ideas of this article or your understanding of the super fuses.
How the hell do you know what U.S. intelligence is being "tasked with?" Are these intelligence
agencies or your personal informers? Have these "tasks" been reported to the general public? And
if so where is the intelligence value in such?
Mackinder ---> Mahan (who taught the theory to West Pointers)
Walter McDougall on Mahan (among other things -- listen to the whole thing (skip the intros)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKGSq2rvucQ
In this insightful paper, Walter McDougall explores the options and outcomes facing Japan,
Germany, Italy, USA, and the British in their interpretations, or misinterpretations, of Mahan's
theories.
http://www.fpri.org/article/2011/11/history-and-strategies-grand-maritime-and-american/
The most pertinent quote from McDougall's paper recites that:
"Thus, Germany's naval program might be a weapon designed to overthrow the world order or a
tool to help her forge a larger (responsible) stake in that order. But Sir Thomas Sanderson,
a brilliant veteran just retired from Whitehall, responded to Crowe with a sigh. He bade him
(and by extension his chief, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Gray) to see world politics from
Germany's point of view:
It has sometimes seemed to me that to a foreigner reading our press** the British Empire
must appear in the light of some huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers
and toes stretching in every direction, which cannot be approached without eliciting a scream.
In short, Sanderson argued that Britain's empire and its maritime lifelines could be secured
better through accommodation of a rising peer competitor than by arrogant outrage and dogged
defense of the status quo. The parallels to the United States and China today are obvious."
Finally, in the next-best-thing-to-Spielberg, Frank Capra devotes much of the second film in the
7-part Why We Fight series to projecting upon Germany -- and Germany alone -- the "militaristic"
desire to "control the (Mackinder) World Island." Capra succumbed to the British propaganda dominating
the American populace as well as agents of influence and decision-makers; in the clutch of the
"huge giant sprawling over the globe, with gouty fingers and toes stretching in every direction,"
Capra responded to competition with amped up "arrogant outrage and dogged defense of the status
quo," a status quo that was, by the way, ludicrously sanitized in Capra's saccharine portrayal
of the unalloyed virtue of American life.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaiXs_e-ekI
{ ~4 min, Capra claims that Germany seeks control of the World Island.
In the first installment of the Why We Fight series, Capra has Germany plotting the conquest of
the entire world.)
**Once again, the British, masters of propaganda, can't control their tongues -- I would recommend
the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall. I do not agree with all
his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still a very, very interesting
lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand better the non-partisan,
non-propagandist US historians and their views.
Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives.
Read More
@Wizard of Oz Ah, now some of the stranger things you have said become a little less puzzling
as you reveal your romantic Russian mythmaking soul. Again your ignorance of history tricks you
into talking nonsense. Read More Anon 2
,
May 6, 2017 at 1:52 am GMT \n
300 Words
@Carlton Meyer What our media overlooks is that the USA blatantly violated arms agreements
with Russia by building missile bases in Poland and Romania with MK-41 launchers, capable of launching
nuclear tipped cruise missiles to quickly strike key targets in Russia. The Pentagon promises
to only place SM-3 anti-missile missiles in these silos. Trust us, our Generals proclaim! A little
history: Despite the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia refused to withdraw from the Kaliningrad
Region in the early 1990s, and to this day it effectively remains a Russian colony. Russia also
initially refused to withdraw its troops from western Poland, and finally did so in stages until
all troops were withdrawn by 1994-5. The conclusion is: Russia cannot be trusted, which, of course,
is something that any child in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Ukraine learns
based on the Russian behavior in the last 300 years.
The area known today as Kaliningrad Oblast' was conquered by the (predominantly Germanic) Teutonic
Knights in the 13th century from Sambians (related to Lithuanians) who were then effectively ethnically
cleansed. The upshot is that neither Russia nor Germany can make the original claim to that piece
of land (located between Poland and Lithuania). In a sane and rational world the Kaliningrad region
would be demilitarized and made into an independent country (with Lithuania perhaps having the
greatest claim to the territory) but when was the last time humans behaved rationally in foreign
affairs?
The U.S./NATO has over 300 military installations in Germany, incl. nuclear weapons. It makes
little difference whether missiles are in western Poland or eastern Germany. The territory is
so small that Berlin lies right next to the Polish border. Russia correspondingly placed Iskander
missiles in Kaliningrad which are capable of hitting Berlin. So now we have a balance of terror.
This seems to be the highest solution that humans in our current primitive state of consciousness
are capable of. To quote Trump: sad Read More
Reply
Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This
Commenter
This Thread Hide
Thread Display All
Comments
@Kiza I was sceptical about super-fuses until I read a detailed explanation of how they work.
Then I realised how dangerous this is. It would not be terribly hard for the Russians and the
Chinese to replicate this development, however their possession of the same technology would NOT
reduce the likelihood of US using it first.
In briefest, super-fusing makes the First Strike much more effective and thus likely. The idea
of super-fusing is relatively simple - unlike cruise and hypersonic missiles, the ballistic missiles
have one huge weakness - once the rocket fuel is spent the ballistic missiles fly like thrown
rocks - there is little trajectory correction. Super-fusing activates explosion within a predefined
envelope of optimum destruction for the target, thus increasing the likelyhood of destroying the
target several times over. For example, instead of the nuclear bomb overshooting the target, it
is activated when the closest to the target. Super-fusing against land based silos and mobile
launchers, combined with much better ABMD than exists now, especially against submarine launched
ballistic missiles, would enable the First Strike with very low payback - in single digit percent.
This means a First Strike that could destroy up to 99% of enemy's retaliatory capability and leaving
more than enough missiles to threaten direct strikes on enemy's major cities.
100 Words
@Realist " We've just spent the better part of two decades being unable to make meaningful
progress in freaking Afghanistan, for crying out loud."
The idea is not to win the war in Afghanistan, but to prolong it for ever if possible. Thus making
billions for the power elite And in this country of dumb bastards...it's a snap. The war in Afghanistan
is all about preventing / disrupting Eurasian integration. Afghanistan is a good spot to do that
as, in addition to being centrally located it is also militarily weak. It borders the important
'Stans into which disruption could exported, and even offers a corridor to China.
The US saw success there, but it's fleeting. It did temporarily disrupt Eurasian integration,
but this is overshadowed by its failure to set up a political structure capable of sustaining,
much less expanding the disruption in its absence. Unless the US invests a politically unacceptable
amount of resources, it's stuck there playing a spoiler's game and will continue to do so until
something happens to oust it. Read More
@Kiza I would recommend the longest piece of video that you quoted, the one by Walter McDougall.
I do not agree with all his explanations of the beginnings of US Imperialism, but it is still
a very, very interesting lecture, well worth more than an hour of our time. It helps understand
better the non-partisan, non-propagandist US historians and their views.
Great assembly of proofs of your points, thank you for broadening my perspectives. thank you for
reading.
"... "We control America." -Former Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon ..."
"... IDF vs Hezbollah round 2 should be interesting. All the Pauly Shores and Jared Kushners in uniform shat their panties when they faced a tough disciplined adversary immune to air superiority. Asymmetrical warfare is the 21st century's antidote to gunboat diplomacy. ..."
"... Actually, Shel Adelson put all his casino chips in Rubio's corner, and considered Trump unreliable at best. Until Trump won. Then I guess Adelson did support him, though I doubt Trump is bought and paid for to the extent Rubio would have been. ..."
"... Trump, at the order of Netanyahu, will destroy Iran in order to establish Israel as the only hegemonic power over the whole Middle East and Northern Africa. That's why they are destroying one country after another according to sectarian and religious lines such as the Yinon Plan outlined. The whole chaos in the Middle East serves only Israel. Just recently, Netanyahu said that Israel is one of the superpowers. How right he is. ..."
"... Mr. Margolis. Everything in Trumpland has to be magnified to huge. The attack on the Iran agreement fits nicely in Trump's idiosyncrasy that every achievement of president Obama must be dragged through the mud and declared the worst thing ever done by a US president. As in the case of NAFTA Trump may actually do nothing after he has talked to two women: May and Merkel. There is even an outside chance that he will talk to a third: Le Pen. ..."
"... Kushner and the military have the foreign policy portfolio. Trump has no idea whats going on. All of a sudden everybody likes him. That's enough for Trump. So "we" have gone full Zio. Duck and cover! ..."
Maybe the president believes he's won a great victory over the wicked Syrians by lobbing cruise
missiles at one of their underused air bases. Maybe Trump believes that he's scared the evil Russians
and the too big for their sampans Chinese into obedience.
His 22,000 lb MOAB terror bomb on Afghanistan should keep those pesky Taliban quiet for a while
even though the Pentagon claimed the intended target was a group- Khorosan – that may not actually
exist.
Those major malefactors, the crazy North Koreans, could be about to feel America's full military
might if they so much as twitch.
Not content with nearly stirring up a new war with North Korea, President Donald Trump is now
waving the big stick at another of Washington's favorite bogeymen, Iran. For the Trumps, Iran is
poison.
In recent days, President Trump has threatened to renounce the six-power nuclear agreement to
freeze or shrink Iran's nuclear infrastructure. This sensible pact was signed during the Obama administration
by the great powers: US, Britain, France, Russia, Germany and China. Trump appears willing to abrogate
the treaty and outrage the other great powers just because he hates Iran for some reason and, it
appears, Muslims in general.
The Trump administration seems increasingly influenced by Israel's far right Netanyahu government.
In fact, PM Netanyahu often appears the most moderate member of his rightist coalition which is dominated
by militant West Bank settlers.
Trump has surrounded himself with ardent supporters of Israel's right. One of his major bankrollers
is casino mogul Sheldon Adelson who is a key supporter of Jewish expansion on the illegally occupied
West Bank.
Israel's right has made a hate fetish of Iran and incessantly calls for war against the Islamic
Republic. However, the mighty US Israel lobby twice failed to push the Obama administration to attack
Iran. The US Congress, by contrast, is totally under the thumb of Israel's American lobby and pays
more respect to PM Netanyahu than the president. He who pays the piper .
In fact, Congress sought to block sales of Boeing civilian airliners to Iran worth $16.6 billion
even though it would have cost thousands of American jobs. Congress has been trying to sabotage the
Iran nuclear deal ever since it was signed, putting American national interests on a collision course
with those of Israel's right.
But now President Trump says he's found a new reason to sabotage the six-power deal: Iran, insists
Trump, supports 'terrorism' and has bad intentions. This charge has been around for decades, cited
by Israel as a compelling reason to attack Iran because Tehran supports the 'terrorist' Lebanese
movement Hezbollah and the Palestinian movement Hamas.
The 'terrorist' label is slapped onto all enemies of Israel and the United States. It's a handy,
meaningless sobriquet that automatically denies those so named political or moral justice.
I was with the Israel army when it invaded Lebanon in 1982 and saw first-hand how its arrogance
turned formerly pro-Israel Shia Lebanese in the south into anti-Israel fighters. Israel actually
encouraged and may have secretly financed the growth of Hezbollah and Hamas hoping they would drain
support from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Lebanon's Amal militia.
Israel hates Hamas and Hezbollah and is determined to eradicate them. The principal supporter
of Hamas and Hezbollah has long been Syria. Large parts of Syria have now been destroyed by a US-engineered
uprising and bands of Saudi-financed mercenaries. That has left Iran as the main supporter of Hamas
and Hezbollah, and a principal backer of Syria's Assad government. The PLO has become a puppet of
Israel and the US.
So Israel is now determined to destroy Hezbollah in its strongholds in Lebanon and then crush
Hamas with Trump's blessing, so ending any dreams of a Palestinian state. Iran is now being blamed
for all Washington's problems in the Mideast. So war fever against Iran is again mounting.
IDF vs Hezbollah round 2 should be interesting. All the Pauly Shores and Jared Kushners
in uniform shat their panties when they faced a tough disciplined adversary immune to air superiority.
Asymmetrical warfare is the 21st century's antidote to gunboat diplomacy.
We in the west got scant information of the drubbing the Edomites got in that scrap. If you
read between the lines of major media coverage (as obviously should be done) one got the distinct
impression that they ran out of euphemisms to try to paint that conflict as anywhere near positive.
It turns out that the mighty Israeli army had feet of clay. And hurt feelings too judging by
the massive 48 hour air assault they conducted before the peace agreement came into effect.
My prediction is that the next time around the IDF will use all modern MOAB and fuel air ordnance
weapons (gifted by Uncle Sugar) to clear the ground before their snowflake grunts appear on the
scene. A real holocaust (by dictionary definition) as it were. Of course militarily it is the
proper thing to do but politically problematic. If Hezbollah has accounted for this by burrowing
ever more deeply, there will be dragons. Israel cannot allow for any kind of casualty count domestically.
It is written that the French killed 75,000 0f their own due to artillery barrages in WW1.
Those days are long over.
It looks like Trump hasn't gotten Eric's memo. He's also not afraid to think really big. Besides,
Trump is one of those people who double down and try to prove anyone wrong who says he can't do
something, so we should prepare for war with Iran, Syria, N. Korea, and Russia no matter the consequences.
The Trump administration seems increasingly influenced by Israel's far right Netanyahu government.
Ditto that. Trump is a Judaized white man who was surrounded by many American Jews with longstanding
ties to the Likud party, so I always thought his talk of non-interventionism and "America first"
seemed fanciful and merely designed to ensnare "deplorabes". It was only a matter of time before
his court Jews employed their wiles to change Trump from populist with a humble foreign policy
into a cross between George W. Bush and Bibi Netanyahu bent on regime change and more reckless
and insane than both combined.
Actually, Shel Adelson put all his casino chips in Rubio's corner, and considered Trump
unreliable at best. Until Trump won. Then I guess Adelson did support him, though I doubt Trump
is bought and paid for to the extent Rubio would have been.
Let's look at the alternatives here. Any other Republican except for Rand Paul wanted confrontation
with Iran, and on a faster timetable than Trump. Hillary was more hawkish than Trump, on that
nearly everyone agrees. So really, the odds of any other major candidate starting a war
with Iran were greater than they are with Trump.
But what of this?
Trump is a Judaized white man who was surrounded by many American Jews with longstanding
ties to the Likud party, so I always thought his talk of non-interventionism and "America first"
seemed fanciful and merely designed to ensnare "deplorabes."
Again, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to serve as President without "American Jews with
longstanding ties to the Likud Party" to be lurking around somewhere. They are everywhere
, in both parties, and at a synagogue near you. But if Trump gets into the morass of regime
change, he's a one-term President and a massive failure. I think he knows that.
Donald Trump's rhetorical bravado in Syria and Afghanistan is a prelude of a looming attack
on Iran that will evolve, at the end, into an outright war across the Middle East. Such a war
of aggression will break America's neck and will be the beginning of the end of the State of Israel.
Both crazy states have nuclear weapons and they will use them. Both, Israel and the US, don't
have any ethics. They are driven by a domination of other peoples. The US have been waging wars
since its establishment, except for 17 (!) years. A real peace-loving nation. The same holds true
for Israel. Since 1948, Israel has been at war with its neighbors and threatens Iran with war.
Trump, at the order of Netanyahu, will destroy Iran in order to establish Israel as the
only hegemonic power over the whole Middle East and Northern Africa. That's why they are destroying
one country after another according to sectarian and religious lines such as the Yinon Plan outlined.
The whole chaos in the Middle East serves only Israel. Just recently, Netanyahu said that Israel
is one of the superpowers. How right he is.
@Anonymous By all means sell all the guided missiles, sorry... airliners, that Persian hearts
desire! They will go up in smoke, torched by 500 lb bombs, or maybe by Standard missiles while
trying to hit a high-rise building in the civilized world.
And Israel wins without fighting yet again. Sun Tzu is smiling, but looks a bit tired. Sorry,
911, inside job!
Hey Eric- in your list of threats by Trump, you skip his threats to Mexic0, China, Australia,
Germany, Sweden, Britain, the EU, and most recently South Korea. And not to forget: Canada.
Of course, he's not threatening war against any of those. Just trade war.
Except China.
It's hard to tell whether he knows the difference between friends and foes.
Oh, wait, there is one country and one leader he has never threatened, never spoken a bad word
of, and never so much as hinted at being any sort of issue for the United States.
Only sure cure, to get Americans to stop terrorizing the planet earth-Remove/relocate UN into
Palestine (West Bank).
Didi
,
May 2, 2017 at 12:30 pm GMT \n
Mr. Margolis. Everything in Trumpland has to be magnified to huge. The attack on the Iran
agreement fits nicely in Trump's idiosyncrasy that every achievement of president Obama must be
dragged through the mud and declared the worst thing ever done by a US president. As in the case
of NAFTA Trump may actually do nothing after he has talked to two women: May and Merkel. There
is even an outside chance that he will talk to a third: Le Pen. mr meener
,
May 2, 2017 at 12:46 pm GMT \n
head rabbi in Israel .goyim were born to serve Israel. trump has been kosherized by
all the traitor jews around him with the master of them all kosher Kushner. the Syrian air force
base was bombed because Syria did shoot down an Israeli jet. even the NK fiasco is tied to Israel.
when Israel bombed the Syrian reactor in 2006 they killed 10 north Korean scientists who they
knew were there. EVERY foreign policy war blockades sanctions bombing are ALL for israel. there
is utterly no hope for this country
mr meener
,
May 2, 2017 at 12:48 pm GMT \n
@Proud_Srbin Thank you for frankness Mr. Margolis. Humanity always prevails, terrorists always
lose!
God Bless Mankind! when the terrorist army is ISIS Israel's private army they will not lose.
they have the backing of the whole west and saudia arbia. keep dreaming evil never loses in a
world controlled by satan and his spawn
China and Russia, both bordering Korea, have not yet drawn their redlines to any attack on
NK.
And why not? Is it because they know or feel sure that US dares not wage a full scale war against
NK?
Surely, surely mad US generals, fake MSM, fake Congress are not that mad to attack a country
like Korea.
How about by a pinprick; similar to that on the Shayrat airbase?
Israel hates Hamas and Hezbollah and is determined to eradicate them. The principal supporter
of Hamas and Hezbollah has long been Syria. Large parts of Syria have now been destroyed by
a US-engineered uprising and bands of Saudi-financed mercenaries. That has left Iran as the
main supporter of Hamas and Hezbollah, and a principal backer of Syria's Assad government.
The PLO has become a puppet of Israel and the US.
I've said all along that the war being waged by the US against Syria is for the purpose of
destroying the supply line used to transfer advanced weapons from Iran to Hezbollah. Israel simply
cannot abide the thought of being unable to invade Lebanon at will, and will never, ever get over
having their plow cleaned by Hezbollah in 2006.
Obama has left an indelible mark with his signing on of the US to the deal on Iran's nuclear
program. It's irreversible now because Russia is a party to the deal. As is the Syria war because
of Russia's influence and it's MAD deterrent. And North Korea is safe because of China's influence.
Throughout the world the situation is going to be different now for the US. Russia and China
have stood up and drawn a line in the sand. The deterrent to US aggression that was missing since
the fall of the Soviet Union is now back.
@bob balkas China and Russia, both bordering Korea, have not yet drawn their redlines to any
attack on NK.
And why not? Is it because they know or feel sure that US dares not wage a full scale war against
NK?
Surely, surely mad US generals, fake MSM, fake Congress are not that mad to attack a country
like Korea.
How about by a pinprick; similar to that on the Shayrat airbase? Make no mistake Bob, the red
lines have been drawn by China and Russia that forbid a US strike against North Korea. Much goes
on in the background that is not fed to the US media. This is why the US media is useless for
letting us know what is really happening in foreign affairs that include the US. It's also the
reason why 90% of what we read on antiwar.com is useless too.
It's a good idea to avoid military action against Iran. No matter how many military victories
you chalk up on the battlefield, you can't win in the long run fighting in an area in which the
vast majority of the population does not want you there. WorkingClass
,
May 2, 2017 at 8:27 pm GMT \n
Kushner and the military have the foreign policy portfolio. Trump has no idea whats going
on. All of a sudden everybody likes him. That's enough for Trump. So "we" have gone full Zio.
Duck and cover! eric
siverson ,
May 2, 2017 at 9:45 pm GMT \n
I think a lot of people are confusing the little independent State of Israel with the international
bankers often referred to as the new world order NWO I don't agree they are the same force and
Israel has been and will continue to be as much of a victim as all the rest of us .
Carroll
Price ,
May 3, 2017 at 2:52 am GMT \n
@eric siverson I think a lot of people are confusing the little independent State of Israel
with the international bankers often referred to as the new world order NWO I don't agree they
are the same force and Israel has been and will continue to be as much of a victim as all the
rest of us . With American tax payers forking over in excess of 5 billion dollars per year to
Israel (and that's only what we know about) you could hardly refer to that shitty little aberration
as an independent state.
"In some ways I've been disheartened by the election of Trump
and the fact so many fellow citizens would vote for him. "
I disagree. Voting for Trump was not so much voting for Trump
as voting against Hillary, voting against the Washington
neoliberal/neocon establishment.
Trump was just a flag bearers of the discontent against
neoliberalism in the USA (and first of all destruction of
jobs and redistribution of wealth up ) and neoliberal
globalization as well as never ending wars for the expansion
of neoliberal empire led by the USA.
And it is under him part of the protest movement coalesce.
In this sense his success mirror the success of Bernie
Sanders, and I believe a part of voters who intended to vote
for Bernie voted for Trump as "the lesser evil",
As one respondent, a 34-year-old male IT technician, put
it: "Bernie and Trump agree a lot on healthcare, Iraq war,
campaign finance and trade. I really want to move on to
something new, new ideas from outside the box. Maybe Donald
Trump can provide that."
The fact that such discontent is appropriated by far right
in not new historically. And the fact that Trump was forced,
or from the beginning intended to betray his supporters is
nothing new. This is a standard practice of both Democratic
Party since Clinton. Although it is too early to tell, it
might well be that Trump is already neutered and we got
Hillary II.
My grandmother spoke perfect, accent free English. She told me, in her late 60's, of her still
vivid memories of being taunted for lack of English, and shared her recollections of all the anti-Semitic
epithets she heard growing up in poverty in Manhattan. She was apparently a terrific student.
But in her senior year of high school, she was told by her principal that she was too poor to
go to college and that her responsibility was to get a job and support her family. These barriers
did not stop her from having a rich and fascinating life, including taking night courses from
Will Durant at the New School for Social Research (as it was then called) and working as a close
secretary to Margaret Sanger, so she was present at the beginning of Planned Parenthood.
And her grandchildren (my sister and me) have lived extraordinarily privileged lives and my
father grew up in middle class comfort.
yuan -> Peter K.... March 19, 2017 at 06:45 PM
what linkage?
the usa had been a corporate fascist kleptocracy for generations. the usa has also been a fundamentally
racist nation since its founding.
please stop apologizing for the deplorables (and neo-fascists) who make up the core of trump's
base.
Neoliberals continue attack who they see as their enemies, the civil left. All the while the
barbarians mass at the gates. I don't quite know what to make of the rage the neoliberals have
towards progressives. I think it's because they think if the progressives weren't stabbing them
in that back they could fend off the fascists.
Progressives know better though. If the neoliberals continue as usual we can't help, fascism
will win out.
You would think that the Trump family would have some awareness of the persecution that German-Americans
were subjected to during WWI. His parents and grandparents certainly would have know about it.
You would think that the Trump family would have some awareness of the persecution that German-Americans
were subjected to during WWI....
[ Interesting, I however have no idea of the family background of the president and wonder
whether much was made of the persecution in American history classes, say, in the 1950s or 1960s.
]
Trump victory was almost 30 years in the making, and I think all presidents starting from Carter
contributed to it.
Even if Hillary became president this time, that would be just one term postponement on
the inevitable outcome of neoliberal domination for the last 30 years.
I think anybody with dictatorial inclinations and promise to "drain the swamp" in Washington,
DC now has serious changes on victory in the US Presidential elections. So after Trump I, we
might see Trump II.
So it people find that Trump betrays his election promised they will turn to democratic
Party. They will turn father right, to some Trump II.
Due to economic instability and loss of jobs, people are ready to trade (fake) two party
"democracy" (which ensures the rule of financial oligarchy by forcing to select between two
equally unpalatable candidates) that we have for economic security, even if the latter means
the slide to the dictatorship.
That's very sad, but I think this is a valid observation. What we experience is a new variation
of the theme first played in 1930th, after the crash of 1928.
The story of working class and lower middle class turning to the far right for help after
financial oligarchy provoke a nationwide crisis and destroy their "way of life" and standards
of living is not new. In 1930th the US ruling class proved to be ready to accept the New Deal
as the alternative. In Germany it was not.
"... During the inflationary crisis of the 1970s, elite policymakers in Western Europe came to the conclusion that it was no longer possible for the welfare state to operate as it had since 1945. Their project thereafter has been twofold: to convince the public that their diagnosis is right, and to enact (what they consider) necessary neoliberal reforms by any means necessary. ..."
"... The first task proved difficult with certain reforms (notably liberalizing labor markets) and easier with others (implementing a fixed exchange rate regime, effectively blocking full employment macroeconomic policy, though not explicitly described as such by its proponents). ..."
"... Gradually, elites shifted their emphasis toward the second strategy. Their primary means of forcing through reform has been the non-democratic policymaking machinery that the European Union put in place in the 1980s and '90s to straitjacket national political actors. (A policymaking machinery that national actors have largely gone along with, since they too are convinced that their domestic policies need a heavy dose of neoliberal reform.) ..."
"... The European far right has existed continuously since World War II, with outbreaks in different countries at different times, each of which is an interesting political phenomenon in its own right. ..."
"... Le Pen's first appearance on the French political scene: the 1956 general election, when Le Pen was elected as part of a wave of followers of the lower-middle-class, xenophobic, populist tax-revolter Pierre Poujade. ..."
"... The center-left establishment is disdained because it tried to bypass national politics and become the high priest-caste of a regressive European order. ..."
"... The reason this political moment feels different - the threat of the far right more threatening, the wan protection offered by the political establishment least reassuring - has nothing to do with the far right itself, nor with the failure of traditional social-democratic policies. Indeed, since Beauchamp assumes that social democracy has been static since 1945, it cannot possibly have caused a political phenomenon that only thrust itself upon us in the last few years. ..."
"... The difference - the critical break - lies in the behavior of the establishment near-right in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It perceived, far sooner than the hapless social democrats of the European mainstream, that the consensus economic policies of the post-1970s era were doomed in the public mind. Having no other acceptable economic program to fall back on, they moved to assimilate xenophobia and use it as both an offensive and defensive weapon for the coming populist onslaught. That is what Cameron did when he acceded to a Brexit referendum, and that is what the Republican Party did when it nominated Donald Trump for the presidency. ..."
"... In short, Trump cannot simply have been caused by white supremacy, because we have always had white supremacy. What we haven't always had is the breakdown of elite consensus and the center-left's veneration of procedural norms and reliance on "non-partisan" third-party validators to fight what is in fact an ideological power struggle. ..."
Again it's interesting that Sanjait and PGL usually agree with Krugman, Bible and verse but they
didn't agree with his most recent blog post which was about populism and leftwing/Sanders-type
economic policy.
Titled "Populism and the Politics of Health"
And yet they didn't want to talk about! Very odd...
Here's a good rejoiner to Vox and Krugman about a subject Sanjait and PGL don't want to talk
about:
A Vox writer sets out to prove social-democratic policies aided the far right. He fails.
by Marshall Steinbaum
Several weeks before Hillary Clinton's bitter defeat at the hands of Donald Trump, Vox's Zack
Beauchamp waded into the simplistic debate about whether "economic anxiety" or racism was to blame
for Trump's political success with a salvo on behalf of the racism explanation. Although that
effort made some worthwhile points, it ultimately failed to explain why long-existing latent racism
manifested in the sudden increase in xenophobia in formal politics.
This week Beauchamp returned to the breach, which has only grown wider since Trump's victory.
Now the battle is about whether economic populism offers a way to stop Trump and the international
march of the far right, rather than whether economic dislocation caused that march in the first
place.
Beauchamp doesn't think Bernie Sanders–style economic populism can foil the far right. But
his argument is much more ambitious: he sets out to prove that economically populist policies
stoke, rather than ameliorate, far-right political tendencies. To do that, he deploys the following
claims:
*European countries that adopted more generous redistributive policies in the post–World War
II era were more vulnerable to far-right politics than those that adopted less generous ones.
*The far right's rise occurred over the past several decades and continues despite the Left's
efforts to buy its supporters off with socialism. The reason why is that continuous immigration
has run up against an electorate that is irredeemably racist and only becomes more so as it perceives
immigrants to be the beneficiaries of the welfare state.
*Recent cases in which once-center-left parties swung decisively to the left - notably, the
UK Labour Party - have proved politically disastrous and only further exacerbated the loss of
political ground to the far right.
*American history is replete with white supremacy, and that fact is probably the major reason
why politics in the US has consistently been several notches to the right of our European counterparts.
Of these claims, only the last one resembles reality. All the others are blatant misreadings
of recent and not-so-recent history.
According to Beauchamp's stylized view of European politics, social democracy exists along
a one-dimensional continuum, with variation in the degree to which it was enacted into policy
in different countries after 1945. Combining the rising tide of immigration since the 1970s with
the ex-ante degree of social generosity, Beauchamp concludes that redistribution is perceived
as a giveaway to outsiders, and hence motivates backlash politics.
What's missing here is an understanding of what actually happened to European social democracy
along the way. So let me supply a hopefully slightly better potted history.
During the inflationary crisis of the 1970s, elite policymakers in Western Europe came to the
conclusion that it was no longer possible for the welfare state to operate as it had since 1945.
Their project thereafter has been twofold: to convince the public that their diagnosis is right,
and to enact (what they consider) necessary neoliberal reforms by any means necessary.
The first task proved difficult with certain reforms (notably liberalizing labor markets) and
easier with others (implementing a fixed exchange rate regime, effectively blocking full employment
macroeconomic policy, though not explicitly described as such by its proponents).
Gradually, elites shifted their emphasis toward the second strategy. Their primary means of
forcing through reform has been the non-democratic policymaking machinery that the European Union
put in place in the 1980s and '90s to straitjacket national political actors. (A policymaking
machinery that national actors have largely gone along with, since they too are convinced that
their domestic policies need a heavy dose of neoliberal reform.)
This hollowing out of national politics has had a profound effect on European social democracy.
As power shifted from democratically accountable to democratically unaccountable institutions
through privatization and European integration, the state's capacity to do anything about popular
(as opposed to elite) grievances eroded and discontent exploded.
The ideal end goal of contemporary European social democratic parties is perhaps best embodied
by Germany's Hartz Reforms. Enacted by a Social Democratic government in the early to mid 2000s
over the objections of the country's labor unions, the labor market reforms occasioned a split
in the party that has not been bridged since. According to the consensus narrative, the measures
left Germany in better shape than ever, allowing it to weather the Great Recession and become
a haven for economic and political refugees.
Beauchamp buys this assessment, endorsing - without evidence - the view that too much redistribution
and regulation causes economic problems. Yet the Hartz Reforms are not responsible for Germany's
relative macroeconomic success. In fact, they've worsened its labor market outcomes.
Beauchamp's point is not to conduct a policy evaluation, of course, but to presuppose that
such an evaluation has already been conducted. And that serves his real rhetorical aim: to discredit
the notion that social-democratic policies offer a solution to an emboldened far right. That it
might be exactly the failure of these neoliberal reforms and the disrepute they've brought the
leaders and factions who spearheaded them that caused social democracy's parlous state is nowhere
entertained. The sea change in social democracy goes entirely unmentioned in Beauchamp's piece.
Which brings us to the parallel potted history of the European far right. Beauchamp's method
is to recount a series of dates and country names: Jen-Marie Le Pen's creation of the Front National
in France in 1972; its electoral breakthrough in the 1984 European elections (which Beauchamp
doesn't note immediately followed a round of fiscal austerity inflicted by a Socialist government);
Jorg Haider's takeover of the Freedom Party in Austria in 1986; Pim Fortuyn's 2002 assassination
on the cusp of winning an outsized share of the vote in a Dutch parliamentary election; and Le
Pen's success at reaching the French presidential election's second round that year. The narrative
here is of a transnational, steady rise to power.
That telling is almost wholly false. The European far right has existed continuously since
World War II, with outbreaks in different countries at different times, each of which is an interesting
political phenomenon in its own right.
Beauchamp doesn't mention, for instance, Le Pen's first appearance on the French political
scene: the 1956 general election, when Le Pen was elected as part of a wave of followers of the
lower-middle-class, xenophobic, populist tax-revolter Pierre Poujade. Why omit that election?
Because it would hinder Beauchamp's claim, pointing as it does to a social movement that has long
existed on the fringes of politics and society and comes closest to power only when the political
establishment is most discredited in the public mind. And that is exactly where we are now.
The reason the European political establishment, particularly of the center-left variety, is
held in contempt is not because it tried making the welfare state more generous, only to have
the electorate turn against them out of the racist belief that foreigners were vacuuming up all
the benefits. The center-left establishment is disdained because it tried to bypass national politics
and become the high priest-caste of a regressive European order.
Which brings us to the UK Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn's election as its leader. Beauchamp's
move here is to conflate Corbyn with his hapless predecessor, Ed Miliband, and thereby link Labour's
poor performance since 2010 to one big move to the left. In truth, Miliband inherited a party
burned by its association with the financial crisis and its willingness to go along with the Iraq
War, and steered it through treacherous waters with a mix of Blairite and more populist rhetoric
(his greatest success being a proposal to regulate power companies).
Although Beauchamp paints the 2015 general election result as a disaster for Labour, the incumbent
Tory-led coalition government came very close to losing, and the current Tory government enjoys
the slimmest parliamentary majority since the 1970s. Labour netted seats at Conservative and Liberal
Democrat expense in England; its total count suffered because the Scottish electorate deserted
the party in favor of the Scottish National Party - a move driven by Scotland's overwhelming disgust
for the incumbent government and hostility to the Westminster Labour faction's record under Blair
and Brown. Far from being a failure of the left, these results were further evidence of the establishment's
tarnished legitimacy.
This is the environment that propelled Corbyn to the top of Labour. His candidacy in the leadership
election later that year was given a crucial boost by the parliamentary party's failure to oppose
the reelected Tory government's cuts to social welfare early in the parliament's term - feeding
the perception of a hapless, ideologically adrift party leadership in need of a drastic shake
up.
Notably, the name "David Cameron" appears not once in Beauchamp's account of recent British
political history. Yet the reason Cameron won the 2015 election was the big giveaway he made to
shore up his right flank: the Brexit referendum. When Brexit ended up passing - despite the opposition
of every major party - it was a gigantic slap in the face to the incumbent establishment. (Oddly,
Beauchamp portrays Brexit as discrediting Corbyn - mirroring the way that Corbyn's intraparty
opponents blamed his leadership for the vote, even though the Labour electorate overwhelmingly
opposed Brexit and its winning margin was drawn from the English middle class, long the Tories'
electoral backbone.)
The reason this political moment feels different - the threat of the far right more threatening,
the wan protection offered by the political establishment least reassuring - has nothing to do
with the far right itself, nor with the failure of traditional social-democratic policies. Indeed,
since Beauchamp assumes that social democracy has been static since 1945, it cannot possibly have
caused a political phenomenon that only thrust itself upon us in the last few years.
The difference - the critical break - lies in the behavior of the establishment near-right
in the aftermath of the financial crisis. It perceived, far sooner than the hapless social democrats
of the European mainstream, that the consensus economic policies of the post-1970s era were doomed
in the public mind. Having no other acceptable economic program to fall back on, they moved to
assimilate xenophobia and use it as both an offensive and defensive weapon for the coming populist
onslaught. That is what Cameron did when he acceded to a Brexit referendum, and that is what the
Republican Party did when it nominated Donald Trump for the presidency.
Which brings us, finally, back home. The last section of Beauchamp's article draws upon the
great work of Eric Foner and his many disciples. American democracy and American government, Foner
argues, have been stained by white supremacy from the country's founding right up through the
present. The disenfranchisement of a large segment of what would have been a core constituency
for an American social-democratic party - southern blacks - helps explain twentieth- and twenty-first
century political and policy outcomes, well beyond the dire consequences for disenfranchised blacks
themselves. This is a basic, ineluctable fact of American politics.
That's not where Beauchamp ends up, however. Instead he blames the victim for social democracy's
failure in the US: by advocating economic egalitarianism in hostile political territory, he argues,
economic populists brought defeat upon themselves as a racist electorate interpreted that agenda
as a bid to overturn the racial hierarchy.
As Matt Bruenig has written, the unspoken implication of Beauchamp's narrative is that any
left economic agenda must first make it clear that the racial hierarchy will under no circumstances
be threatened. "You can have diversity or you can have economic justice, but you can't have both,"
to use Bruenig's characterization. The acceptance of that false dichotomy, of course, is what
gave us "super-predators," "the end of welfare as we know it," and the Obama administration's
absolute prohibition on uttering the word "poverty" in public prior to its 2012 reelection.
Yet if Beauchamp's interpretation is correct, then the US should never have seen anything other
than reactionary economic policy. And that's obviously not the case.
Interracial, interethnic social movements in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century
won major reforms in the face of implacable hostility from both white supremacists and capitalist
interests. And insofar as Progressive Era politicians betrayed the integrated coalitions that
brought them to power, the sellout took place behind the closed doors of the statehouses and the
United States Capitol. They most certainly did not reflect the impossibility of forming a class-based,
multiracial political coalition.
Then there was the period from 1940 to 1970, which witnessed the greatest progress in closing
the racial wealth and earnings gaps since Reconstruction, thanks to the strength of the New Deal
coalition and the labor movement, which integrated the federal government's military-industrial
supply chain (as well as the military itself, following the war), and the Civil Rights Movement,
which successfully pressed the federal government to intervene in the South on behalf of equal
rights. That advance was eventually turned back the same way it was during Reconstruction: through
an alliance of white supremacy and implicitly racialized "free market" ideology, the latter of
which came to dominate both major political parties.
In short, Trump cannot simply have been caused by white supremacy, because we have always had
white supremacy. What we haven't always had is the breakdown of elite consensus and the center-left's
veneration of procedural norms and reliance on "non-partisan" third-party validators to fight
what is in fact an ideological power struggle.
Insofar as Beauchamp has a rhetorical opponent rather than a straw man, it is the Left's backlash
against this retrograde, apologetic politics, which comes at a time when the latter has finally
and abjectly failed to win or hold power at the federal, state, or local level. And that failure
has occurred because centrist apologetics are up against the real thing: far-right xenophobia,
shoulder to shoulder with plutocracy, dominating our national politics and threatening the lives
and wellbeing of millions of our American and immigrant brethren.
Winning justice for those oppressed groups, if it is to happen, will owe nothing to the politics
for which Beauchamp fights his rearguard action.
Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid: Palestine and
the Israeli Occupation
By United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
This report examines, based on key instruments of international law, whether Israel has established
an apartheid regime that oppresses and dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Having established
that the crime of apartheid has universal application, that the question of the status of the
Palestinians as a people is settled in law, and that the crime of apartheid should be considered
at the level of the State, the report sets out to demonstrate how Israel has imposed such a system
on the Palestinians in order to maintain the domination of one racial group over others.
A history of war, annexation and expulsions, as well as a series of practices, has left the
Palestinian people fragmented into four distinct population groups, three of them (citizens of
Israel, residents of East Jerusalem and the populace under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza)
living under direct Israeli rule and the remainder, refugees and involuntary exiles, living beyond.
This fragmentation, coupled with the application of discrete bodies of law to those groups, lie
at the heart of the apartheid regime. They serve to enfeeble opposition to it and to veil its
very existence. This report concludes, on the basis of overwhelming evidence, that Israel is guilty
of the crime of apartheid, and urges swift action to oppose and end it. *
Oh, the irony. The usual set of posts on how great China is, followed by an attack on Israelis
for apartheid(justified I think). Meanwhile, in Tibet..............
"The usual set of posts on how great China is, followed by an attack on Israelis for apartheid(justified
I think)."
The difference is that we give billions in military aid to Israel and are mucking about the
Middle East on their behalf, to keep the peace ostensibly and to keep the oil flowing. But I agree
Tibet is a crime and John Oliver gave a good deep dive on it recently. The abuse of civil liberties
in occupied Tibet is ranked worse than in North Korea.
One can be objective about America's rivals just as one can be objective about America's allies.
You don't have to spin against our enemies and for our allies, just as it's folly to spin for
Democrats and for Republicans.
Israeli Practices towards the Palestinian People and the Question of Apartheid: Palestine and
the Israeli Occupation
By United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia
Executive Summary
This report concludes that Israel has established an apartheid regime that dominates the Palestinian
people as a whole. Aware of the seriousness of this allegation, the authors of the report conclude
that available evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies
and practices that constitute the crime of apartheid as legally defined in instruments of international
law.
The analysis in this report rests on the same body of international human rights law and principles
that reject anti-Semitism and other racially discriminatory ideologies, including: the Charter
of the United Nations (1945), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the International
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965). The report relies
for its definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the International Convention on the
Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereinafter the Apartheid Convention):
The term "the crime of apartheid", which shall include similar policies and practices of racial
segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to inhuman acts committed
for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over
any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.
Although the term "apartheid" was originally associated with the specific instance of South
Africa, it now represents a species of crime against humanity under customary international law
and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, according to which:
"The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts committed in the context of an institutionalized
regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group
or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.
Against that background, this report reflects the expert consensus that the prohibition of
apartheid is universally applicable and was not rendered moot by the collapse of apartheid in
South Africa and South West Africa (Namibia).
The legal approach to the matter of apartheid adopted by this report should not be confused
with usage of the term in popular discourse as an expression of opprobrium. Seeing apartheid as
discrete acts and practices (such as the "apartheid wall"), a phenomenon generated by anonymous
structural conditions like capitalism ("economic apartheid"), or private social behaviour on the
part of certain racial groups towards others (social racism) may have its place in certain contexts.
However, this report anchors its definition of apartheid in international law, which carries with
it responsibilities for States, as specified in international instruments.
The choice of evidence is guided by the Apartheid Convention, which sets forth that the crime
of apartheid consists of discrete inhuman acts, but that such acts acquire the status of crimes
against humanity only if they intentionally serve the core purpose of racial domination. The Rome
Statute specifies in its definition the presence of an "institutionalized regime" serving the
"intention" of racial domination. Since "purpose" and "intention" lie at the core of both definitions,
this report examines factors ostensibly separate from the Palestinian dimension - especially,
the doctrine of Jewish statehood as expressed in law and the design of Israeli State institutions
- to establish beyond doubt the presence of such a core purpose.
That the Israeli regime is designed for this core purpose was found to be evident in the body
of laws, only some of which are discussed in the report for reasons of scope. One prominent example
is land policy. The Israeli Basic Law (Constitution) mandates that land held by the State of Israel,
the Israeli Development Authority or the Jewish National Fund shall not be transferred in any
manner, placing its management permanently under their authority. The State Property Law of 1951
provides for the reversion of property (including land) to the State in any area "in which the
law of the State of Israel applies". The Israel Lands Authority (ILA) manages State land, which
accounts for 93 per cent of the land within the internationally recognized borders of Israel and
is by law closed to use, development or ownership by non-Jews. Those laws reflect the concept
of "public purpose" as expressed in the Basic Law. Such laws may be changed by Knesset vote, but
the Basic Law: Knesset prohibits any political party from challenging that public purpose. Effectively,
Israeli law renders opposition to racial domination illegal....
Dear Red-State Trump Voter, Let's face it, guys: We're done.
For more than 80 years now, we-the residents of what some people like to call Blue America, but
which I prefer to think of as the United States of We Pay Our Own Damn Way-have shelled out far more
in federal tax monies than we took in. We have funded massive infrastructure projects in your rural
counties, subsidized your schools and your power plants and your nursing homes, sent you entire industries,
and simultaneously absorbed the most destitute, unskilled, and oppressed portions of your populations,
white and black alike.
All of which, it turns out, only left you more bitter, white, and alt-right than ever.
Some folks here in self-supporting America like to believe that there must be a way to bring you
back to your senses and to restore rational government, if not liberal ideals, sometime in the foreseeable
future. Everyone seems to have an answer for how to do this. Every day another earnest little homily
finds its way to me over my internet transom: "Think locally, act globally," or "Make art and fight
the power," or the old Joe Hill standby-"Don't mourn. Organize."
To which I say: Don't organize. Pack.
Not literally, of course. Not even the good people of Canada should have to stomach a mass migration
of moping American liberals mumbling, "Live locally make art." What I mean is that it's time for
blue states and cities to effectively abandon the American national enterprise, as it is currently
constituted. Call it the New Federalism. Or Virtual Secession. Or Conscious Uncoupling-though that's
already been used. Or maybe Bluexit.
Truth is, you red states just haven't been pulling your weight. Not for, well, forever. Red states
are nearly twice as dependent on the federal government as blue states. Of the twelve states that
received the least federal aid in return for each tax dollar they contribute to the U.S. Treasury,
ten of them voted for Hillary Clinton-and the other two were Michigan and Wisconsin, your newest
recruits. By the same count, 20 of the 26 states most dependent on federal aid went to Trump.
Take Mississippi (please!), famous for being 49th or 50th in just about everything that matters.
When it comes to sucking at the federal teat, the Magnolia State is the undisputed champ. More than
40 percent of Mississippi's state revenue comes from federal funding; one-third of its GDP comes
from federal spending; for every dollar it pays out in federal taxes, it takes in $4.70 in federal
aid; one in five residents are on food stamps-all national highs. You people-your phrase, not mine-liked
to bash Obama for turning America into what you derisively referred to as "Food Stamp Nation." In
reality, it's more like Food Stamp Red America-something your Trump-loving congressmen will discover
if and when they fulfill their vow to gut the program.
Trump's characterization of "American carnage" in our urban centers aside, cities now generate
the vast majority of America's wealth-the cities, that is, where blue folks live. It's true that
Hillary Clinton carried just 487 counties in 2016. It's also true that those 487 counties generate
almost two-thirds of the nation's economic activity. ...
Dear Red-State Trump Voter,
Let's face it, guys: We're done.
For more than 80 years now, we-the residents of what some
people like to call Blue America, but which I prefer to think
of as the United States of We Pay Our Own Damn Way-have
shelled out far more in federal tax monies than we took in.
We have funded massive infrastructure projects in your rural
counties, subsidized your schools and your power plants and
your nursing homes, sent you entire industries, and
simultaneously absorbed the most destitute, unskilled, and
oppressed portions of your populations, white and black
alike.
All of which, it turns out, only left you more bitter,
white, and alt-right than ever.
Some folks here in self-supporting America like to believe
that there must be a way to bring you back to your senses and
to restore rational government, if not liberal ideals,
sometime in the foreseeable future. Everyone seems to have an
answer for how to do this. Every day another earnest little
homily finds its way to me over my internet transom: "Think
locally, act globally," or "Make art and fight the power," or
the old Joe Hill standby-"Don't mourn. Organize."
To which I say: Don't organize. Pack.
Not literally, of course. Not even the good people of
Canada should have to stomach a mass migration of moping
American liberals mumbling, "Live locally make art." What I
mean is that it's time for blue states and cities to
effectively abandon the American national enterprise, as it
is currently constituted. Call it the New Federalism. Or
Virtual Secession. Or Conscious Uncoupling-though that's
already been used. Or maybe Bluexit.
Truth is, you red states just haven't been pulling your
weight. Not for, well, forever. Red states are nearly twice
as dependent on the federal government as blue states. Of the
twelve states that received the least federal aid in return
for each tax dollar they contribute to the U.S. Treasury, ten
of them voted for Hillary Clinton-and the other two were
Michigan and Wisconsin, your newest recruits. By the same
count, 20 of the 26 states most dependent on federal aid went
to Trump.
Take Mississippi (please!), famous for being 49th or 50th
in just about everything that matters. When it comes to
sucking at the federal teat, the Magnolia State is the
undisputed champ. More than 40 percent of Mississippi's state
revenue comes from federal funding; one-third of its GDP
comes from federal spending; for every dollar it pays out in
federal taxes, it takes in $4.70 in federal aid; one in five
residents are on food stamps-all national highs. You
people-your phrase, not mine-liked to bash Obama for turning
America into what you derisively referred to as "Food Stamp
Nation." In reality, it's more like Food Stamp Red
America-something your Trump-loving congressmen will discover
if and when they fulfill their vow to gut the program.
Trump's characterization of "American carnage" in our
urban centers aside, cities now generate the vast majority of
America's wealth-the cities, that is, where blue folks live.
It's true that Hillary Clinton carried just 487 counties in
2016. It's also true that those 487 counties generate almost
two-thirds of the nation's economic activity. ...
The "thirty-year crisis" of capitalism, which encompassed two world wars and the Great Depression,
was followed by a period that some economists call the Golden Age of capitalism. Today, however,
capitalism is once again enmeshed in a crisis that portends far-reaching consequences. I am not referring
here to the mere phenomenon of the generally slower average growth that has marked the system since
the mid-1970s. Rather, I am talking specifically of the crisis that started with the collapse of
the U.S. housing bubble in 2007-8 and which, far from abating, is only becoming more pronounced.
The Western media often give the impression that the capitalist world is slowly emerging from
this crisis. Since the Eurozone continues to be mired in stagnation, this impression derives entirely
from the experience of the United States, where there has been talk of raising the interest rate
on the grounds that the crisis is over, and inflation is now the new threat. There are, however,
two points about the U.S. "recovery" that need to be noted.
First, the so-called recovery has been greatly influenced by the boost in consumer demand, which
in turn was stimulated by the drastic fall in oil prices. However, this increased demand has not
been accompanied by any notable increase in investment activity, despite the fact that long-term
interest rates are near zero-that is, despite a monetary policy that has been as supportive as it
can be. We have, in other words, a repeat of the situation of the late 1930s, prior to the U.S. rearmament
drive, when capacity utilization improved in the consumption goods sector without much recovery in
the capital goods sector.
1
Secondly, even this limited recovery in the United States has coincided with an extraordinarily
high rate of unemployment. Official statistics show an exactly opposite picture, of a decline in
unemployment to just 5 percent at present. But what is missed in these figures is the large exodus
from the labor force: millions have become too discouraged to continue seeking work, and are therefore
no longer counted as unemployed. In fact, if one takes the labor force to working-age population
ratio (the labor force participation rate) from 2007, when the Great Recession began, and recalculates
the size of the current labor force on that basis, then the current unemployment rate would be around
11 percent.
2 Many would put the figure even higher, on the grounds that the official size of the labor force
is an underestimate even for the base date.
To claim, therefore, that the United States is experiencing a full recovery is, in terms of working
class well-being and economic security, wrong. And if we consider the rest of the world, especially
recent developments in the "emerging economies," the situation is much worse.
II
The most significant of these developments is the slowing down of the growth rate in countries
like India and China-that is, the spread of the crisis to the so-called emerging economies, especially
China. Let us locate this slowdown in its proper context.
Since 2005, the trade-weighted exchange rate (TWER) of China-its exchange rate vis-ŕ-vis a basket
of currencies, where the weight of each currency depends upon its relative importance in China's
trade-has appreciated by 50 percent. Even between 2009, when the TWER spiked, and 2015, the extent
of appreciation was 20 percent. This basically meant that the Chinese economy was creating more room
for the rest of the world to compete with it, and hence, in effect, to grow at China's own expense.
China could afford to do so because an asset price bubble was then sustaining its domestic growth
rate. In a sense, therefore, China was supporting the growth rate of the rest of the world, in much
the same way that the United States had done decades earlier-though of course the stimulus provided
by China was not as large. This Chinese support explains why the crisis continued, but not in as
accentuated a form as it would have otherwise.
But the asset price bubble in China has now collapsed, which, together with the effect of global
stagnation on Chinese exports, has slowed the nation's growth rate. This explains the recent devaluation
of the yuan by a little less than 4 percent, and the Chinese government's apparent willingness to
effect greater devaluation in the future, camouflaged as a commitment to make the yuan more "market-determined."
In a number of ways, the devaluation of the yuan, and official hints that further devaluations
cannot be ruled out, constitutes the start of a whole new dynamic. First, it marks the beginning
of a spate of competitive currency depreciations-apparently effected by the market but with the connivance
of their respective governments-and hence of "beggar-thy-neighbor" policies, another echo of the
1930s, after the collapse of the gold standard. Indeed, after the devaluation of the yuan, several
currencies have also depreciated vis-ŕ-vis the dollar. This is because the "market"-that is, speculators-have
expected such depreciations and hence behaved in a way that actually brings them about. Meanwhile,
goverments have been either unwilling to intervene to support their currencies, since that would
hurt competitiveness and reduce net exports, or unable to do so, in cases where they lack adequate
foreign exchange reserves.
This spate of currency depreciations, which are likely to recur, represents, in effect, a struggle
between countries for a larger share in a non-expanding world market. I discuss the issue of non-expansion
below, but two points about this struggle over markets should be noted here. First, the United States
is at a disadvantage in this struggle, since the currency depreciations are all vis-ŕ-vis the U.S.
dollar. This means that there is no way that the dollar itself can be made to depreciate relative
to other currencies. The United States has predictably postponed the increase in its interest rate,
which the Fed has been promising for some time, since such an increase would only have appreciated
the value of the dollar still further. Unfortunately, the Fed cannot lower its interest rates any
further since they are already close to zero, and monetary policy is incapable of pushing them into
negative digits.
Thus, while the United States cannot use monetary policy to defend its net exports and hence prevent
the additional unemployment arising from a reduction in net exports, it also cannot even hope that
the value of the dollar vis-ŕ-vis other currencies will stabilize at their current level. When other
currencies fall relative to the dollar, it only strengthens the tendency of wealth-holders around
the world to flock to the dollar. This means that the undermining of the United States' net-exports
position will continue, thereby exacerbating U.S. unemployment. In short, the dollar's role as a
universal medium of wealth-holding, which has allowed the United States to finance massive current
account deficits, will act as an albatross at the level of domestic activity and employment.
To defend its domestic activity, the United States therefore has no alternative policy measure
but to impose implicit or explicit trade restrictions, such as those in the Bring Jobs Home Act introduced
in the Senate in July 2014. For even if the United States were to overcome the neoliberal aversion
to fiscal activism in pursuit of larger employment and actually undertake a fiscal stimulus, without
trade restrictions, the employment-generating effects of such a stimulus would leak out abroad even
more than before. But any imposition of trade restrictions would undermine the neoliberal order,
presided over by international finance capital, which the United States is committed to defending.
The second point to note about this struggle over a non-expanding world market is that it would
no longer just remain "non-expanding" in the weak sense of the term, but would actually begin to
contract. This is because in a situation of widespread currency depreciation all currencies do not
move up or down exactly synchronously. Consequently the calculation of profitability on projects
becomes more difficult, as costs and revenues can fluctuate over any arbitrary stretch of time. Hence,
the risks associated with investment increase, causing everywhere a shrinking of investment below
what it otherwise would have been, and with it an overall contraction in the world market.
This brings us to the second aspect of the new dynamic. The recent fall in China's growth rate
has led to a collapse in world commodity prices (though some, like oil, began falling even earlier).
This has already affected the growth rates of a whole range of countries dependent on commodity exports,
like Australia, Chile, and Brazil, with the latter now "officially" declared to be suffering from
a recession. The generalized fall in commodity prices will serve to shrink the world market still
further.
True, I said earlier that the fall in oil prices was a factor in boosting demand in the
United States and hence provided a demand stimulus for the world economy. But there is a difference
between the effect of a fall in oil prices alone and that of a fall in commodity prices in general.
In the case of oil, the mean "marginal propensity" to spend-to use a Keynesian term-is higher for
the buyers than for the sellers (since the latter are dominated by kings and sheikhs), while the
opposite is likely to be true for other commodities.
Though the fall in commodity prices in itself constitutes an additional cause of the worsening
crisis, it poses a still greater threat through another channel, namely the prospect of what the
early twentieth-century economist Irving Fisher called "debt deflation."
3 Fisher argued that if primary commodity prices, and consequently manufactured goods prices,
fall, then the real burden of debt goes up for those for whom such goods appear on the asset side,
against money-denominated debt obligations on the liability side. To improve their balance sheets,
therefore, they try selling these assets, which only makes things worse, leading to huge falls in
asset prices and hence to bankruptcies that deepen the recession. The advanced capitalist countries
have been on the brink of deflation for a long time; current developments may push them over the
edge and compound the crisis greatly.
The third feature of the current crisis is the tendency toward falling stock prices. This can
be part of the above-mentioned process of a commodity price fall-induced debt deflation itself. And
insofar as the prospect of slower growth leads to stock price falls, independent of any fall in commodity
prices, it can be an autonomous source of debt deflation. Falling stock prices, in other words, would
also increase the pressure for balance sheet adjustments, which result in further falls in stock
prices-and so on.
What is particularly noteworthy here is that these three aspects-falls in exchange rates (vis-ŕ-vis
the U.S. dollar), in commodity prices, and in stock prices-are likely to reinforce one another, as
is happening now. World capitalism, in short, is poised for a serious accentuation of the crisis.
And at the core of this crisis is the fact that there are no expansionary factors working towards
an increase in the size of the world market. On the contrary, even the long-run tendency is now in
the opposite direction, toward contraction. Let us now examine this latter issue.
III
A long line of argument going back to Rosa Luxemburg and Michał Kalecki states that a capitalist
economy requires exogenous stimuli, as distinct from endogenous stimuli, for its sustained growth.
4 "Endogenous stimuli" are those stimuli for increased productive capacity that arise from the
very fact that the economy has been growing. Their inadequacy for explaining sustained growth arises
from the following problem: just as an economy subject to growth generates expectations of future
growth, and hence induces capitalists to add to capacity in anticipation of such expansion, thereby
keeping the momentum of growth going, so any slackening must work in the opposite direction. Capitalists
must cut back on additions to productive capacity, and this will exacerbate such slowing of growth.
And if an economy is caught in stagnation with no expansion at all, then capitalists have no reason
to expect any growth (if endogenous stimuli are all that exist), and hence will not add to productive
capacity, which in turn, by suppressing demand, would tether the economy to stagnation.
Since this has not been the actual experience of capitalist economies, then there must be exogenous
stimuli that bring forth investment, or autonomous additions to demand, quite independently of whether
the economy has been growing. Exogenous stimuli, in short, prevent the economy from remaining trapped
in stagnation and explain sustained long-term growth.
This argument follows quite simply from a rejection of Say's Law, that is, from a recognition
of the possibility of a deficiency of aggregate demand. The fact that aggregate demand may be deficient
is what makes capitalists assess demand prospects before deciding to increase capacity, and this
in turn is what makes endogenous stimuli insufficient for explaining growth, and giving rise to the
need for exogenous stimuli.
5
Among exogenous stimuli, three in particular have received attention from economists: pre-capitalist
markets, state expenditure, and innovations. I use the last term in its widest sense: advances which
make capitalists, with access to some new process or product, undertake additions to capacity in
the hope of stealing a march over their rivals (or at least of not falling behind). However, the
role of innovations as exogenous stimuli has been questioned, in my view legitimately, by a number
of writers.
6 In oligopolistic markets, where price cuts to sell at the expense of rivals are generally eschewed,
capitalists tend to give whatever investment they would have otherwise undertaken the form
that innovation demands, rather than actually undertaking additional investment (that is, adding
further to capacity), and in that case innovations cease to be genuinely exogenous stimuli. This
is also confirmed by economic historians, who show that during the interwar Great Depression, the
available innovations, instead of helping capitalism overcome its crisis, actually remained unused,
and were introduced only in the postwar period of high aggregate demand.
Pre-capitalist markets, or more generally the phenomenon of capital pushing outwards from its
metropolitan core, played an important role as an exogenous stimulus in the pre-First World War period.
The picture, however, was not as straightforward as Rosa Luxemburg suggested, in which capitalism
simply selling at the expense of the pre-capitalist producers in the colonies. It was much more complex.
Both labor and capital migrated from the metropoles of Europe toward the temperate regions of white
settlement, such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, and Argentina.
Over four-fifths of all capital exports went to these regions. But the goods produced in the metropolis,
especially in Britain, the largest capital exporter of the period, were not necessarily the ones
most in demand in these developing "new regions," which rather required raw materials and foodstuffs
from the tropical zones. Metropolitan goods were sold in the tropical colonies, and the tropical
goods were exported to the new regions.
The important point is that the tropical goods exported from the tropical colonies to the new
regions in this system, which was dominated by the British, were not just equal in value to the metropolitan
goods imported to the tropical colonies. That is, the tropical colonies were not merely used to change
the form of the goods exported to the new white settler regions. The tropical exports to the "new
world" were of much greater value than the goods the tropical countries received as imports from
the metropolis, and while the domestic currency payment to the local producers of this export surplus
came out of the colonial government's tax revenue (extracted largely from the very same producers),
the gold and foreign exchange earnings from this export surplus were appropriated by the metropolitan
country, without the tropical colony acquiring any claims upon the metropolis. This difference
therefore constituted a gratuitous extraction by the metropolis from the tropical colonies without
any quid pro quo (an imbalance that Indian nationalist writers, who were the first to uncover it,
called a "drain of surplus" from the colonies).
The exogenous stimulus in the pre-First World War period, in other words, came from the colonial
system, which incorporated both the colonies of conquest, like India, and the colonies of settlement,
like the United States, through a complex mechanism. This mechanism had three interlinked elements:
a process of "deindustrialization," that is, displacement of pre-capitalist producers, notably textile
manufacturers, inflicted upon the colonies of conquest by imports from the metropolis, which Rosa
Luxemburg highlighted; the drain of surplus described above; and through this drain the ability of
the metropolis to export capital for developing regions of recent settlement, in the commodity-form
of tropical primary commodities, which these regions needed. The largest colony of conquest, India,
posted the second largest merchandise trade surplus in the world for fifty years before 1928-second
only to the United States-but its exchange earnings were entirely appropriated for supporting the
metropolitan balance of payments.
7
This entire arrangement, which underlay the secular boom spanning the Victorian and Edwardian
eras, fell apart after the First World War. We need not enter here in detail into the reasons for
this collapse, which included, inter alia , the "closing of the frontier"; the encroachment
by Japan on the Asian colonial markets of Britain; and the world agricultural crisis, which led to
a collapse of the colonies' exchange earnings, undermining the triangular system of payments.
8
The subsequent interwar period was thus one when capitalism was without any exogenous stimulus,
with the colonial system no longer effective and state intervention in "demand management" not yet
even part of the theoretical discourse.
9 Is it any surprise then that the Great Depression of the 1930s occurred precisely during this
period?
State intervention to boost aggregate demand was tried first in Japan under Finance Minister Takahashi
in 1931, but was extended by the Japanese militarists far beyond what Takahashi had wanted-to the
point of having him murdered when he objected to higher military spending. It was introduced in Germany
in 1933 with the Nazi rearmament drive. In the liberal bourgeois economies, it came on the eve of
the war itself, with a stepping up of military expenditure necessitated by the fascist threat. It
became a normal feature of capitalism, as distinct from a mere contingent necessity, only in the
postwar years when, under the twin impact of the socialist threat from outside and of working-class
restiveness from within, metropolitan capitalism was forced to abandon for the moment the principles
of "sound finance." Such working-class agitation within the metropolis arose because workers who
had made great sacrifices during the war were unwilling to return to their pre-war situation of unemployment
and poverty.
The postwar years of state intervention in demand management, which produced low levels of unemployment
unprecedented in the history of capitalism, and hence high levels of growth (in response to the high
demand), high levels of growth in labor productivity, and high levels of growth in real wages, have
been described as a Golden Age of capitalism. While state intervention occurred in nearly every nation,
the entire system was also buttressed by massive military expenditure by the United States, which
opened (and maintains) a string of military bases all over the globe. As the Vietnam War escalated
and U.S. military expenditure swelled, financed by printed dollars-decreed to be as good as gold
under the Bretton Woods system-the rest of the world was obliged to hold on to these dollars, even
as excess demand generated inflation. This inflation prompted a shift to commodities, and later to
gold, resulting in the abandonment of the Bretton Woods system. An engineered recession followed,
made worse by the fact that the price of one crucial commodity, oil, was kept up by a cartel, OPEC,
even as other prices subsided.
But if the mid-1970s recession in the capitalist world was the start of the dismantling of state
intervention in demand management, the basis for this dismantling lay elsewhere. It lay in the phenomenon
of the globalization of capital, especially finance capital, which had been occurring since the late
1960s and which had since gathered momentum. The regime of globalized finance meant that while finance
was international, the state remained a nation-state. All nation-states therefore had to bow before
the demands of finance capital in order to prevent any capital flight.
This in turn meant controlling fiscal deficits, because, as we have seen, finance capital favors
"sound finance" and dislikes fiscal deficits; it also meant reducing the tax burden on capitalists.
These together snuffed out the scope for state intervention in demand management. Any stimulation
of activity, either through a fiscal deficit or through a balanced budget multiplier (where revenues
are raised to match increased state expenditure by taxing the rich) became well-nigh impossible.
10 Subsequently, of course, austerity in government spending was projected as a virtue on the
purported grounds that private investment was crowded out by government "profligacy," an argument
which was only Say's Law (supply creates its own demand) in a new guise.
The point of this disquisition is to suggest that capitalism in the present era, the era of globalization
which entails above all the globalization of finance, is without either of its two main exogenous
stimuli-pre-capitalist markets and state spending to boost demand. The only stimulus for a boom therefore,
apart from debt-financed enhancement of consumer expenditure (which can only be transient), arises
from the formation of occasional asset-price bubbles. But such bubbles, even though they may produce
occasional booms, inevitably collapse, so that the average level of activity through booms and slumps
is lower than under the regime of state intervention. Besides, asset-price bubbles cannot be made
to order; the system cannot hold a gun to the heads of speculators and force them to feel the kind
of euphoric expectations that underlie bubbles. Consequently there may be long intervals, even during
this period of general slow growth, when the system is submerged in prolonged stagnation and recession.
There is, however, an additional factor of great importance that makes matters even worse in the
era of globalization. Let us turn to it now.
IV
In the period before the current globalization, the world economy was deeply segmented. Labor
from the South was not allowed to move freely to the North. As W. Arthur Lewis pointed out, there
were two great streams of migration in the nineteenth century: a migration of labor from tropical
and subtropical regions like India and China, which went as "coolie" or indentured labor to other
tropical or subtropical regions; and a migration of labor from temperate zones of Europe, which went
to other temperate regions like the United States, Canada, and Australia.
11 Once the era of slavery had run its course, these two streams were kept strictly separate
through severe restrictions on tropical migration to the temperate lands.
But while tropical labor was not free to move into the temperate regions, capital from the latter
was free to move into the former. Yet despite this formal freedom, capital chose not to
do so except in specific spheres like mines, plantations, and external trade. In particular, it did
not move manufacturing to the tropical regions, despite the very low wages prevailing there-a result
of the process of deindustrialization mentioned earlier. Capital from the temperate regions generally
moved into other countries within the temperate region itself, complementing the flow of labor migration.
The world economy was therefore segmented between the tropical and the temperate regions. In this
segmented universe, the labor reserves of the South did not restrain the rise of real wages in the
North when labor productivity increased. There was consequently, on the one hand, a widening of inequalities
between the North and the South that encompassed even the workers, and on the other hand, a boost
to demand in the North from rising wages that would not have occurred in the absence of this segmentation.
12
Contemporary globalization has brought this segmentation to an end. Even though labor from the
South is still not free to move to the North, capital from the North is now far more willing than
before to locate manufacturing and service-sector activities-the latter largely through outsourcing-in
the South. This now makes real wages in the North subject to the baneful influence of the massive
labor reserves of the South. Not that real wages in the United States or any other advanced country
are anywhere near parity with Southern real wages. However, they tend to remain stagnant even as
labor productivity increases in the North. In fact, in the period of globalization, while the vector
of real wages across the world remains more or less unchanged owing to the restraining influence
of third-world labor reserves, the vector of labor productivities increases across the world. Both
in individual countries and in the world as a whole, therefore, the tendency is for the share of
surplus in output to increase. It is this context which explains Joseph Stiglitz's finding that even
as the labor productivity in the United States has increased substantially between 1968 and 2011,
the real wage rate of an American male worker has not increased during this period; indeed if anything
it has marginally declined.
13
This has two major implications. First, the increase in inequality now is not so much between
two geographical parts of the globe (indeed, several third-world countries have experienced faster
per capita income growth than the advanced capitalist world) as between the working people of the
world on the one side and the capitalists of the world and others living off the surplus on the other.
It is this increase in "vertical" as distinct from "horizontal" inequality that is reflected in recent
works by several mainstream economists, like those of Thomas Piketty, though they attribute this
inequality to altogether different and unpersuasive reasons.
The second implication is that, since the "marginal propensity to consume"-again to use a Keynesian
expression-is higher from wage income than from incomes derived from economic surplus, this growing
vertical inequality in incomes (or, more precisely, the tendency toward a rise in the share of surplus
in world output) produces a tendency toward a deficiency of aggregate demand and the problem of surplus
absorption.
This of course is an ex ante tendency, which could be kept in check if-as Baran and Sweezy
argued, noting a tendency toward such stagnation in the United States a half-century ago-state expenditure
could be appropriately increased to counteract it.
14 But what is noteworthy about the current period of globalization is that it both produces
an ex ante tendency towards global demand deficiency and also prevents any
possible counteracting state expenditure to overcome this tendency, due to the opposition of the
vested interests to fiscal deficits and taxes on the rich. (It should be noted that larger state
expenditure financed through taxes on the poor and the working class, who have a high propensity
to consume anyway, does not boost aggregate demand, and so cannot counteract the tendency toward
deficient demand.)
The only offset against this trend toward demand deficiency, therefore, can come from the occasional
asset price bubbles discussed earlier. Unfortunately, since they cannot be made to order, and since
they inevitably collapse, the world economy in the era of globalization becomes particularly vulnerable
to crises of recession and stagnation, which is exactly what we are now experiencing.
In other words, when we combine these two features of the current globalization-namely the absence
of any exogenous stimuli together with the endogenous tendency toward a global demand deficiency-we
get an inkling of the structural susceptibility of contemporary capitalism to protracted stagnation.
Either of these two features, i.e., the internal and external contradictions, would produce a tendency
toward stagnation on its own. In the current period, however, the two features act together, and
it is this fact which underlies the travails of contemporary capitalism.
V
The economic implications of protracted stagnation, and the possible systemic responses to it
at the macroeconomic level, are matters I shall not enter into here. I shall, however, end by drawing
attention to an obvious political implication, one that relates to the threat to democracy that this
protracted stagnation poses, of particular significance in the case of my own country, India.
The general incompatibility between capitalism and democracy is too obvious to need repetition
here: capitalism is a spontaneous system driven by its own immanent tendencies, while the essence
of democracy lies in people intervening through collective political praxis to shape their destinies,
including especially their economic destinies, which militates against this spontaneity. The fate
of Keynesianism, which thought that capitalism could be made to operate at close to full employment,
and thereby be made into a humane system through state intervention in demand management, shows the
impossibility of the project of retaining capitalism while overcoming its spontaneity.
This conflict becomes particularly acute in the era of globalization, when finance capital becomes
globalized, while the state, which remains the only possible instrument through which the people
could intervene on their own behalf, remains a nation-state. Here, as already mentioned, the state
accedes to the demands of finance capital, so that no matter whom the people elect, the same policies
remain in place, as long as the country remains within the vortex of globalized finance. Greece is
only the latest example to underscore this point.
But once we reckon with the tendency of the system in the era of globalization to fall into a
protracted crisis, this incompatibility becomes even more serious. In the context of crisis-induced
mass unemployment, the corporate-financial oligarchies that rule many countries actively promote
divisive, fascist, and semi-fascist movements, so that while the shell of democracy is preserved,
their own rule is not threatened by any concerted class action. And the governments formed by such
elements, even when they do not move immediately towards the imposition of a fascist state as in
the case of classical fascism, move nonetheless towards a "fascification" of the society and the
polity that constitutes a negation of democracy. In third-world societies such fascification not
only continues but even increases the scope for "primitive accumulation of capital" at the expense
of petty producers (which also ensures that the world labor reserves are not exhausted).
But that is not all. Since such fascism invites retaliation in the form of counter-fascistic movements,
as in the case of Hindu supremacism in India, which is starting to encourage a Muslim fundamentalist
response, the net result is social disintegration. This disintegration is the denouement of the current
globalization in societies like mine, and no doubt in many others. It is important, of course, to
struggle against this, but at the current juncture, when there are no international workers' movements,
let alone any international peasant movements, and hence no prospects for any synchronized transcendence
of capitalist globalization, any such struggles must necessarily be informed by an agenda of "delinking"
from capitalist globalization. This delinking should entail capital controls, management of foreign
trade, and an expansion of the domestic market through the protection and encouragement of petty
production, including peasant agriculture; through larger welfare expenditure by the state; and through
a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and income.
Notes
↩ For a discussion on this point, see Harry Magdoff, "Militarism and Imperialism," reprinted
in his collection
Imperialism Without Colonies (New York: Monthly Review Press, 2003).
↩ This is calculated from the U.S. Labor Statistics, Department of Labor. If we divide the
number of persons employed in October 2015 (when the unemployment rate was 5 percent) by the workforce
as it would have stood if the employment-population ratio in June 2007 were the same in October
2015, then the employment rate comes to 89.4 percent. This gives an unemployment rate of 10.6
percent, or 11 percent in round numbers. This is pretty close to the U-6 unemployment rate of
the BLS (10 percent), even though the latter is calculated differently.
↩ Irving Fisher, "The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions," Econometrica
1, no. 4 (1933): 337–57.
↩ See Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press,
1951 [1913]), and Michał Kalecki, "Observations on the Theory of Growth," The Economic Journal
285 (1962): 134–53.
↩ A detailed discussion of this issue can be found in Prabhat Patnaik, Accumulation
and Stability under Capitalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
↩ See for instance Joseph Steindl,
Maturity and Stagnation in American Capitalism (New York: Monthly Review Press,
1976); Joan Robinson, introduction to Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital ; and
Paul A. Baran and Paul M. Sweezy,
Monopoly Capital
(New York: Monthly Review, 1966). For a discussion of this point in an historical context,
see W. A. Lewis, Growth and Fluctuations 1870–1913 (London: Allen and Unwin, 1978).
↩ For a detailed discussion of the issues involved, see Utsa Patnaik, "The Free Lunch: Transfers
from the Tropical Colonies and Their Role in Capital Formation in Britain During the Industrial
Revolution," in K. S. Jomo, ed., Globalization under Hegemony: The Long Twentieth Century
(New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2006); and "India in the World Economy 1900–1935:
The Inter-War Depression and Britain's Demise as World Capitalist Leader," Social Scientist
42 (2014): 488–89.
↩ While the first of these factors was emphasized by Alvin Hansen in his book Full Recovery
or Stagnation? (New York: Norton, 1938); the second factor, the role of Japanese competition,
is discussed in Prabhat Patnaik, Accumulation and Stability ; and the third, the
world agricultural crisis, in Utsa Patnaik, "India in the World Economy."
↩ Lloyd George's proposal in 1929 for a public works program financed by a fiscal deficit
to provide jobs to the unemployed, whose numbers had by then already risen to a million in Britain,
was shot down by the British Treasury on the basis of an utterly erroneous argument that Joan
Robinson, in her book Economic Philosophy (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966), calls "the
humbug of finance." The famous article by Richard Kahn on the "multiplier" effect ("The Relation
of Home Investment to Unemployment," Economic Journal 41, no. 162 [1931]: 173–98),
which provided the theoretical core of the Keynesian revolution, was written as a refutation of
this Treasury view. For a discussion of the arguments involved, see Prabhat Patnaik, "The Humbug
of Finance," in The Retreat to Unfreedom (New Delhi: Tulika, 2002).
↩ The United States no doubt constitutes an exception here: since its currency is still taken
to be "as good as gold," increases in U.S. fiscal deficits do not cause any capital flight and
are therefore sustainable. But at the same time, the consideration that the demand expansion caused
by such an increase would significantly leak out abroad through higher imports, which would mean
greater external indebtedness of the U.S. for generating jobs abroad, stands in the way. The closeness
of the U.S. government to financial interests that frown on fiscal deficits, and the pervasive
prevalence of the ideology of "sound finance," also work in the same direction.
↩ W. A. Lewis, The Evolution of the International Economic Order , (Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978).
↩ This demand aspect is emphasized by Joan Robinson in her introduction to Luxemburg,
The Accumulation of Capital , 26–27.
↩ Joseph Stiglitz, remarks to the AFL-CIO Convention on April 8, 2013.
↩ Indeed, this was the crux of their argument in Monopoly Capital .
Nationalism is natural. You either have nations or you have one big all-powerful world government.
Caring about your own nation first is common sense. Incredible that Trump even has to say it.
But in this crazy political environment, it has to be said.
If you don't put yourself first, you will stop existing. If you don't put your nation first,
it will stop existing.
All software developers understand modular design. Nature is designed modularly, and human
society is part of nature.
We have nations because we are part of nature.
Sure you can love the whole world if you want. But if you care more about the rest of the world
than your own nation, you are nuts. And yes, it is normal to be nuts these days.
DrDick -> realpc... , -1
"Nationalism is natural"
Proving once again that you are an idiot who knows nothing. Nationalism is an artificial construct
which only emerges in the late 18th-early 19th centuries, and does not spread widely until the
late 19th-early 20th centuries.
"Nationalism is an artificial construct which only emerges in the late 18th-early 19th centuries,
and does not spread widely until the late 19th-early 20th centuries."
Nationalism is not something fixed. There are various flavors of nationalism. Old flavor was
so called "ethnic nationalism". Now so called "cultural nationalism" (the idea that the language
and culture defines the belonging to the particular nation, not so much ethnicity ) is pretty
widespread, if not dominant.
As for your "late 18th" century origin, I have doubts. What Napoleon empire represented, if
not the Triumph of French nationalism. And Waterloo was fought when? Right, 18 June 1815. This
is the date when "old continental powers" defeated French nationalism.
Can you explain to me this discrepancy, please?
== quote from Wikipedia ==
Napoleon Bonaparte promoted French nationalism based upon the ideals of the French Revolution
such as the idea of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and justified French expansionism and French
military campaigns on the claim that France had the right to spread the enlightened ideals of
the French Revolution across Europe, and also to expand France into its so-called "natural borders."
Napoleon's invasions of other nations had the effect of spreading the concept of nationalism outside
France.[3]
== end of quote ==
My impression is that French nationalism emerged from wars with England which produced a great
icon of French nationalism, Joan of Arc. And that happened much earlier then late 18th century.
And that American exceptionalism is nothing but a variation of this version of French nationalism.
So here is some quick Google information about native American tribes who fought over limited
resources. I wonder if that was an artificial construct as well? Or if one tribe fought other
tribes to help their own families out. I wonder if a starving neanderthal would share the meat
off of a recent kill with a neanderthal not part of his tribe? Would that be an artificial construct?
Surely Germany came into existence in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but before that,
the groups that became Germany were just as nationalistic as they were after they became Germany
. . . they just defined their nation in more limited terms.
Sorry, I am just a stupid engineer, and make sure that the building that you live and work in
will stand up in an earthquake, yet, I am probably too stupid to ever know what you know. But
that said, I didn't know that I am stupid, so I will probably ask a question that will make a
genius like yourself roll their eyes in disgust that I was ever awarded a degree from an american
university . . . but I don't have time to read four different authors on the subject of a simple
blog post, so I am going to ask it anyways . . .
you said that nationalism is an artificial construct that only came around about 200 years
ago, and I came back with some ideas about, if that were the case, then why did different indian
tribes battle over scarce resources (and also simply assumed that ancient humans behaved very
similar to native american tribes). You rebutted that by insulting my intelligence, pointing me
to four obscure academic authors (if I was as cool and as smart as Good Will Hunting, I am sure
I would have read and remembered all the authors that you are pointing me to already, but alas,
I am not), and then said that up until 20,000 years ago, there was surprisingly little conflict
among people.
So, what is it, was nationalism something that came about 20,000 years ago, or was it something
that came about 200 years ago. And did indian tribes wage wars against each other? If they did,
is that a form of nationalism, or is it different? If it is different, explain how.
IF you are not smart enough to be able to answer these simple questions that support what you
have asserted, then I would suggest that you don't go on message boards and insult the intelligence
of others!
I strongly disagree with Cowen's assertion. U.S. Presidential elections tend to closely follow
the economy.
Simply knowing whether or not the U.S. Was in recession in the 3rd quarter of the election
year will give you the popular vote winner 80% of the time, going all the way back to the 1850s
-- and includes the 2016 result.
Econometric models forecast a very close 2016 election result, typically giving the incumbent
party about a 2% victory -- which was exactly the actual result.
If Trump and the GOP deliver a recession, that will mean real wage growth and employment, especially
goods-producing employment, will decline. And the voters will turn on them.
Good point, but in recent years it has been the populist right who has really been the beneficiary
in the U.S. and Europe, with their scapegoating of globalization and immigrants.
"If the national Democratic Party had more cultural appeal to working-class whites, they might
have been able to stop the bleeding enough to hold states like Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan,
Wisconsin or North Carolina."
Yeah you won't cultural appeal but not so much that you abandon your principles. Calling them
deplorable doesn't help.
I feel the Democrats need to better appeal to them more on the economic front. Instead of giving
speeches at Goldman Sachs functions, campaign in Michigan and Wisconsin.
Instead of an infrastructure proposal of $275 billion over 5 years, go big like Bernie or the
Senate Democrats with $1 trillion over 10 years. Trump went big with his rhetoric. We'll see if
he delivers anything.
I think move to the right might continue for some time. Clinton Democrats betrayal of working
class give far right a huge boost, to say nothing about paving way to Caesarism and discarding
the Democratic governance like used shoe box.
From comments:
"what is termed the Right is pretty much what would have been [neoliberal] centre leftism not
that long ago.
In practical terms there is nothing between the governments of Cameron or May vs those of Blair.
"The center left will still need to do something about low wages"
I would love to see the Greens win but, with all due respect, I think this is a complete pipe
dream. Right-wing democrats and the handful of democratic centrists (e.g. Sanders, Warren, Grijalva)
lack any evidence of backbone and have, thus far, proven utterly incapable of functioning as an
effective opposition party.
I expect the extreme right to cement their control of the federal and (most) state legislatures
in 2018. I also expect them to utilize every tool in their disposal to repress the votes of the
lumpenproletariat -- and especially people of color.
As a union member, organizer, and genuine leftist I am very glad that I am a tri-national and
am not tied to the USA by citizenship.
"Right-wing democrats and the handful of democratic centrists (e.g. Sanders, Warren, Grijalva)
lack any evidence of backbone and have, thus far, proven utterly incapable of functioning as an
effective opposition party.
I expect the extreme right to cement their control of the federal and (most) state legislatures
in 2018."
A very, very good point. I am fully with you on that. Moreover I think the country political
climate as whole is now favorable to the further move to the right. A kind of replay of 1920th
on a new level with neoliberalism instead of "robber barons capitalism" under attack from the
right.
"... Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against fair distribution of profits in the economy. ..."
"... The key point here is that as long as there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism, nationalism is the only game in town for the opposition forces. That's why trade union members now abandoned neoliberal (aka Clintonized ) Democratic Party. ..."
"... Traditionally, Neoliberalism espouses privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade and reduction in government spending. ..."
"... One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings. Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and a half centuries. ..."
"... As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market. We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface. ..."
"... Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot of confusion-as "market fundamentalism," and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous ideologies. ..."
"... it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in the way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing to allow. ..."
"... I am suggesting that the issue is not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything left over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them. ..."
I will go with worth reading. I don't think that is controversial at all and there is way more
than an element of truth in it. But knowing is one thing and organizing politically in a manner
sufficient to bring about change is entirely another.
They are correct. We need an alternative to Nationalism and Trump.
They are not correct about mysterious elites controlling things.
The elites pursued anti-regulatory policies that allowed them to reap short term profits without
regard for stability or sustainability. It is not government control but lack of regulation that
allowed BIgF to run wild and unaccountable.
Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for
business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against
fair distribution of profits in the economy.
The plant closures are headlined and promote the mistaken belief that globalization is the
prime cause of job loss. These large closures are only 1/10th of the job losses and dislocations
due to automation and transformation from manufacturing to service economies. Wealthy elites are
allowed to greedily hoard all the profits from automation and not enough is being invested in
the service economy. Austerity is not a policy to control the masses, it is a policy to protect
the wealth accumulated by elites from fair distribution.
Trump is not going to bring manufacturing plants back to American rural backwaters. Those left
behind must build their own service economy or relocate to a sustainable region that is making
the transition.
The key point here is that as long as there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism,
nationalism is the only game in town for the opposition forces. That's why trade union members
now abandoned neoliberal (aka Clintonized ) Democratic Party.
All Western societies now, not only the USA, experience nationalist movements Renaissance.
And that's probably why Hillary lost as she represented "kick the can down the road" neoliberal
globalization agenda.
An important point also is that nationalism itself is not monolithic. There are at least two
different types of nationalism in the West now:
ethnic nationalism (old-style), where the "ethnicity" is the defining feature of belonging
to the "in-group"
cultural nationalism (new style), where the defining traits of belonging to the "in-group"
is the language and culture, not ethnicity.
As for your statement
"Trump may be a Nationalist, but he is also an anti-regulatory elite with no regard for
business ethics or accountability to the community. He is also for "greedy take all" and against
fair distribution of profits in the economy."
This might be true, but might be not. It is not clear what Trump actually represents. Let's
give him the benefit of doubt and wait 100 days before jumping to conclusions.
Traditionally, Neoliberalism espouses privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free
trade and reduction in government spending.
What exactly did Clinton want to privatize? What budget did she propose slashing? Did
she want to deregulate banks or environmental regulations?
She supported some trade liberalization, but also imposing sanctions. What government spending
did she want to reduce?
Fact: She supported the opposite of most of these policies.
Donald Trump promised to pursue all of these Neoliberal policies. The GOP and their propaganda
megaphone is very good at tarring the opposition as supporting the very policies they are enacting.
They made Al Gore into a liar, John Kerry into a coward with a purple band aid and Hillary into
a Wall Street shill. None of this is true. But Trump and his GOP are doing all the things you
accuse Democrats of doing.
You are wrong. Your definition of neoliberalism is formally right and we can argue along those
lines that Hillary is a neoliberal too (Her track record as a senator suggests exactly that),
it is way too narrow. There is more to it:
"One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings."
(see below)
"Another way to say it is that the state has become the market, the market has become the
state, and therefore both have ceased to exist in the form we have classically understood them."
"In the current election campaign, Hillary Clinton has been the most perfect embodiment
of neoliberalism among all the candidates, she is almost its all-time ideal avatar, and I believe
this explains, even if not articulated this way, the widespread discomfort among the populace
toward her ascendancy. People can perceive that her ideology is founded on a conception of
human beings striving relentlessly to become human capital (as her opening campaign commercial
so overtly depicted), which means that those who fail to come within the purview of neoliberalism
should be rigorously ostracized, punished, and excluded.
This is the dark side of neoliberalism's ideological arm (a multiculturalism founded on
human beings as capital), which is why this project has become increasingly associated with
suppression of free speech and intolerance of those who refuse to go along with the kind of
identity politics neoliberalism promotes.
And this explains why the 1990s saw the simultaneous and absolutely parallel rise, under
the Clintons, of both neoliberal globalization and various regimes of neoliberal disciplining,
such as the shaming and exclusion of former welfare recipients (every able-bodied person should
be able to find work, therefore under TANF welfare was converted to a performance management
system designed to enroll everyone in the workforce, even if it meant below-subsistence wages
or the loss of parental responsibilities, all of it couched in the jargon of marketplace incentives)."
In this sense Hillary Clinton is 100% dyed-in-the-wool neoliberal and neocon ("neoliberal with
the gun"). She promotes so called "neoliberal rationality" a perverted "market-based" rationality
typical for neoliberalism:
== quote ==
When Hillary Clinton frequently retorts-in response to demands for reregulation of finance,
for instance-that we have to abide by "the rule of law," this reflects a particular understanding
of the law, the law as embodying the sense of the market, the law after it has undergone a
revolution of reinterpretation in purely economic terms.
In this revolution of the law persons have no status compared to corporations, nation-states
are on their way out, and everything in turn dissolves before the abstraction called the market.
One way to sum up neoliberalism is to say that everything-everything-is to be made over
in the image of the market, including the state, civil society, and of course human beings.
Democracy becomes reinterpreted as the market, and politics succumbs to neoliberal economic
theory, so we are speaking of the end of democratic politics as we have known it for two and
a half centuries.
As the market becomes an abstraction, so does democracy, but the real playing field
is somewhere else, in the realm of actual economic exchange-which is not, however, the market.
We may say that all exchange takes place on the neoliberal surface.
Neoliberalism is often described-and this creates a lot of confusion-as "market fundamentalism,"
and while this may be true for neoliberal's self-promotion and self-presentation, i.e., the
market as the ultimate and only myth, as were the gods of the past, I would argue that in neoliberalism
there is no such thing as the market as we have understood it from previous ideologies.
The neoliberal state-actually, to utter the word state seems insufficient here, I would
claim that a new entity is being created, which is not the state as we have known it, but an
existence that incorporates potentially all the states in the world and is something that exceeds
their sum-is all-powerful, it seeks to leave no space for individual self-conception in
the way that classical liberalism, and even communism and fascism to some degree, were willing
to allow.
There are competing understandings of neoliberal globalization, when it comes to the question
of whether the state is strong or weak compared to the primary agent of globalization, i.e.,
the corporation, but I am taking this logic further, I am suggesting that the issue is
not how strong the state is in the service of neoliberalism, but whether there is anything
left over beyond the new definition of the state. Another way to say it is that the state has
become the market, the market has become the state, and therefore both have ceased to exist
in the form we have classically understood them.
Of course the word hasn't gotten around to the people yet, hence all the confusion about
whether Hillary Clinton is more neoliberal than Barack Obama, or whether Donald Trump will
be less neoliberal than Hillary Clinton.
The project of neoliberalism-i.e., the redefinition of the state, the institutions of society,
and the self-has come so far along that neoliberalism is almost beyond the need of individual
entities to make or break its case. Its penetration has gone too deep, and none of the democratic
figureheads that come forward can fundamentally question its efficacy.
"... The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal
play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then
Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus ..."
"... If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from
Wall Street occupation" movement. ..."
"... Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing
nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have. ..."
You guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.
"Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare
queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these
tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog
whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard
on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George
Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the
first black president.
In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and
plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor
the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class
enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration,
and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes
for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and
aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities
are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support
and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic
continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm
for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care
reform.
Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never
before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle
class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics
will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the
American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."
Reading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:
Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million
The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States
that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play
for all.
And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all
that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote
big too.
It is not any more complex than that.
So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?
PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.
That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade'
and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.
Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create
jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in
the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements
that would not otherwise exist.
"The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral
States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal
play for all. "
The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and
equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus
no less then Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation
from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right
wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.
"... I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it. ..."
"... What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well. ..."
"... It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the decline of social affiliation in all areas of life. ..."
"... The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people. ..."
"... The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. ..."
"... One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts. ..."
I do not object to the word, tribalism, though I am among those who think tribalism as a organizing
pattern for partisan mobilization is extending neoliberalism's reign rather than displacing it.
What rankles me is the implication that "tribalism" is more or less synonymous with the right's
reliance on racism as a primary rally cry, while the left's anti-racist stance exempts the left's
identity politics from being a species of tribalism as well.
It seems to me that the emergence of "tribalism" in organizing and motivating partisan identity
is driven by forces of partisan reaction in the context of increasing social atomization and the
decline of social affiliation in all areas of life.
In an American context, a long-standing theme of right-wing televised and on-line propaganda has
aimed at motivating people on the basis of their resentments against the supposed contempt the hated
libruls have for "God and guns" and the self-regarding moral superiority of those driving a Prius
and listening to National Public Radio.
I would not want to be understood as saying that tribalism is symmetric between right and left;
I do think what has been happening on the right has been driven by social reaction to what has been
happening on the left, and the interpretation the left has of the right is just as driven by motivated
reasoning, even if the motivations are different. The left's sometime focus on language, micro aggression
and personal experience cum personal justification thru enlightened attitudes is a manifestation
of the decline of social affiliation, so there is an irony in naming the pseudo in-group conformity
that results, "tribalism". The "tribalism" of left identity politics has been very real and has
contributed mightily in organizing a reactionary right "tribalism" around resentment and repulsion
at being the left's outgroup, the poorly educated flyover people.
The division over Brexit demonstrated the extent to which social membership in actual social
organizations like clubs, unions, churches no longer matters as much as personal worldview, as the
authoritarians divided from the cosmopolitans. The angry, uncomprehending reaction to the vote
from cosmopolitans reinforced the "tribalism" of both, but to see that requires a modicum of detachment
from the angry accusation that racism and lies was the whole case and denies the legitimacy of economic
grievance.
One reason "tribalism" seems appropriate to characterize the eruption on right is that there
is no coherent policy program corresponding to the resentments or grievances. It is voting on the
basis of something personal, an emotional identification cum perception of sorts.
I am not so certain that the left, as it has sunk into a denial laden defense of the status
quo, has not also been shedding its attachment to a policy program, Hillary's proverbial website
notwithstanding. Democrats associated with the party establishment especially in the 2016 campaign
talked policy futility and never acted as if a concerted effort to, say, capture the Senate with
an eye on opening a policy agenda mattered to them. And, many ordinary supporters of the Democrats
seemed to be blithely unaware or apathetic about the policy record of war, economic predation, et
cetera.
Without a policy agenda, the tribes cannot be proper constituencies demanding delivery on promises,
which fits a continuation of neoliberal policy agenda just fine, but foretells, it seems to me, disillusion,
apathy, violence and loss of legitimacy becoming acute. If mobilizing the tribes substitutes for
a politics of coherent policy, it is hard to imagine any but ineffectual albeit authoritarian governance.
"... As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning. ..."
"... Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection, and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting is no better. ..."
"... "Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking around the results tell me that. ..."
"... The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility). I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets! ..."
Free Trade," the banner of Globalization, has not only wrecked the world's economy, it has left Western
Democracy in shambles. Europe edges ever closer to deflation. The Fed dare not increase interest
rates, now poised at barely above zero. As China's stock market threatened collapse, China poured
billions to prop it up. It's export machine is collapsing. Not once, but twice, it recently manipulated
its currency to makes its goods cheaper on the world market. What is happening?
The following two
graphs tell most of the story. First, an overview of Free Trade.
Capital fled from developed countries to undeveloped countries with slave-cheap labor, countries
with no environmental standards, countries with no support for collective bargaining. Corporations,
like Apple, set up shop in China and other undeveloped countries. Some, like China, manipulated its
currency to make exported goods to the West even cheaper. Some, like China, gave preferential tax
treatment to Western firm over indigenous firms. Economists cheered as corporate efficiency unsurprisingly
rose. U.S. citizens became mere consumers.
Thanks to Bill Clinton and the Financial Modernization Act, banks, now unconstrained, could peddle
rigged financial services, offer insurance on its own investment products–in short, banks were free
to play with everyone's money–and simply too big to fail. Credit was easy and breezy. If nasty Arabs
bombed the Trade Center, why the solution was simple: Go to the shopping mall–and buy. That remarkable
piece of advice is just what freedom has been all about.
Next: China's export machine sputters.
China's problem is that there are not enough orders to keep the export machine going. There comes
a time when industrialized nations simply run out of cash–I mean the little people run out of cash.
CEOs and those just below them–along with slick Wall Street gauchos–made bundles on Free Trade, corporate
capital that could set up shop in any impoverished nation in the world.. No worries about labor–dirt
cheap–or environmental regulations–just bring your gas masks. At some point the Western consumer
well was bound to run dry. Credit was exhausted; the little guy could not buy anymore. Free trade
was on its last legs.
So what did China do then? As its markets crashed, it tried to revive its export model, a model
based on foreign firms exporting cheap goods to the West. China lowered its exchange rates, not once
but twice. Then China tried to rescue the markets with cash infusion of billions. Still its market
continued to crash. Manufacturing plants had closed–thousands of them. Free Trade and Globalization
had run its course.
And what has the Fed been doing? Why quantitative easy–increase the money supply and lower short
term interest rates. Like China's latest currency manipulation, both were merely stop-gap measures.
No one, least of all Obama and his corporate advisors, was ready to address corporate outsourcing
that has cost millions of jobs. Prime the pump a little, but never address the real problem.
The WTO sets the groundwork for trade among its member states. That groundwork is deeply flawed.
Trade between impoverished third world countries and sophisticated first world economies is not merely
a matter of regulating "dumping"-not allowing one country to flood the market with cheap goods-nor
is it a matter of insuring that the each country does not favor its indigenous firms over foreign
firms. Comparable labor and environmental standards are necessary. Does anyone think that a first
world worker can compete with virtual slave labor? Does anyone think that a first world nation with
excellent environmental regulations can compete with a third world nation that refuses to protect
its environment?
Only lately has Apple even mentioned that it might clean up its mess in China. The Apple miracle
has been on the backs of the Chinese poor and abysmal environmental wreckage that is China.
The WTO allows three forms of inequities-all of which encourage outsourcing: labor arbitrage,
tax arbitrage, and environmental arbitrage. For a fuller explanation of these inequities and the
"race to the bottom," see
here.
Of course now we have the mother of all Free Trade deals –the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP)–
carefully wrapped in a black box so that none of us can see what finally is in store for us. Nothing
is ever "Free"–even trade. I suspect that China is becoming a bit too noxious and poisonous. It simply
has to deal with its massive environmental problems. Time to move the game to less despoiled and
maybe more impoverished countries. Meanwhile, newscasters are always careful to tout TPP.
Fast Tracking is a con man's game. Do it so fast that the marks never have a chance to watch their
wallets. In hiding negotiations from prying, public eyes, Obama, has given the con men a bigger edge:
A screen to hide the corporations making deals. Their interest is in profits, not in public good.
Consider the media. Our only defense is a strong independent media. At one time,
newsrooms were not required to be profitable. Reporting the news was considered a community service.
Corporate ownership provided the necessary funding for its newsrooms–and did not interfere.
But the 70′s and 80′s corporate ownership required its newsrooms to be profitable. Slowly but
surely, newsrooms focused on personality, entertainment, and wedge issues–always careful not to rock
the corporate boat, always careful not to tread on governmental policy. Whoever thought that one
major news service–Fox–would become a breeding ground for one particular party.
But consider CNN: It organizes endless GOP debates; then spends hours dissecting them. Create
the news; then sell it–and be sure to spin it in the direction you want.
Are matters of substance ever discussed? When has a serious foreign policy debate ever been allowed
occurred–without editorial interference from the media itself. When has trade and outsourcing been
seriously discussed–other than by peripheral news media?
Meanwhile, news media becomes more and more centralized. Murdoch now owns National Geographic!
Now, thanks to Bush and Obama, we have the chilling effect of the NSA. Just whom does the NSA
serve when it collects all of our digital information? Is it being used to ferret out the plans of
those exercising their right of dissent? Is it being used to increase the profits of favored corporations?
Why does it need all of your and my personal information–from bank accounts, to credit cards, to
travel plans, to friends with whom we chat .Why is it afraid of us?
jefemt, October 23, 2015 at 9:43 am
As Mr. Buffet so keenly said it, There is a war going on, and we are winning.
If 'they' are failing, I'd hate to see success!
Isn't it the un-collective WE who are failing?
failing to organize,
failing to come up with plausible, 90 degrees off present Lemming-to-Brink path alternative plans
and policies,
failing to agree on any of many plausible alternatives that might work
Divided- for now- hopefully not conquered ..
I gotta scoot and get back to Dancing with the Master Chefs
allan, October 23, 2015 at 10:03 am
Just type `TPP editorial' into news.google.com and watch a toxic sludge of straw men, misdirection,
and historical revisionism flow across your screen. And the `objective' straight news reporting
is no better.
Vatch, October 23, 2015 at 10:36 am
Don't just watch the toxic sludge; respond to it with a letter to the editor (LTE) of the offending
publication! For some of those toxic editorials, and contact information for LTEs, see:
A few of the editorials may now be obscured by paywalls or registration requirements, but most
should still be visible. Let them know that we see through their nonsense!
TedWa, October 23, 2015 at 10:38 am
"Why is it afraid of us?" Because we the people are perceived to be the enemy of America
the Corporation. Whistleblowers have already stated that the NSA info is used to blackmail politicians
and military leaders, provide corporate espionage to the highest payers and more devious machinations
than the mind can grasp from behind a single computer. 9/11 was a coup – I say that because looking
around the results tell me that.
TG, October 23, 2015 at 3:27 pm
The fourth estate (the media) has been purchased outright by the second estate (the nobility).
I guess you could call this an 'estate sale'. All power to the markets!
Pelham, October 23, 2015 at 8:32 pm
Even when newsrooms were more independent they probably would not, in general, have reported
on free trade with any degree of skepticism. The recent disappearance of the old firewall between
the news and corporate sides has made things worse, but at least since the "professionalization"
of newsrooms that began to really take hold in the '60s, journalists have tended to identify far
more with their sources in power than with their readers.
There have, of course, been notable exceptions. But even these sometimes serve more to obscure
the real day-to-day nature of journalism's fealty to the corporate world than to bring about any
significant change.
"... "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests." ..."
"... "for the crisis that Washington has created in Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda." ..."
"... "How America Was Lost" ..."
"... "aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance." ..."
"... "vassalage status accepted by the UK, Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." ..."
"... "price of world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony." ..."
"... "On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," ..."
"... "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future." ..."
"... "historical turning point," ..."
"... "the Chinese were there in their place," ..."
"... "Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia that defeated Hitler," ..."
"... "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht." ..."
"... "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States of America for their contribution to the victory.'" ..."
"... "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'" ..."
"... "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," ..."
"... "made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity," ..."
The White House is determined to block the rise of the key nuclear-armed nations, Russia and China, neither of whom will join the
"world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony," says head of the Institute for Political Economy, Paul Craig Roberts.
The former
US assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy, Dr Paul Craig Roberts, has written on his
blog
that Beijing is currently "confronted with the Pivot to Asia and the construction of new US naval and air bases to ensure Washington's
control of the South China Sea, now defined as an area of American National Interests."
Roberts writes that Washington's commitment to contain Russia is the reason "for the crisis that Washington has created in
Ukraine and for its use as anti-Russian propaganda."
The author of several books, "How America Was Lost" among the latest titles, says that US "aggression and blatant
propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic
alliance."
Dr Roberts believes that neither Russia, nor China will meanwhile accept the so-called "vassalage status accepted by the UK,
Germany, France and the rest of Europe, Canada, Japan and Australia." According to the political analyst, the "price of
world peace is the world's acceptance of Washington's hegemony."
"On the foreign policy front, the hubris and arrogance of America's self-image as the 'exceptional, indispensable' country
with hegemonic rights over other countries means that the world is primed for war," Roberts writes.
He gives a gloomy political forecast in his column saying that "unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe
finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our
likely future."
Russia's far-reaching May 9 Victory Day celebration was meanwhile a "historical turning point," according to Roberts
who says that while Western politicians chose to boycott the 70th anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, "the Chinese were
there in their place," China's president sitting next to President Putin during the military parade on Red Square in Moscow.
A recent poll targeting over 3,000 people in France, Germany and the UK has recently revealed that as little as 13 percent of
Europeans think the Soviet Army played the leading role in liberating Europe from Nazism during WW2. The majority of respondents
– 43 percent – said the US Army played the main role in liberating Europe.
"Russian casualties compared to the combined casualties of the US, UK, and France make it completely clear that it was Russia
that defeated Hitler," Roberts points out, adding that "in the Orwellian West, the latest rewriting of history leaves out
of the story the Red Army's destruction of the Wehrmacht."
The head of the presidential administration, Sergey Ivanov, told RT earlier this month that attempts to diminish the role played
by Russia in defeating Nazi Germany through rewriting history by some Western countries are part of the ongoing campaign to isolate
and alienate Russia.
Dr Roberts has also stated in his column that while the US president only mentioned US forces in his remarks on the 70th anniversary
of the victory, President Putin in contrast "expressed gratitude to 'the peoples of Great Britain, France and the United States
of America for their contribution to the victory.'"
The political analyst notes that America along with its allies "do not hear when Russia says 'don't push us this hard, we
are not your enemy. We want to be your partners.'"
While Moscow and Beijing have "finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war," Washington "made the mistake
that could be fateful for humanity," according to Dr Roberts.
It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all
need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part.
Notable quotes:
"... Neoliberalism has been disastrous for the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial heartland, now little more than its wasteland ..."
"... The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate. ..."
"... two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair: offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. ..."
"... Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime. ..."
"... In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus, a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic) minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate, stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined. ..."
"... But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital (which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century capitalism. ..."
"... Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive governments to deal with this. ..."
"... Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though, was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. ..."
"... Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too, along with a number of social drivers. ..."
"... The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico. ..."
"... I contend that in some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision appeared in sharp relief with Brexit. ..."
"... Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity, so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions that predate the emergence of identity politics. ..."
"... It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the plight of their cherished white working class. ..."
"... The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity. Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory present. ..."
"... Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'. ..."
"... Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness' threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation. Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like a minority vote. ..."
"... Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority, much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'? ..."
"... I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective. ..."
"... In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s." ..."
"... Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote: "the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate." ..."
"... In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found, a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.' ..."
"... In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country, and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time, more and more power. ..."
"... To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their 2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced to pay. ..."
"... This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman white underclass (or so they see it). ..."
"... You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you), you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back. Nobody trusts the elite at all. ..."
"... You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem. ..."
"... One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016: the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people. This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party. ..."
"... Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery. ..."
"... None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it. ..."
"... . It is the end of neoliberalism and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp out the authoritarian part. ..."
"... This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to the Ivy League, which is 90% of them. ..."
"... Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a "boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win? ..."
"... "The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians." ..."
"... "It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of rubble.' ..."
"... "One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats, one would be quite mistaken." ..."
"... Foreign Affairs ..."
"... "At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response, governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to, and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time, is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon known as Goodhart's law. (..) ..."
"... " what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically, and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right to vote. ..."
"... "The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened. ..."
"... "The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism. It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun." ..."
"... They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue collar work. ..."
"... trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been "correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic party, have to accept. ..."
"... trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama was defending keeping what was already there. ..."
"... "Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html ..."
"... Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. "" ..."
The question is no longer her neoliberalism, but yours. Keep it or throw it away?
I wish this issue was being seriously discussed. Neoliberalism has been disastrous for
the Rust Belt, and I think we need to envision a new future for what was once the country's industrial
heartland, now little more than its wasteland (cf. "flyover zone" – a pejorative term which
inhabitants of the zone are not too stupid to understand perfectly, btw).
The question of what the many millions of often-unionized factory workers, SMEs which supplied
them, family farmers (now fully industrialized and owned by corporations), and all those in secondary
production and services who once supported them are to actually do in future to earn a decent
living is what I believe should really be the subject of debate.
As noted upthread, two factors (or three, I guess) have contributed to this state of despair:
offshoring and outsourcing, and technology. The jobs that have been lost will not return,
and indeed will be lost in ever greater numbers – just consider what will happen to the trucking
sector when self-driving trucks hit the roads sometime in the next 10-20 years (3.5 million truckers;
8.7 in allied jobs).
Medicaid, the CHIP program, the SNAP program and others (including NGOs and private charitable
giving) may alleviate some of the suffering, but there is currently no substitute for jobs that
would enable men and women to live lives of dignity – a decent place to live, good educations
for their children, and a reasonable, secure pension in old age. Near-, at-, and below-minimum
wage jobs devoid of any benefits don't allow any of these – at most, they make possible a subsistence
life, one which requires continued reliance on public assistance throughout one's lifetime.
In the U.S. (a neoliberal pioneer), poverty is closely linked with inequality and thus,
a high GINI coefficient (near that of Turkey); where there is both poverty and a very unequal
distribution of resources, this inevitably affects women (and children) and racial (and ethnic)
minorities disproportionately. The economic system, racism, sexism, and xenophobia are not separate,
stand-alone issues; they are profoundly intertwined.
I appreciate and espouse the goals of identity politics in all their multiplicity, and also
understand that the institutions of slavery and sexism predated modern capitalist economies.
But really, if you think about it, slavery was defined as ownership, ownership of human capital
(which was convertible into cash), and women in many societies throughout history were acquired
as part of a financial transaction (either through purchase or through sale), and control of their
capital (land, property [farmland, herds], valuables and later, money) often entrusted to a spouse
or male guardian. All of these practices were economically-driven, even if the driver wasn't 21st-century
capitalism.
Also: Faustusnotes@100
For example Indiana took the ACA Medicaid expansion but did so with additional conditions that
make it worse than in neighboring states run by democratic governors.
And what states would those be? IL, IA, MI, OH, WI, KY, and TN have Republican governors. Were
you thinking pre-2014? pre-2012?
To conclude and return to my original point: what's to become of the Rust Belt in future? Did
the Democratic platform include a New New Deal for PA, OH, MI, WI, and IA (to name only the five
Rust Belt states Trump flipped)?
" Let it be said at once: Trump's victory is primarily due to the explosion in economic
and geographic inequality in the United States over several decades and the inability of successive
governments to deal with this.
Both the Clinton and the Obama administrations frequently went along with the market liberalization
launched under Reagan and both Bush presidencies. At times they even outdid them: the financial
and commercial deregulation carried out under Clinton is an example. What sealed the deal, though,
was the suspicion that the Democrats were too close to Wall Street – and the inability of the
Democratic media elite to learn the lessons from the Sanders vote. "
What should have been one comment came out as 4, so apologies on that front.
I spent the last week explaining the US election to my students in Japan in pretty much the
terms outlined by Lilla and PIketty, so I was delighted to discover these two articles.
Regional inequality and globalization are the principal drivers in Japanese politics, too,
along with a number of social drivers. It was therefore very easy to call for a show of hands
to identify students studying here in Tokyo who are trying to decide whether or not to return
to areas such as Tohoku to build their lives; or remain in Kanto/Tokyo – the NY/Washington/LA
of Japan put crudely.
I asked students from regions close to Tohoku how they might feel if the Japanese prime minister
decided not to visit the region following Fukushima after the disaster, or preceding an election.
The tsunami/nuclear meltdown combined with the Japanese government's uneven response is an
apt metaphor for the impact of neo-liberalism/globalization on Japan; and on the US. I then explained
that the income inequality in the US was far more severe than that of Japan and that many Americans
did not support the export of jobs to China/Mexico.
I then asked the students, particularly those from outlying regions whether they believe Japan
needed a leader who would 'bring back Japanese jobs' from Viet Nam and China, etc. Many/most agreed
wholeheartedly. I then asked whether they believed Tokyo people treated those outside Kanto as
'inferiors.' Many do.
Piketty may be right regarding Trump's long-term effects on income inequality. He is wrong,
I suggest, to argue that Democrats failed to respond to Sanders' support. I contend that in
some hypothetical universe the DNC and corrupt Clinton machine could have been torn out, root
and branch, within months. As I noted, however, the decision to run HRC effectively unopposed
was made several years, at least, before the stark evidence of the consequences of such a decision
appeared in sharp relief with Brexit.
Also worth noting is that the rust belts problems are as old as Reagan – even the term dates
from the 80s, the issue is so uncool that there is a dire straits song about it. Some portion
of the decline of manufacturing there is due to manufacturers shifting to the south, where the
anti Union states have an advantage. Also there has been new investment – there were no Japanese
car companies in the us in the 1980s, so they are new job creators, yet insufficient to make up
the losses. Just as the decline of Virginia coal is due to global forces and corporate stupidity,
so the decline of the rust belt is due to long (30 year plus) global forces and corporate decisions
that predate the emergence of identity politics.
It's interesting that the clear headed thinkers of the Marxist left, who pride themselves
on not being distracted by identity, don't want to talk about these factors when discussing the
plight of their cherished white working class. Suddenly it's not the forces of capital and
the objective facts of history, but a bunch of whiny black trannies demanding safe spaces and
protesting police violence, that drove those towns to ruin.
And what solutions do they think the dems should have proposed? It can't be welfare, since
we got the ACA (watered down by representatives of the rust belt states). Is it, seriously, tariffs?
Short of going to an election promising w revolution, what should the dems have done? Give us
a clear answer so we can see what the alternative to identity politics is.
basil 11.19.16 at 5:11 am
Did this go through?
Thinking with WLGR @15, Yan @81, engels variously above,
The construction 'white working class' is a useful governing tool that splits poor people
and possible coalitions against the violence of capital. Now, discussion focuses on how some of
the least powerful, most vulnerable people in the United States are the perpetrators of a great
injustice against racialised and minoritised groups. Such commentary colludes in the pathologisation
of the working class, of poor people. Victims are inculpated as the vectors of noxious, atavistic
vices while the perpetrators get off with impunity, showing off their multihued, cosmopolitan
C-suites and even proposing that their free trade agreements are a form of anti-racist solidarity.
Most crucially, such analysis ignores the continuities between a Trumpian dystopia and our satisfactory
present.
I get that the tropes around race are easy, and super-available. Privilege confessing is very
in vogue as a prophylactic against charges of racism. But does it threaten the structures that
produce this abjection – either as embittered, immiserated 'white working class' or as threatened
minority group? It is always *those* 'white' people, the South, the Working Class, and never the
accusers some of whom are themselves happy to vote for a party that drowns out anti-war protesters
with chants of USA! USA!
Race-thinking forecloses the possibility of the coalitions that you imagine, and reproduces
ideas of difference in ways that always, always privilege 'whiteness'.
--
Historical examples of ethnic groups becoming 'white', how it was legal and political decision-making
that defined the present racial taxonomy, suggest that groups can also lose or have their 'whiteness'
threatened. CB has written here about how, in the UK at least, Eastern and Southern Europeans
are racialised, and so refused 'whiteness'. JQ has written about southern white minoritisation.
Many commentators have pointed that the 'white working class' vote this year looked a lot like
a minority vote.
Given the subordination of groups presently defined as 'white working class', I wonder
if we could think beyond ethnic and epidermal definition to consider that the impossibility of
the American Dream refuses these groups whiteness; i.e the hoped for privileges of racial superiority,
much in the same way that African Americans, Latin Americans and other racialised minorities are
denied whiteness. Can a poor West Virginian living in a toxified drugged out impoverished landscape
really be defined as a carrier of 'white privilege'?
I was first pointed at this by the juxtapositions of racialised working class and immigrants
in Imogen Tyler's Revolting Subjects – Social Abjection and Resistance in Neoliberal Britain but
this below is a useful short article that takes a historical perspective.
The 'racialisation' of class in Britain has been a consequence of the weakening of 'class'
as a political idea since the 1970s – it is a new construction, not an historic one.
.
This is not to deny the existence of working-class racism, or to suggest that racism is
somehow acceptable if rooted in perceived socio-economic grievances. But it is to suggest that
the concept of a 'white working class' needs problematizing, as does the claim that the British
working-class was strongly committed to a post-war vision of 'White Britain' analogous to the
politics which sustained the idea of a 'White Australia' until the 1960s.
Yes, old, settled neighbourhoods could be profoundly distrustful of outsiders – all outsiders,
including the researchers seeking to study them – but, when it came to race, they were internally
divided. We certainly hear working-class racist voices – often echoing stock racist complaints
about over-crowding, welfare dependency or exploitative landlords and small businessmen, but
we don't hear the deep pathological racial fears laid bare in the letters sent to Enoch Powell
after his so-called 'Rivers of Blood' speech in 1968 (Whipple, 2009).
But more importantly, we also hear strong anti-racist voices loudly and clearly. At Wallsend
on Tyneside, where the researchers were gathering their data just as Powell shot to notoriety,
we find workers expressing casual racism, but we also find eloquent expressions of an internationalist,
solidaristic perspective in which, crucially, black and white are seen as sharing the same
working-class interests.
Racism is denounced as a deliberate capitalist strategy to divide workers against themselves,
weakening their ability to challenge those with power over their lives (shipbuilding had long
been a very fractious industry and its workers had plenty of experience of the dangers of internal
sectarian battles).
To be able to mobilize across across racialised divisions, to have race wither away entirely
would, for me, be the beginning of a politics that allowed humanity to deal with the inescapable
violence of climate change and corporate power.
*To add to the bibliography – David R. Roediger, Elizabeth D. Esch – The Production of Difference
– Race and the Management of Labour, and Denise Ferreira da Silva – Toward a Global Idea of Race.
And I have just been pointed at Ian Haney-López, White By Law – The Legal Construction of Race.
FWIW 'merica's constitutional democracy is going to collapse.
Some day - not tomorrow, not next year, but probably sometime before runaway climate change
forces us to seek a new life in outer-space colonies - there is going to be a collapse of the
legal and political order and its replacement by something else. If we're lucky, it won't be violent.
If we're very lucky, it will lead us to tackle the underlying problems and result in a better,
more robust, political system. If we're less lucky, well, then, something worse will happen .
In a 1990 essay, the late Yale political scientist Juan Linz observed that "aside from
the United States, only Chile has managed a century and a half of relatively undisturbed constitutional
continuity under presidential government - but Chilean democracy broke down in the 1970s."
Linz offered several reasons why presidential systems are so prone to crisis. One particularly
important one is the nature of the checks and balances system. Since both the president and the
Congress are directly elected by the people, they can both claim to speak for the people. When
they have a serious disagreement, according to Linz, "there is no democratic principle on the
basis of which it can be resolved." The constitution offers no help in these cases, he wrote:
"the mechanisms the constitution might provide are likely to prove too complicated and aridly
legalistic to be of much force in the eyes of the electorate."
In a parliamentary system, deadlocks get resolved. A prime minister who lacks the backing
of a parliamentary majority is replaced by a new one who has it. If no such majority can be found,
a new election is held and the new parliament picks a leader. It can get a little messy for a
period of weeks, but there's simply no possibility of a years-long spell in which the legislative
and executive branches glare at each other unproductively.'
Given that the basic point is polarisation (i.e. that both the President and Congress have
equally strong arguments to be the the 'voice of the people') and that under the US appalling
constitutional set up, there is no way to decide between them, one can easily imagine the so to
speak 'hyperpolarisation' of a Trump Presidency as being the straw (or anvil) that breaks the
camel's back.
In any case, as I pointed out before, given that the US is increasingly an urbanised country,
and the Electoral College was created to protect rural (slave) states, the grotesque electoral
result we have just seen is likely to recur, which means more and more Presidents with dubious
democratic legitimacy. Thanks to Bush (and Obama) these Presidents will have, at the same time,
more and more power.
nastywoman @ 150
Just study the program of the 'Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschland' or the Program of 'Die
Grünen' in Germany (take it through google translate) and you get all the answers you are looking
for.
No need to run it through google translate, it's available in English on their site. [Or one
could refer to the Green Party of the U.S. site/platform, which is very similar in scope and overall
philosophy. (www.gp.org).]
I looked at several of their topic areas (Agricultural, Global, Health, Rural) and yes, these
are general theses I would support. But they're hardly policy/project proposals for specific regions
or communities – the Greens espouse "think global, act local", so programs and projects must be
tailored to individual communities and regions.
To return to my original question and answer it myself: I'm forced to conclude that the
Democrats did not specifically address the revitalization – rebirth of the Rust Belt in their
2016 platform. Its failure to do so carried a heavy cost that (nearly) all of us will be forced
to pay.
This sub seems to have largely fallen into the psychologically comfortable trap of declaring
that everyone who voted against their preferred candidate is racist. It's a view pushed by the
neoliberals, who want to maintain he stranglehold of identity politics over the DNC, and it makes
upper-class 'intellectuals' feel better about themselves and their betrayal of the filthy, subhuman
white underclass (or so they see it).
I expect at this point that Trump will be reelected comfortably. If not only the party itself,
but also most of its activists, refuse to actually change, it's more or less inevitable.
You can scream 'those jobs are never coming back!' all you want, but people are never going
to accept it. So either you come up with a genuine solution (instead of simply complaining that
your opponents solutions won't work; you're partisan and biased, most voters won't believe you),
you may as well resign yourself to fascism. Because whining that you don't know what to do won't
stop people from lining up behind someone who says that they do have one, whether it'll work or
not. Nobody trusts the elite enough to believe them when they say that jobs are never coming back.
Nobody trusts the elite at all.
You sound just like the Wiemar elite. No will to solve the problem, but filled with terror
at the inevitable result of failing to solve the problem.
One brutal fact tells us everything we need to know about the Democratic party in 2016:
the American Nazi party is running on a platform of free health care to working class people.
This means that the American Nazi Party is now running to the left of the Democratic party.
Folks, we have seen this before. Let's not descend in backbiting and recriminations, okay?
We've got some commenters charging that other commenters are "mansplaining," meanwhile we've got
other commenters claiming that it's economics and not racism/misogyny. It's all of the above.
Back in the 1930s, when the economy collapsed, fascists appeared and took power. Racists
also came out of the woodwork, ditto misogynists. Fast forward 80 years, and the same thing has
happened all over again. The global economy melted down in 2008 and fascists appeared promising
to fix the problems that the pols in power wouldn't because they were too closely tied to the
existing (failed) system. Along with the fascists, racists gained power because they were able
to scapegoat minorities as the alleged cause of everyone's misery.
None of this is surprising. We have seen it before. Whenever you get a depression in a
modern industrial economy, you get scapegoating, racism, and fascists. We know what to do. The
problem is that the current Democratic party isn't doing it.
Instead, what we're seeing is a whirlwind of finger-pointing from the Democratic leadership
that lost this election and probably let the entire New Deal get rolled back and wiped out. Putin
is to blame! Julian Assange is to blame! The biased media are to blame! Voter suppression is to
blame! Bernie Sanders is to blame! Jill Stein is to blame! Everyone and anyone except the current
out-of-touch influence-peddling elites who currently have run the Democratic party into the ground.
We need the feminists and the black lives matter groups and we also need the green party people
and the Bernie Sanders activists. But everyone has to understand that this is not an isolated
event. Trump did not just happen by accident. First there was Greece, then there was Brexit, then
there was Trump, next it'll be Renzi losing the referendum in Italy and a constitutional crisis
there, and after that, Marine Le Pen in France is going to win the first round of elections. (Probably
not the presidency, since all the other French parties will band together to stop her, but the
National Front is currently polling at 40% of all registered French voters.) And Marine LePen
is the real deal, a genuine full-on out-and-out fascist. Not a closet fascist like Steve Bannon,
LePen is the full monty with everything but a Hugo Boss suit and the death's heads on the cap.
Does anyone notice a pattern here?
This is an international movement. It is sweeping the world . It is the end of neoliberalism
and the start of the era of authoritarian nationalism, and we all need to come together to stamp
out the authoritarian part.
Feminists, BLM, black bloc anarchiest anti-globalists, Sandernistas, and, yes, the former Hillary
supporters. Because it not just a coincidence that all these things are happening in all these
countries at the same time. The bottom 90% of the population in the developed world has been ripped
off by a managerial and financial and political class for the last 30 years and they have all
noticed that while the world GDP was skyrocketing and international trade agreements were getting
signed with zero input from the average citizen, a few people were getting very very rich but
nobody else was getting anything.
This hammered people on the bottom, disproportionately African Americans and especially
single AA mothers in America. It crushed the blue collar workers. It is wiping out the savings
and careers of college-educated white collar workers now, at least, the ones who didn't go to
the Ivy League, which is 90% of them.
And the Democratic party is so helpless and so hopeless that it is letting the American Nazi
Party run to the left of them on health care, fer cripes sake! We are now in a situation
where the American Nazi Party is advocating single-payer nationalized health care, while the former
Democratic presidential nominee who just got defeated assured everyone that single-payer "will
never, ever happen."
C'mon! Is anyone surprised that Hillary lost? Let's cut the crap with the "Hillary
was a flawed candidate" arguments. The plain fact of the matter is that Hillary was running mainly
on getting rid of the problems she and her husband created 25 years ago. Hillary promised criminal
justice reform and Black Lives Matter-friendly policing policies - and guess who started the mass
incarceration trend and gave speeches calling black kids "superpredators" 20 years ago? Hillary
promised to fix the problems with the wretched mandate law forcing everyone to buy unaffordable
for-profit private insurance with no cost controls - and guess who originally ran for president
in 2008 on a policy of health care mandates with no cost controls? Yes, Hillary (ironically, Obama's
big surge in popularity as a candidate came when he ran against Hillary from the left, ridiculing
helath care mandates). Hillary promises to reform an out-of-control deregulated financial system
run amok - and guess who signed all those laws revoking Glass-Steagal and setting up the Securities
Trading Modernization Act? Yes, Bill Clinton, and Hillary was right there with him cheering the
whole process on.
So pardon me and lots of other folks for being less than impressed by Hillary's trustworthiness
and honesty. Run for president by promising to undo the damage you did to the country 25 years
ago is (let say) a suboptimal campaign strategy, and a distinctly suboptimal choice of presidential
candidate for a party in the same sense that the Hiroshima air defense was suboptimal in 1945.
Calling Hillary an "imperfect candidate" is like calling what happened to the Titanic a
"boating accident." Trump was an imperfect candidate. Why did he win?
Because we're back in the 1930s again, the economy has crashed hard and still hasn't recovered
(maybe because we still haven't convened a Pecora Commission and jailed a bunch of the thieves,
and we also haven't set up any alphabet government job programs like the CCC) so fascists and
racists and all kinds of other bottom-feeders are crawling out of the political woodwork to promise
to fix the problems that the Democratic party establishment won't.
Rule of thumb: any social or political or economic writer virulently hated by the current Democratic
party establishment is someone we should listen to closely right now.
Cornel West is at the top of the current Democratic establishment's hate list, and he has got
a great article in The Guardian that I think is spot-on:
"The neoliberal era in the United States ended with a neofascist bang. The political triumph
of Donald Trump shattered the establishments in the Democratic and Republican parties – both wedded
to the rule of Big Money and to the reign of meretricious politicians."
Glenn Greenwald is another writer who has been showered with more hate by the Democratic establishment
recently than even Trump or Steve Bannon, so you know Greenwald is saying something important.
He has a great piece in The Intercept on the head-in-the-ground attitude of Democratic
elites toward their recent loss:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party is in shambles as a political
force. Not only did it just lose the White House to a wildly unpopular farce of a candidate despite
a virtually unified establishment behind it, and not only is it the minority party in both the
Senate and the House, but it is getting crushed at historical record rates on the state and local
levels as well. Surveying this wreckage last week, party stalwart Matthew Yglesias of Vox minced
no words: `the Obama years have created a Democratic Party that's essentially a smoking pile of
rubble.'
"One would assume that the operatives and loyalists of such a weak, defeated and wrecked
political party would be eager to engage in some introspection and self-critique, and to produce
a frank accounting of what they did wrong so as to alter their plight. In the case of 2016 Democrats,
one would be quite mistaken."
Last but far from least, Scottish economist Mark Blyth has what looks to me like the single
best analysis of the entire global Trump_vs_deep_state tidal wave in Foreign Affairs magazine:
"At the end of World War II, the United States and its allies decided that sustained mass
unemployment was an existential threat to capitalism and had to be avoided at all costs. In response,
governments everywhere targeted full employment as the master policy variable-trying to get to,
and sustain, an unemployment rate of roughly four percent. The problem with doing so, over time,
is that targeting any variable long enough undermines the value of the variable itself-a phenomenon
known as Goodhart's law. (..)
" what we see [today] is a reversal of power between creditors and debtors as the anti-inflationary
regime of the past 30 years undermines itself-what we might call "Goodhart's revenge." In this
world, yields compress and creditors fret about their earnings, demanding repayment of debt at
all costs. Macro-economically, this makes the situation worse: the debtors can't pay-but politically,
and this is crucial-it empowers debtors since they can't pay, won't pay, and still have the right
to vote.
"The traditional parties of the center-left and center-right, the builders of this anti-inflationary
order, get clobbered in such a world, since they are correctly identified by these debtors as
the political backers of those demanding repayment in an already unequal system, and all from
those with the least assets. This produces anti-creditor, pro-debtor coalitions-in-waiting that
are ripe for the picking by insurgents of the left and the right, which is exactly what has happened.
"In short, to understand the election of Donald Trump we need to listen to the trumpets blowing
everywhere in the highly indebted developed countries and the people who vote for them.
"The global revolt against elites is not just driven by revulsion and loss and racism.
It's also driven by the global economy itself. This is a global phenomenon that marks one thing
above all. The era of neoliberalism is over. The era of neonationalism has just begun."
You don't live here, do you? I'm really asking a genuine question because the way you are framing
the question ("SPECIFICS!!!!!!) suggests you don't. (Just to show my background, born and raised
in Australia (In the electoral division of Kooyong, home of Menzies) but I've lived in the US
since 2000 in the midwest (MO, OH) and currently in the south (GA))
If this election has taught us anything it's no one cared about "specifics". It was a mood,
a feeling which brought trump over the top (and I'm not talking about the "average" trump voter
because that is meaningless. The average trunp voter was a republican voter in the south who the
Dems will never get so examining their motivations is immaterial to future strategy. I'm talking
about the voters in the Upper Midwest from places which voted for Obama twice then switched to
trump this year to give him his margin of victory).
trump voters have been pretty clear they don't actually care about the way trump does (or even
doesn't) do what he said he would do during the campaign. It was important to them he showed he
was "with" people like them. They way he did that was partially racialized (law and order, islamophobia)
but also a particular emphasis on blue collar work that focused on the work. Unfortunately these
voters, however much you tell them they should suck it up and accept their generations of familial
experience as relatively highly paid industrial workers (even if it is something only their fathers
and grandfathers experienced because the factories were closing when the voters came of age in
the 80s and 90s) is never coming back and they should be happy to retrain as something else, don't
want it. They want what their families have had which is secure, paid, benefits rich, blue
collar work.
trump's campaign empathized with that feeling just by focusing on the factory jobs as jobs
and not as anachronisms that are slowly fading away for whatever reason. Clinton might have been
"correct", but these voters didn't want to hear "the truth". And as much as you can complain about
how stupid they are for wanting to be lied to, that is the unfortunate reality you, and the Democratic
party, have to accept.
The idea they don't want "government help" is ridiculous. They love the government. They just
want the government to do things for them and not for other people (which unfortunately includes
blah people but also "the coasts", "sillicon valley", etc.). Obama won in 2008 and 2012 in part
due to the auto bailout.
trump was offering a "bailout" writ large. Clinton had no (good) counteroffer. It was like
the tables were turned. Romney was the one talking about "change" and "restructuring" while Obama
was defending keeping what was already there.
"Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the
automakers will stay the course - the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable
labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check." http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html
So yes. Clinton needed vague promises. She needed something more than retraining and "jobs
of the future" and "restructuring". She needed to show she was committed to their way of life,
however those voters saw it, and would do something, anything, to keep it alive. trump did that
even though his plan won't work. And maybe he'll be punished for it. In 4 years. But in the interim
the gop will destroy so many things we need and rely on as well as entrench their power for generations
through the Supreme Court.
But really, it was hard for Clinton to be trusted to act like she cared about these peoples'
way of life because she (through her husband fairly or unfairly) was associated with some of the
larger actions and choices which helped usher in the decline.
Clinton toward the end offered tariffs. But the trump campaign hit back with what turned
out to be a pretty strong counter attack – ""How's she going to get tough on China?" said Trump
economic advisor Peter Navarro on CNN's Quest Means Business. He notes that some of Clinton's
economic advisors have supported TPP or even worked on it. ""
"... it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism". ..."
"... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic ..."
"... unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup ..."
it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism
is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or
cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors
like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt
to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily
determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination
toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance
between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream
centrist parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition
proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation
of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to point
at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism".
Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political
and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically
disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup
Which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement
at all.
And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language
and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful
concepts like racism and fascism from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly
preferable to swapping out the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".
"... The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob. ..."
Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out of the closet)
home of racism, they've marginalized themselves. Open question: does the neoliberal-lite party
have any incentive to cater to the left?
The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime: the racists tell themselves
that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group think of the politically-correct mob.
I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism FAQ: no one bothers
to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so everyone is rusty on what the data actually
shows.
The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong (good luck with
that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are the ones out of touch with reality.
I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled: "Scientists Respond
to _The Bell Curve_").
Cynically: is there a need to do anything? As long as the right is the (now out
of the closet) home of racism, they've marginalized themselves.
Open
question: does the neoliberal-lite party have any incentive to cater to the
left?
The problem with racism underground has been clear for sometime:
the racists tell themselves that they're clear-thinkers resisting the group
think of the politically-correct mob.
I've thought for some time that there would be some value in an anti-racism
FAQ: no one bothers to argue against racists (beyond shouting "racist!") so
everyone is rusty on what the data actually shows.
The point of this is not necessarily to convince racists that they're wrong
(good luck with that), but to shake their conviction that the anti-racists are
the ones out of touch with reality.
I would start with the excellent "Intelligence, Genes & Success" (subtitled:
"Scientists Respond to _The Bell Curve_").
"... Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . . ..."
"... I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics. ..."
"... According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting 'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs. ..."
"... "The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil." ..."
"... I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US ..."
"... Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
"... As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right, but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists who are propagating partitioning and protectionism. ..."
John, I agree that tribalism is a huge force in politics, but the way you have defined it describes
a huge portion of how people on all sides vote. All sorts of research shows that a majority of
people seem to use the rubric "what do people of my affiliation believe" to reach conclusions
and then defend them rather than following any particular chain of logic about the actual question.
So I'm not sure what kind of differentiation work the term is doing.
On the other hand I think you're definitely on to something about the change of formerly stable
political orders, and I'm not sure I can identify what it is either. I sort of see what you are
trying to do with the in-group/out-group thing. Those impulses always existed, so I wonder what
has changed? Is it assimilation norms that have weakened? Economic loss or the fear of it in the
'in group'? Fear of going from an 'in group' to an 'out group'? Combination of those?
bruce wilder 10.30.16 at 9:34 pm
The success of [civil rights and anti-apartheid] movements did not end racism, but drove
it underground, allowing neoliberals to exploit racist and tribalist political support while
pursuing the interests of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white)
poor.
That coalition has now been replaced by one in which the tribalists and racists are dominant.
For the moment at least, [hard] neoliberals continue to support the parties they formerly controlled,
with the result that the balance of political forces between the right and the opposing coalition
of soft neoliberals and the left has not changed significantly.
There's an ambiguity in this narrative and in the three-party analysis.
Do we acknowledge that the soft neoliberals in control of the coalition that includes the
inchoate left also "exploit racist and tribalist political support while pursuing the interests
of wealth and capital, at the expense of the (disproportionately non-white) poor."? They do it
with a different style and maybe with some concession to economic melioration, as well as supporting
anti-racist and feminist policy to keep the inchoate left on board, but . . .
The new politics of the right has lost faith in the hard neoliberalism that formerly furnished
its policy agenda of tax cuts for the rich, war in the Middle East and so on, leaving the impure
resentment ungoverned and unfocused, as you say.
The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil.
The problem of how to oppose racism and tribalism effectively is now entangled with soft neoliberal
control of the remaining party coalition, which is to say with the credibility of the left party
as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility of economic populism as an antidote for
racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
The form of tribalism used to mobilize the left entails denying that an agenda of economic
populism is relevant to the problems of sexism and racism, because the deplorables must be deplored
to get out the vote. And, because the (soft) neoliberals in charge must keep economic populism
under control to deliver the goods to their donor base.
"That doesn't mean that we should maintain the long-standing taboo on using the word
"racist" to describe such people."
Whether you 'should' or 'shouldn't' largely depends on which country you are in; the US has
sufficient minorities able to vote that a 'wide' definition of racism is almost certainly a net
vote-winner.
The UK, Australia, etc. don't. So they have to rely on opposition to racism on moral grounds,
which in turn depends on using a narrow definition.
Alternatively, you could be talking in an academic context, independent of any particular country's
politics, in which case I would imagine that using different words for different things would
be minimally confusing.
LFC 10.30.16 at 10:50 pm Alesis @19
Race is the foundational organizing principle of American life
There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There are
conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional traditions,
plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There are certain experiences
that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory, but nowadays even that
is debatable.
As one who has lived for more than fifty years in the United States, rather than just a few
years here and there as John Quiggin has, I assure him that racism has not been driven underground
here. It has died as a mass sentiment capable of serving as a power base for such figures as Lyndon
Johnson, George Wallace, or Jimmy Carter.
All had to change their tune to retain or increase their power, and that was about half
a century ago. No aspiring politician could get started today making the kind of racial appeals
they did at the beginning of their political careers, and in the cases of Johnson and Wallace
for a long time thereafter.
There is no mass sentiment for re-establishing separate drinking fountains, toilets, dining
areas, schools, etc. by race or for repealing the Civil War-era amendments to the Constitution.
I even hear rumors that Americans may be receptive to the idea of electing a black President.
My suggestion is to tackle the pandering by the rich party for the poor's votes by appealing
to racism, rather than the racism itself. "You're being played" may work better than "you're wrong".
I also think that the severity continuum of racism needs to be emphasized. We pretty much all
exhibit minor solecisms as we overcome features of our culture and upbringing. When a gentle correction
triggers complaints about monstrous PC allegations, I recommend a response like "Hey, it's no
biggie. You're not Hitler. Why are you taking a dive?"
"Tribalism" in the sense it's being used here has nothing to do with "primitive" tribes; it's
a reference to the ancient Roman tribes (the origin of the word) and the similar Greek phylai,
which were essentially arbitrary groupings of citizens which struggled amongst each other because
of group identification despite all being of the same ethnic group and nation. If there's a better
word for this, it isn't ethnonationalism or fascism.
Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am
I think poor to outright horrific epistemology in public discussion creates the basis for a
lot of bad politics. Many have described our current time as a post-truth era. There have been
some efforts towards fact-checking, but these seem to be simple refutations of facts, like Trump
saying
that he didn't say X, when we can play a two-day old tape of him in fact saying X. Part of the
manifestation of "tribalism", is the holding of in-group shibboleths, and the failure to critically
examine them -- for fear that that might weaken their role as weaponized-memes. That and our
politics has severely degenerated into character assassination, much of it unfounded. So we can't
even have a semi-rational discussion about issues, as political actors have to expend all their
efforts fending off attempts to assassinate their reputation, and to level even more damaging
attacks against their enemies.
So we have to start reclaiming decent epistemological practices in our public discussion. I
don't think this is going to be an easy or a quick process. But without it, we are highly vulnerable
to emotion based movements and their demagogues. Graham's conspiracy theory observations, as well
as those of bob@4 and loki@12, are symptoms of this degeneration of epiestemology.
John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 1:44 am
nastywoman @21 The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US
political discussion, "working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the
same thing: it includes lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with
age.
The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited,
whereas social class is not.
Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am
Racism (and sexism), something described by Tom Magliozzi's "Non Impediti Ratione Cogitationis-Unencumbered
by the Thought Process" is impervious to argumentation. I've lost a lot of friends driven mad
first by the Kenyan, and now by that "nasty woman."
Imagine a future scenario of yet another financial crisis the pushes unemployment above 30%
and mere words will certainly fail you.
My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a time
as we compose blog posts.
The great problem progressives face is that many , if not most of the working class really
don't want social justice , they want to be the fat cats. And when they don't join the ranks
of the fat cats they are easily convinced that this is because the liberals are stealing from
them to give to the "welfare" people. Trump has expanded to include hordes of invading Mexicans
and Muslims.
Bob Zannelli 10.31.16 at 2:20 am
"There is no such thing as "the foundational organizing principle of American life." There
are conflicting ideologies, a conflicting set of histories, and a conflicting set of regional
traditions, plus founding documents that are subject to conflicting interpretations. There
are certain experiences that might be presumed to shape some sort of common collective memory,
but nowadays even that is debatable."
the credibility of the left party as a vehicle for economic populism and the credibility
of economic populism as an antidote for racism or sexism. (cf js. @ 1,2)
1. I have no fucking idea what you got out of my comments, but just to be very clear, I would
almost certainly support, and strongly, almost all _policies_ that you're likely to classify as
"economically populist". (I prefer a term like "socially equitable"-in a material sense, not talking
about symbolic stuff or the politics of recognition here. But e.g. I think repeal of the Hyde
Amendment should go under exactly the same heading as minimum wage increases, trade deals with
strong labor protections, etc.-which kind of thing gets lost when people talk about "economic
populism".)
On the _politics_ you and I each think the other one is dead wrong, and both of us already
know this, and neither of us is about to give half an inch, so I don't think there's much point
in pursuing the argument. But…
2. …Entirely leaving aside racism for a minute, when has it ever seemed plausible that "economic
populism" would be an effective counter to entrenched sexism? This makes no sense to me whatsoever.
--
Re WLGR
In contrast to a true petite bourgeoisie, which has no historical memory of the full
trauma of capitalist expropriation, a labor aristocracy on some level is aware that its economically
secure position relative to the still-fully-dispossessed global working class depends on accepting
and defending the racist/nationalist logic of imperial expropriation
I'll have to think about more. My first instinct is to say - there's something to this, but
the contrast is significantly less sharp than that (in both directions), but I need to think it
out more.
WLGR 10.31.16 at 4:18 am
I seriously doubt a human social phenomenon as broad and universal as "identifying with
an in-group against an out-group", if this is how y'all intend to define "tribalism", can be made
narrow enough to usefully describe a specific tendency in modern capitalist politics.
It would be absurd to claim that nobody who isn't a fascist/racist/ethnonationalist/etc. determines
their political priorities on some level according to ingroup/outgroup morality - speaking from
experience in a US context, cosmopolitan liberals' disdain for "rubes"/"hicks"/"rednecks" from
"flyover country" (probably the very people "tribalist" is intended to denote) could itself be
described as "tribalist" in the sense you mean it, as for that matter could many socialists' disdain
for liberals, or economists' disdain for sociologists, or old-money politicos' disdain for nouveau-riche
boors like Donald Trump, or whatever.
People seem to be shying away from the idea that what defines so-called "tribalists" as a political
force in developed capitalist nation-states is "tribalism" regarding a particular aspect of their
worldview, namely race and nationality. I get that this is a contortion to avoid the politically
charged act of calling people "racists" or "fascists" (although it's perplexing that so many people
here have surrendered to reactionaries' bizarre contention that using these terms even when they're
suitably descriptive is somehow foul play) but insinuating a categorical deficiency of basic human
social consciousness compared to the categorically more enlightened social consciousness of the
accuser is hardly any less insulting, even before you get into the racial implications of the
term itself.
The best comparison I can think of is the way so-called "New Atheists" tend to group their
ideological taxonomy according to the distinction between "rational" and "irrational": both of
these are such thoroughly universal aspects of human thought and behavior that it can only be
monumental hubris to characterize "rationality" as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and
"irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's. A weaker and more defensible claim of
rationality about a very particular aspect of one's worldview, such as the existence of deities,
leaves open the possibility of irrationality in other aspects of their worldview, such as the
alleged existential threat of Islam (about which many "rationalist" "New Atheists" are famously
paranoid and reactionary). Now imagine the term "irrational" has been used for centuries as a
sloppily interchangeable pejorative for various targets of systematic marginalization, oppression,
enslavement, and genocide.
I would say that after talking to people the republican base is the coalition of
1. Plutocrats
2. Single issue abortion voters
3. Conspiracy theorists and religious conspiracy theorists (end times prophecy mixed with conspiracy)
4. True believers – that is free market types who believe that top end tax cuts and cutting minimum
wage actually help the poor
5. Basket of deplorables you racist/mysoginest you name it
Type 1, 4 and some of 2 have been pealed off the R coalition during the trump campaign due
to how shocking a candidate Trump is. However, type 3 and 5 are more energized than ever. If there
was an effective way to counter type 3 republican voters their coalition would reduce by maybe
half. I know that sounds like a lot but I've lived in the south and have a lot of friends there.
Conspiracy is more powerful than people realize
nastywoman 10.31.16 at 4:57 am
'The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold.'
Not if we count all 'the workers' – who follow and will vote for Trump because he promised
them to bring their jobs back -(with fascistic solutions)
According to a study of Alan Krueger that examined prime-age men (ages 25–54) who are not
working or looking for work – there are alone about 7 million (lost) workers -- (and their wives
and relatives) – many of them supposedly dropped out of the labor force altogether and reporting
'pain' that keeps them from taking jobs.
These workers – a lot of them who had lost their jobs by US companies outsourcing or terminating
their jobs altogether after the economical collapse of 2008 – are a 'traditional constituency'
of the left – and they should have been supported much better and NOT 'picked up' by Trump.
The link actually takes you to page 2 of the Grenville article. He cites Hochschild on page
1: 'Arlie Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right"
captures the intractability of the discontent: "'You are patiently standing in a long line' for
something you call the American dream. You are white, Christian, of modest means, and getting
along in years. You are male. There are people of color behind you, and 'in principle you wish
them well.' But you've waited long, worked hard, 'and the line is barely moving.'
Then 'Look! You see people cutting in line ahead of you!' Who are these interlopers? 'Some
are black,' others 'immigrants, refugees.'
They get affirmative action, sympathy and welfare - 'checks for the listless and idle.' The government
wants you to feel sorry for them."
@50 WLGR "….rational" and "irrational": both of these are such thoroughly universal aspects
of human thought and behavior that it can only be monumental hubris to characterize "rationality"
as the very cornerstone of one's worldview and "irrationality" as the very cornerstone of an opponent's."
Agreed. Happens here all the time, or used to.
I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'. What porpoise @43 said is
interesting historically, but I don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and imperial
associations of 'tribes' with 'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good word
here, but not sure what would be a better one.
'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts
I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea
about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and
racial/ethnic characteristics.
Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at
least conditionally accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the tribalists' idea
of Aussie culture (although it's conditional because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the
non-Anglo immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement as related to their own
Anglo/white background, I think). Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree tribalist
isn't the best word.
Porpoise @43: I'm slightly puzzled by your version of classical history.
Yes, the Romans had tribes, dating from the very beginning of their history; these *were* seen
as relating to what you refer to as "primitive tribes", and according to at least one ancient
source reflected the original composition of the Roman people from Latins, Sabines and Etruscans.
Yes, by the late Republic these were largely (not entirely) arbitrary divisions of more or
less homogeneous citizens – but by that date there's no evidence that I'm aware of that they served
any purpose other than organising voting in the comitia tributa; certainly no struggles because
of group identification.
ZM 10.31.16 at 7:45 am bruce wilder,
"The soft neoliberals, it seems to me, are using anti-racism to discredit economic populism
and its motivations, using the new politics of the right as a foil."
I think economic populism is problematic really, depending on what policy settings you mean
by "economic populism" I guess.
I remember thinking Australia could have more protectionist policies and that would be a solution
to some of our economic issues, but then I did an economics group project with a woman from Singapore,
and I realised a country like Singapore would be much worse off if other countries resorted to
protectionism as a response to the financial crisis, and I was being unfair thinking more protectionist
policy was the answer.
I don't think that the economic populism of the post-war era is really something we want
to return to - in Australia at least it was connected to the racist White Australia Policy which
was dismantled over time by 1973 and also to sexist policies that benefited male wage earners
with the "living wage" but prevented women from taking up certain jobs or from working after marriage
and that sort of thing.
Also in the post-war era Australia benefitted from trade networks with the UK as part of the
Commonwealth, but I presume that some other countries didn't benefit from that set of international
trade agreements (although I have never looked into what the international trade settings were
to know which countries overall benefited and which countries disbenefited).
I don't think returning to economic populism is a solution. There were a lot of problems,
both within countries with racism and sexism, and also between countries with unfair international
trade agreements.
Any solution to current problems has to be equitable within the nation, and fair between
nations. If economic populism is the answer it has to be a transformed economic populism that
is capable of that, and also of managing our global and local environmental problems.
Also at the moment the Australian federal government is doing the "Racism. It Stops With Me" campaign
around Australia trying to encourage everyday Australians to speak out against racism when they
encounter it in their daily lives. I hope the US government does something similar if Trump loses
the election, I really think anti-racism is better off being bi-partisan, and its a bad long term
strategy by either main party in America to use race to divide voters.
I think the notion that racism is somehow regional in the US or that their are "conflicting
histories" is pitch perfect example of the difficulty of keeping race in American life in focus
I mentioned in my comment.
There is no region of the US in which race did not play a foundation role. No history of the
US which does not rest in the disenfranchisement of "lower races". From Oregon to Florida. From
New York to California.
From 1700 to 2016 this is an American constant and we will continue to the "Shocked! Shocked!"
That more Trump's arise until we recognize that.
> The terminology appears to be driven by data. Education level is objective and easily elicited,
whereas social class is not.
Race too, of course.
It doesn't seem like it would be beyond the power of a single guy who wanted to write a book
to bring a torch and see if there is anything interesting hidden where the lampposts don't shine.
The raw data seems to be available[1], it just needs correlating with polls. That's a 2-3 man
year project, probably doable within a 5 digit budget.
I think I agree that "conspiracy theory" is a strong element in current politics. It
has been for a while, of course. See for example Richard Hofstadter's The Paranoid Style in
American Politics .
In a democratic system, any party hoping to win has to somehow persuade the voters to vote
for them and not the other party. Hence impugning the judgment or moral character of the opposing
party is one of the obvious strategies. Accusing the other party of actually being crooks (as
opposed to merely making poor decisions, or decisions that benefit some group other than the voters
one wishes to court) takes this a step further. Once a party had taken the "they're a bunch of
crooks" move, it would be surprising if they didn't leap at the chance when they can make a credible
and specific allegation of lawbreaking by their opponent, instead of just relying on non-specific
"would you buy a used car from this man?" rhetoric. ("man" -> "woman" if we're talking about Hilary
Clinton rather than Richard Nixon, but the same principle holds)
The current round of populism seems to go further still, in attributing crookedness not just
to their political opponents but to just about everyone involved in the entire system, e.g. by
alleging that the election might be fraudulent.
The term "conspiracy theory" often has rather dismissive or perjorative connotations, but I
think this basic political pattern could exist even if the opposing party were actually in fact
crooks.
[And over here in the UK, it's also a kind of conspiracy theory that Tony Blair lied to the
people about the case for going to war in Iraq. It's less obvious what Blair could actually be
charged with criminally (as opposed to Hilary Clinton), but that hasn't stopped people calling
for his head … possibly in a literal, rather than metaphorical, sense]
Omega Centauri 10.31.16 at 1:19 am (#44): great comment, puts the finger on the problem, and deserves
engagement. Unfortunately, all I have to offer are solutions from science-fiction: reliable lie-detectors
and benign A.I. government. But how to avoid the obvious misuses and bad side-tracks on the way
to utopian deployment of such technologies is beyond me. The Internet already gives us the ability
to do our own fact-checking and analysis of issues, but it seems more effective at spreading lies.
MPAVictoria 10.31.16 at 2:29 pm
Unions, unions, and more unions are the answer to the question of what the left should be doing
going forward. Union members are more likely to:
– Vote
– Volunteer in support of progressive campaigns and causes
– Support progressive economic AND social policies
The left's strategy going forward MUST include efforts to increase union density.
js, I guess the most important caveat re: the US (along with other settler societies) is that
many Euro-Americans never actually went through proletarianization themselves, but probably would
have been pushed into the working class they'd stayed in Europe through the heyday of capitalist
industrialization, so they left Europe and joined the metaphorical shock troops of settler-colonialism
in order to avoid it. The important point is that the combined spoils of settler-colonial expropriation,
racial/national hierarchy, and continuing imperialist exploitation in the Third World have largely
spared the much-ballyhooed "white working class" (i.e. labor aristocracy) from the abject poverty
capitalism invariably wreaks on the working class proper - and on some level these people realize
that as long as capitalism exists, this economic safety net is only really justifiable if there's
some fundamental hierarchy of humanity dictating that they as a group deserve to be offered better
lives than the people trying to "steal their jobs" and so on. The extent to which different people
in different situations are compelled to articulate this ideology in fully conscious ways is another
matter, but when they are, terms like "racist", "ethnonationalist", and "fascist" are entirely
descriptive and not the least bit inappropriate.
For anybody who hasn't heard of it, the book Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat
is an accessible exposition of this kind of viewpoint (and for anybody who takes a glance
and can't get past smarming at the crude typesetting and nonstandard semantic choices e.g. "Amerika",
just grow up).
WLGR 10.31.16 at 3:52 pm
likbez @ 16,
it seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from culturally based ultranationalism
is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be "racialized" according to literally any conceivable physical, social,
or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors
like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt
to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of Europe is primarily
determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's still deep in the muck of racial discrimination
toward e.g. the Roma, so unless I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much
distance between Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by mainstream centrist
parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm partial to the definition
proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation
of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition is also good) funnily enough they tend to
point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin appears to mean by "tribalism". Except
unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic
phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically
disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking
about it as a specific mass political movement at all. And again, as annoying as it is to have
pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on,
putting up with this noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism
from one's everyday understanding of the world, and it's certainly preferable to swapping out
the terms in question for a racially charged term like "tribalism".
Mike Furlan 10.31.16 at 1:50 am @ 46: '… My hope is to build communities of loving people, so that we are not picked off one at a
time as we compose blog posts.'
Or at least tolerant people who are positive about relationships with the Others even though
they may err. Surely this would be a requirement for achieving equality, because otherwise you
have the good people and the bad people, and the good people would have to defeat, rule over,
or maybe even exterminate the bad people. P. J. O'Rourke once wrote that the reason Evangelicals
adhere to the Republican Party (and Black people to the Democrats) is that that is the party which,
while it doesn't do much for them, doesn't hate them. We have seen that expressed in the recent
past not only with Trump's success but with the 'basket of deplorables'. Even a petrochemical
plant poisoning your back yard may be preferable to submitting to the power of those who openly
despise you and your kind.
But a lot of people want to fight.
John Quiggin 10.31.16 at 8:33 pm
Kurt Schuler @41 This seems an odd choice of post on which to claim special authority as a
US resident, given that it's about developments common throughout the developed world, and refers
to Australia and the UK, as well as the US.
The idea that "the working class" has gone over to Trump is oversold. In US political discussion,
"working class" is used to mean "no college degree" which isn't at all the same thing: it includes
lots of small business owners, for example, and is also correlated with age.
Right. This is why I think petty bourgeois (petit bourgeois if you want to be all fancy
and French about it) is a better term.
nastywoman 10.31.16 at 9:43 pm
In conclusion this analysis is still based on a traditional understanding of left and right
which doesn't exist anymore in most European countries – as concerning the most important issues
like globalization and protectionism the radical left and the radical right seem to agree.
And so the the traditional understanding of left and right is often used for justification
of the own political position, while it is less and less helpful to explain voting behavior.
As in voting behavior the dividing lines are NOT so much anymore between left and right,
but more between a liberal, cosmopolitan bourgeoisie in the center and on both edges populists
who are propagating partitioning and protectionism.
This is true not only for Europe but also for the United States of Trump – aka the once 'United
States of America' -(if this currently very popular joke in Europe is allowed?)
"... Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question, for some, is what percentage? ..."
"... Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines. ..."
"... These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans. The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious lines as it does elsewhere. ..."
I read an interesting piece in the Nikkei, hardly an left-leaning publication citing Arlie
Hochschild's "Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right."
Doubtless some here would like to see more misery heaped upon those who do not look to the
Democratic party as saviors, but Hochschild is rarely regarded as a defender of the American right.
Few dispute that a significant subset of any given population is going to regard in-group/out-group
distinctions along the highly imprecise lines of 'race' and ethnicity, or religion. The question,
for some, is what percentage?
The Nikkei article by Stephen Grenville concludes: Over the longer term, the constituency for
globalization has to be rebuilt, the methodology for multilateral trade agreements has to be revived…"
Grenville regards understanding the opposition to globalization by the Trump constituency
as essential. If we are discussing America, we do not need to look to illegal immigration, or
undocumented workers to find hostility to out-group immigrants along religious and ethnic lines.
These tendencies are thrown into sharper relief when this hostility is directed towards
successfully assimilated immigrants of a different color who threaten the current occupants of
a space – witness the open racism and hostility displayed towards Japanese immigrants on the west
coast 1900-1924, or so. A similar level of hostility is sometimes/often displayed towards Koreans.
The out-grouping in Japan is tiered and extends to ethnicity and language of groups within
the larger Japanese community, as it does in the UK, although not as commonly along religious
lines as it does elsewhere.
Generally, I think John is right. The term 'racist' no longer carries any of the stigma
it once held in part because the term is deployed so cynically and freely as to render it practically
meaningless. HRC and Bill and their supporters (including me, at one time) are racists for as
long as its convenient and politically expedient to call them racists. Once that moment has passed,
the term 'racist' is withdrawn and replaced with something like Secretary of State, or some other
such title.
I've no clear 'solution' other than to support a more exact and thoughtful discussion of the
causes of fear and anxiety that compels people to bind together into in-groups and out-groups,
and to encourage the fearful to take a few risks now and again.
"... A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. ..."
"... The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest, in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser, that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and the country. ..."
"... The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent answer to any number of problems. ..."
"... Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US. ..."
"... And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'. ..."
"... The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. ..."
"... To achieve wider support in the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension. ..."
"... They would include the element of messianism embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest of the world. ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism. ..."
"... Red Storm Rising ..."
"... Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus. ..."
"... Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society. ..."
"... British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority, small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North America. ..."
"... As Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. ..."
"... Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years to do so. ..."
"... The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused strategy. ..."
The New American Militarism: How Americans Are Seduced by War by
Andrew Bacevich
Oxford, 270 pp, Ł16.99, August 2005, ISBN 0 19 517338 4
A key justification of the Bush administration's purported strategy of 'democratising' the
Middle East is the argument that democracies are pacific, and that Muslim democracies will therefore
eventually settle down peacefully under the benign hegemony of the US. Yet, as Andrew Bacevich
points out in one of the most acute analyses of America to have appeared in recent years, the United
States itself is in many ways a militaristic country, and becoming more so:
at the end of the Cold War, Americans said yes to military power. The skepticism about arms
and armies that informed the original Wilsonian vision, indeed, that pervaded the American experiment
from its founding, vanished. Political leaders, liberals and conservatives alike, became enamoured
with military might.
The ensuing affair had, and continues to have, a heedless, Gatsby-like aspect, a passion pursued
in utter disregard of any consequences that might ensue.
The president's title of 'commander-in-chief' is used by administration propagandists to suggest,
in a way reminiscent of German militarists before 1914 attempting to defend their half-witted Kaiser,
that any criticism of his record in external affairs comes close to a betrayal of the military and
the country. Compared to German and other past militarisms, however, the contemporary American
variant is extremely complex, and the forces that have generated it have very diverse origins and
widely differing motives:
The new American militarism is the handiwork of several disparate groups that shared little
in common apart from being intent on undoing the purportedly nefarious effects of the 1960s. Military
officers intent on rehabilitating their profession; intellectuals fearing that the loss of confidence
at home was paving the way for the triumph of totalitarianism abroad; religious leaders dismayed
by the collapse of traditional moral standards; strategists wrestling with the implications of
a humiliating defeat that had undermined their credibility; politicians on the make; purveyors
of pop culture looking to make a buck: as early as 1980, each saw military power as the apparent
answer to any number of problems.
Two other factors have also been critical: the dependence on imported oil is seen as requiring
American hegemony over the Middle East; and the Israel lobby has worked assiduously and with extraordinary
success to make sure that Israel's enemies are seen by Americans as also being those of the US.
And let's not forget the role played by the entrenched interests of the military itself and
what Dwight Eisenhower once denounced as the 'military-industrial-academic complex'.
The security elites are obviously interested in the maintenance and expansion of US global
military power, if only because their own jobs and profits depend on it. Jobs and patronage
also ensure the support of much of the Congress, which often authorizes defense spending on weapons
systems the Pentagon doesn't want and hasn't asked for, in order to help some group of senators and
congressmen in whose home states these systems are manufactured. To achieve wider support in
the media and among the public, it is also necessary to keep up the illusion that certain foreign
nations constitute a threat to the US, and to maintain a permanent level of international tension.
That's not the same, however, as having an actual desire for war, least of all for a major conflict
which might ruin the international economy. US ground forces have bitter memories of Vietnam, and
no wish to wage an aggressive war: Rumsfeld and his political appointees had to override the objections
of the senior generals, in particular those of the army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki, before
the attack on Iraq. The navy and air force do not have to fight insurgents in hell-holes like Fallujah,
and so naturally have a more relaxed attitude.
To understand how the Bush administration was able to manipulate the public into supporting the
Iraq war one has to look for deeper explanations. They would include the element of messianism
embodied in American civic nationalism, with its quasi-religious belief in the universal and timeless
validity of its own democratic system, and in its right and duty to spread that system to the rest
of the world. This leads to a genuine belief that American soldiers can do no real wrong because
they are spreading 'freedom'. Also of great importance – at least until the Iraqi insurgency rubbed
American noses in the horrors of war – has been the development of an aesthetic that sees war as
waged by the US as technological, clean and antiseptic; and thanks to its supremacy in weaponry,
painlessly victorious. Victory over the Iraqi army in 2003 led to a new flowering of megalomania
in militarist quarters. The amazing Max Boot of the Wall Street Journal – an armchair commentator,
not a frontline journalist – declared that the US victory had made 'fabled generals such as Erwin
Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison'. Nor was this kind of talk restricted
to Republicans. More than two years into the Iraq quagmire, strategic thinkers from the Democratic
establishment were still declaring that 'American military power in today's world is practically
unlimited.'
Important sections of contemporary US popular culture are suffused with the language of militarism.
Take Bacevich on the popular novelist Tom Clancy:
In any Clancy novel, the international order is a dangerous and threatening place, awash with
heavily armed and implacably determined enemies who threaten the United States. That Americans
have managed to avoid Armageddon is attributable to a single fact: the men and women of America's
uniformed military and its intelligence services have thus far managed to avert those threats.
The typical Clancy novel is an unabashed tribute to the skill, honor, extraordinary technological
aptitude and sheer decency of the nation's defenders. To read Red Storm Rising is to
enter a world of 'virtuous men and perfect weapons', as one reviewer noted. 'All the Americans
are paragons of courage, endurance and devotion to service and country. Their officers are uniformly
competent and occasionally inspired. Men of all ranks are faithful husbands and devoted fathers.'
Indeed, in the contract that he signed for the filming of Red October, Clancy stipulated
that nothing in the film show the navy in a bad light.
Such attitudes go beyond simply glorying in violence, military might and technological prowess.
They reflect a belief – genuine or assumed – in what the Germans used to call Soldatentum:
the pre-eminent value of the military virtues of courage, discipline and sacrifice, and explicitly
or implicitly the superiority of these virtues to those of a hedonistic, contemptible and untrustworthy
civilian society and political class. In the words of Thomas Friedman, the ostensibly liberal foreign
affairs commentator of the ostensibly liberal New York Times, 'we do not deserve these people.
They are so much better than the country they are fighting for.' Such sentiments have a sinister
pedigree in modern history.
In the run-up to the last election, even a general as undistinguished as Wesley Clark could see
his past generalship alone as qualifying him for the presidency – and gain the support of leading
liberal intellectuals. Not that this was new: the first president was a general and throughout the
19th and 20th centuries both generals and more junior officers ran for the presidency on the strength
of their military records. And yet, as Bacevich points out, this does not mean that the uniformed
military have real power over policy-making, even in matters of war. General Tommy Franks may have
regarded Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of defense, as 'the stupidest fucking guy on the planet',
but he took Feith's orders, and those of the civilians standing behind him: Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld
and the president himself. Their combination of militarism and contempt for military advice recalls
Clemenceau and Churchill – or Hitler and Stalin.
Indeed, a portrait of US militarism today could be built around a set of such apparently glaring
contradictions: the contradiction, for example, between the military coercion of other nations and
the belief in the spreading of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. Among most non-Americans, and among many
American realists and progressives, the collocation seems inherently ludicrous. But, as Bacevich
brings out, it has deep roots in American history. Indeed, the combination is historically coterminous
with Western imperialism. Historians of the future will perhaps see preaching 'freedom' at the point
of an American rifle as no less morally and intellectually absurd than 'voluntary' conversion to
Christianity at the point of a Spanish arquebus.
Its symbols may be often childish and its methods brutish, but American belief in 'freedom' is
a real and living force. This cuts two ways. On the one hand, the adherence of many leading intellectuals
in the Democratic Party to a belief in muscular democratization has had a disastrous effect on the
party's ability to put up a strong resistance to the policies of the administration. Bush's messianic
language of 'freedom' – supported by the specifically Israeli agenda of Natan Sharansky and his allies
in the US – has been all too successful in winning over much of the opposition. On the other hand,
the fact that a belief in freedom and democracy lies at the heart of civic nationalism places certain
limits on American imperialism – weak no doubt, but nonetheless real. It is not possible for the
US, unlike previous empires, to pursue a strategy of absolutely unconstrained Machtpolitik.
This has been demonstrated recently in the breach between the Bush administration and the Karimov
tyranny in Uzbekistan.
The most important contradiction, however, is between the near worship of the military in much
of American culture and the equally widespread unwillingness of most Americans – elites and masses
alike – to serve in the armed forces. If people like Friedman accompanied their stated admiration
for the military with a real desire to abandon their contemptible civilian lives and join the armed
services, then American power in the world really might be practically unlimited. But as Bacevich
notes,
having thus made plain his personal disdain for crass vulgarity and support for moral rectitude,
Friedman in the course of a single paragraph drops the military and moves on to other pursuits.
His many readers, meanwhile, having availed themselves of the opportunity to indulge, ever so
briefly, in self-loathing, put down their newspapers and themselves move on to other things. Nothing
has changed, but columnist and readers alike feel better for the cathartic effect of this oblique,
reassuring encounter with an alien world.
Today, having dissolved any connection between claims to citizenship and obligation to
serve, Americans entrust their security to a class of military professionals who see themselves
in many respects as culturally and politically set apart from the rest of society.
This combination of a theoretical adulation with a profound desire not to serve is not of course
new. It characterized most of British society in the 19th century, when, just as with the US today,
the overwhelming rejection of conscription – until 1916 – meant that, appearances to the contrary,
British power was far from unlimited. The British Empire could use its technological superiority,
small numbers of professional troops and local auxiliaries to conquer backward and impoverished countries
in Asia and Africa, but it would not have dreamed of intervening unilaterally in Europe or North
America.
Despite spending more on the military than the rest of the world combined, and despite enjoying
overwhelming technological superiority, American military power is actually quite limited. As
Iraq – and to a lesser extent Afghanistan – has demonstrated, the US can knock over states, but it
cannot suppress the resulting insurgencies, even one based in such a comparatively small population
as the Sunni Arabs of Iraq. As for invading and occupying a country the size of Iran, this is
coming to seem as unlikely as an invasion of mainland China.
In other words, when it comes to actually applying military power the US is pretty much where
it has been for several decades. Another war of occupation like Iraq would necessitate the restoration
of conscription: an idea which, with Vietnam in mind, the military detests, and which politicians
are well aware would probably make them unelectable. It is just possible that another terrorist attack
on the scale of 9/11 might lead to a new draft, but that would bring the end of the US military empire
several steps closer. Recognizing this, the army is beginning to imitate ancient Rome in offering
citizenship to foreign mercenaries in return for military service – something that the amazing Boot
approves, on the grounds that while it helped destroy the Roman Empire, it took four hundred years
to do so.
Facing these dangers squarely, Bacevich proposes refocusing American strategy away from
empire and towards genuine national security. It is a measure of the degree to which imperial thinking
now dominates US politics that these moderate and commonsensical proposals would seem nothing short
of revolutionary to the average member of the Washington establishment.
They include a renunciation of messianic dreams of improving the world through military force,
except where a solid international consensus exists in support of US action; a recovery by Congress
of its power over peace and war, as laid down in the constitution but shamefully surrendered in recent
years; the adoption of a strategic doctrine explicitly making war a matter of last resort; and a
decision that the military should focus on the defense of the nation, not the projection of US power.
As a means of keeping military expenditure in some relationship to actual needs, Bacevich suggests
pegging it to the combined annual expenditure of the next ten countries, just as in the 19th century
the size of the British navy was pegged to that of the next two largest fleets – it is an index of
the budgetary elephantiasis of recent years that this would lead to very considerable spending reductions.
This book is important not only for the acuteness of its perceptions, but also for the identity
of its author. Colonel Bacevich's views on the military, on US strategy and on world affairs were
profoundly shaped by his service in Vietnam. His year there 'fell in the conflict's bleak latter
stages long after an odor of failure had begun to envelop the entire enterprise'. The book is dedicated
to his brother-in-law, 'a casualty of a misbegotten war'.
Just as Vietnam shaped his view of how the US and the US military should not intervene in the
outside world, so the Cold War in Europe helped define his beliefs about the proper role of the military.
For Bacevich and his fellow officers in Europe in the 1970s and 1980s, defending the West from possible
Soviet aggression, 'not conquest, regime change, preventive war or imperial policing', was 'the American
soldier's true and honorable calling'.
In terms of cultural and political background, this former soldier remains a self-described Catholic
conservative, and intensely patriotic. During the 1990s Bacevich wrote for right-wing journals, and
still situates himself culturally on the right:
As long as we shared in the common cause of denouncing the foolishness and hypocrisies of the
Clinton years, my relationship with modern American conservatism remained a mutually agreeable
one But my disenchantment with what passes for mainstream conservatism, embodied in the Bush
administration and its groupies, is just about absolute. Fiscal irresponsibility, a buccaneering
foreign policy, a disregard for the constitution, the barest lip service as a response to profound
moral controversies: these do not qualify as authentically conservative values.
On this score my views have come to coincide with the critique long offered by the radical
left: it is the mainstream itself, the professional liberals as well as the professional conservatives,
who define the problem The Republican and Democratic Parties may not be identical,
but they produce nearly identical results.
Bacevich, in other words, is skeptical of the naive belief that replacing the present administration
with a Democrat one would lead to serious changes in the US approach to the world. Formal party allegiances
are becoming increasingly irrelevant as far as thinking about foreign and security policy is concerned.
Bacevich also makes plain the private anger of much of the US uniformed military at the way in
which it has been sacrificed, and its institutions damaged, by chickenhawk civilian chauvinists who
have taken good care never to see action themselves; and the deep private concern of senior officers
that they might be ordered into further wars that would wreck the army altogether. Now, as never
before, American progressives have the chance to overcome the knee-jerk hostility to the uniformed
military that has characterized the left since Vietnam, and to reach out not only to the soldiers
in uniform but also to the social, cultural and regional worlds from which they are drawn. For if
the American left is once again to become an effective political force, it must return to some of
its own military traditions, founded on the distinguished service of men like George McGovern, on
the old idea of the citizen soldier, and on a real identification with that soldier's interests and
values. With this in mind, Bacevich calls for moves to bind the military more closely into American
society, including compulsory education for all officers at a civilian university, not only at the
start of their careers but at intervals throughout them.
Or to put it another way, the left must fight imperialism in the name of patriotism. Barring a
revolutionary and highly unlikely transformation of American mass culture, any political party that
wishes to win majority support will have to demonstrate its commitment to the defense of the country.
The Bush administration has used the accusation of weakness in security policy to undermine its opponents,
and then used this advantage to pursue reckless strategies that have themselves drastically weakened
the US. The left needs to heed Bacevich and draw up a tough, realistic and convincing alternative.
It will also have to demonstrate its identification with the respectable aspects of military culture.
The Bush administration and the US establishment in general may have grossly mismanaged the threats
facing us, but the threats are real, and some at least may well need at some stage to be addressed
by military force. And any effective military force also requires the backing of a distinctive military
ethic embracing loyalty, discipline and a capacity for both sacrifice and ruthlessness.
In the terrible story of the Bush administration and the Iraq war, one of the most morally disgusting
moments took place at a Senate Committee hearing on 29 April 2004, when Paul Wolfowitz – another
warmonger who has never served himself – mistook, by a margin of hundreds, how many US soldiers had
died in a war for which he was largely responsible. If an official in a Democratic administration
had made a public mistake like that, the Republican opposition would have exploited it ruthlessly,
unceasingly, to win the next election. The fact that the Democrats completely failed to do this
says a great deal about their lack of political will, leadership and capacity to employ a focused
strategy.
Because they are the ones who pay the price for reckless warmongering and geopolitical megalomania,
soldiers and veterans of the army and marine corps could become valuable allies in the struggle to
curb American imperialism, and return America's relationship with its military to the old limited,
rational form. For this to happen, however, the soldiers have to believe that campaigns against the
Iraq war, and against current US strategy, are anti-militarist, but not anti-military. We have needed
the military desperately on occasions in the past; we will definitely need them again.
"... Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that "tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative ..."
"... "tribalism" is used to describe the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first place. ..."
"... In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could be described as racist/white nationalist. ..."
"... The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness. ..."
"... Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic. ..."
"... 'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with, because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians (or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and racial/ethnic characteristics. ..."
"... Populations can be racialized according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted in some immutable aspect of "the way things are". ..."
"... "the state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death" ..."
"... Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as a specific mass political movement at all. ..."
Even if experience has shown it's futile, I still feel compelled to repeat the point that
"tribalism" is a racist and imperialist pejorative (basically
this imagery condensed into a single signifier) that shouldn't play such a pivotal role in
any remotely serious understanding, let alone one in which "tribalism" is used to describe
the very same racist ideological currents that give the term its rhetorical power in the first
place.
As described in an earlier thread about all of this, my preference would be not to beat around
the bush and go with "fascism" plain and simple, and even if one isn't comfortable making that
assertion directly, "ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism"
in this analysis with little or no extra clarification needed. Call me crazy but this seems like
a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating racist imagery in one's own language.
Call me crazy but this seems like a pretty minor lexical sacrifice to make for combating
racist imagery in one's own language.
likbez 10.30.16 at 12:05 pm
@16
"ethnonationalism" seems like it could play an equivalent role to "tribalism" in this analysis
with little or no extra clarification needed.
While I agree that "tribalism" a bad term that clouds the issue, I think the form of nationalism
that prevails now can be called "cultural nationalism" not "ethnonationalism". In a sense "cultural
nationalism" is more inclusive, but it can be as radical as national socialism in the past. American
exceptionalism is a good example of this type of nationalism.
John Quiggin 10.30.16 at 7:33 pm
@WLGR I'm happy to reconsider terminology. But I've been using "tribalism" for a kind of politics
that's not necessary as extreme as ethno-nationalism, let alone fascism.
In essence, anything that relies on identification with an in-group against those outside
the group. In that sense, nearly all of Trump's support base is tribalist, while only some could
be described as racist/white nationalist.
likbez 10.30.16 at 7:39 pm
@20
The term "Tribalism" implicitly stresses the ethnic/racial component in the complex phenomena
that modern nationalism represents. That's a major weakness.
Even in modern Ukrainian nationalism cultural elements are stronger then ethnic.
I tend to agree with what WLGR is saying about 'tribalists'.
What porpoise @43 said is interesting historically, but I
don't think it removes the overlay from later colonial and
imperial associations of 'tribes' with
'primitives'/inferiors. So I don't think tribalism is a good
word here, but not sure what would be a better one.
'Cultural nationalism' seems to come closest, at least in
the Australian and British contexts I'm familiar with,
because the so-called 'tribalists' seem to be people who have
a strong idea about who are the 'right kind' of Australians
(or Britons), and it is a mixture of cultural and
racial/ethnic characteristics.
Here in Australia, it is certainly possible for people
from non-Anglo backgrounds to be at least conditionally
accepted by the 'tribalists' if they appear to embrace the
tribalists' idea of Aussie culture (although it's conditional
because the 'tribalists' who are 'accepting' the non-Anglo
immigrants unconsciously see their ability to pass judgement
as related to their own Anglo/white background, I think).
Complicated, I am getting tied in knots, but I agree
tribalist isn't the best word.
WLGR
10.31.16 at
3:52 pm
likbez @ 16,
It seems to me that the effort to differentiate race-based from
culturally based ultranationalism is still tangled in the weeds of a colloquial
understanding of "race" and "racism".
Populations can be racialized
according to literally any conceivable physical, social, or cultural
characteristic - the idea that it can only depend on specific differentiating
factors like one's melanin count or descent from Charlemagne or whatever is
itself a racist idea, an attempt to reify particular forms of racism as rooted
in some immutable aspect of "the way things are".
Although from my understanding Ukrainian citizenship like that in most of
Europe is primarily determined by jus sanguinis, and like most of Europe it's
still deep in the muck of racial discrimination toward e.g. the Roma, so unless
I'm misreading things it seems like a stretch to put too much distance between
Ukraine (or Europe in general) and even a very colloquial sense of "ethnonationalism".
It can be articulated more explicitly by outright fascists or more obliquely by
mainstream centrist parties, but it's still there.
And as long as we're talking about academic definitions of racism (I'm
partial to the definition proffered by Ruth Wilson Gilmore, "the
state-sanctioned or extralegal production and exploitation of
group-differentiated vulnerability to premature death", although
Emmett Rensin's obnoxiously thorough definition
is also good) funnily
enough they tend to point at something pretty much identical to what Quiggin
appears to mean by "tribalism".
Except unlike with Quiggin's definition of tribalism @ 32, racism is
explicitly a political and economic phenomenon to use a particular ingroup/outgroup
differentiation as a way to systematically disenfranchise and subjugate the
outgroup , which seems like the only reason we'd bother talking about it as
a specific mass political movement at all.
And again, as annoying as it is to have pigheaded reactionaries accuse us of
twisting language and "playing the race card" and so on, putting up with this
noise is preferable to sacrificing useful concepts like racism and fascism from
one's everyday understanding of the world,
"... There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's foreign policy? ..."
"... Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies." ..."
"... according to Mearsheimer, the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle barrel is almost impossible." ..."
"... "It's remarkably difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject failure." ..."
"... Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world." ..."
There are a variety of potential threats around the world today: tensions in the South China
Seas, a nuclear North Korea, conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and civil wars in the Middle East
are just a few. In order to better think about these challenges and how they relate to U.S. national
security, the Center for the National Interest partnered with the Charles Koch Institute to host
a foreign policy roundtable which addressed the question: What is the most pressing issue for America's
foreign policy?
Watch the rest of the videos in the "Grand Strategy" series.
John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago doesn't shy away from a bold answer: The most pressing
issue is that the United States has a "fundamentally misguided foreign policy." Mearsheimer argues
that there are two dimensions to U.S. foreign policy that get the United States into "big trouble."
First, he says, "We believe that we can dominate the globe, that we can control what happens in every
nook and cranny of the world." The problem with this is that "the world is simply too big and nationalism
is much too powerful of a force to make it possible for us to come close to doing that."
Mearsheimer argues that the second problematic dimension of U.S. foreign policy is that the United
States is "heavily into transformation." By "transformation," Mearsheimer means that "We believe
that what we should do in the process of running the world is topple governments that are not liberal
democracies and transform them into [neo]liberal democracies."
The United States has engaged in numerous international military interventions over the past fifteen
years, primarily in the Middle East. Proponents of these interventions argue that they are necessary
in order to build stable democracies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. However, according to Mearsheimer,
the United States is pursuing "a hopeless cause; there is a huge literature that makes it clear that
promoting democracy around the world is extremely difficult to do, and doing it at the end of a rifle
barrel is almost impossible."
So why has the United States continued to pursue policies and strategies that fail to convert
U.S. military might into political ends?
Eugene Gholz of the University of Texas at Austin suggests that the root of the issue could be
American hubris. The United States has made the mistake of "thinking we can control things we can't
control." Mearsheimer agrees with Gholz, although he finds the situation perplexing: "It's remarkably
difficult to understand why we still continue to think we can dominate the world and pursue the same
foreign policy we've been pursuing at least since 2001, when it has led to abject failure after abject
failure."
Several other scholars chime in to offer their own thoughts on this thorny issue. Boston University's
Andrew Bacevich opines that the United States needs to "come to some understanding of who we are
and why we do these things – a critical understanding of the American identity." Notre Dame's Michael Desch agrees: "That cuts to the core of American political culture. I think the root of the hubris
is deep in the software that animates how we think about ourselves, and how we think about the world."
Harvard University's Stephen Walt offers yet another possibility. Walt asks if the U.S. commitment
to its current misguided and damaging foreign policy is due to "deep culture" or if it is result
of "the national security apparatus we built after World War II." Walt thinks it is the latter: the
United States "was not a highly interventionist country until after the Second World War." After
World War II, "we built a large national security state, we had bases everywhere, and then we discovered
that we can't let go of any of that, even though the original reason for building it is gone."
Did the other panelists agree with Walt? Did anyone suggest a different problem as a candidate
for the most pressing issue? Watch the full video above to see and be sure to check out the other
videos of CNI and CKI's panel of nationally acclaimed foreign policy scholars addressing additional
questions.
...let's roll the counters back to September 18, 2013 – almost exactly three years ago. Just before,
of course, the glorious Maidan which freed Ukrainians from the oppressive yoke of Russia. At that
moment in history, western analysts were trembling with eagerness to vilify Yanukovych, but were
still hopeful that he would stick his head out of his shell long enough to sign the Deep and Comprehensive
Free Trade Agreement (DCFTA) with the European Union. Washington maintains a kind of ongoing paternal
affection for revolution – which is always less painful and noisy when it's a continent or two away
– but is practical enough to accept an easy victory if that's the way it plays out.
It didn't play out like that, of course, and an American-backed coup ensued in which Yanukovych
offered to give the revolutionary political figures everything they had asked for – early elections,
a provisional coalition government with the egghead among the revolutionaries as Prime Minister,
the works. They were a little taken aback at how easy it was, and then decided it wasn't enough –
Yanukovych must be holding back something if he gave in that easily, and therefore he must be tricking
them, since the script called for the dictator-president to cower in fear and to be flung into the
street in disgrace. So they went ahead with the traditional revolution, gaining nothing at all thereby
except the ushering-in of a self-appointed revolutionary junta, and the empowerment of fervent fascist
nationalists who had previously had to keep their admiration for the Nazis on the down-low.
It is worth mentioning here – because whenever it is brought up, the response ranges from amnesia
to outright denial it ever happened – that the pre-revolutionary government went into it with its
eyes wide open and a good working awareness of the probable consequences. Yanukovych and Azarov,
at least, were briefed that cutting off trade with Russia, which Brussels and Washington insisted
upon, would likely be disastrous for the Ukrainian economy. Deputy Prime Minister Yuriy Boiko announced
that Ukraine was not blowing off the deal entirely; it was
just suspending it
until the state could be sure that increased trade with Europe would compensate for the loss
of the Russian market. Before that, Yanukovych and Azarov
tried energetically to broker a triumvirate coalition of Ukraine, Russia and the EU, to sort
out the trade issues that Brussels insisted made such an arrangement impossible. Not to put too fine
a point on it, Russia and Ukraine proposed a tripartite forum which would see Ukraine as a bridge
between the Eurasian Economic Union and the European Union. Brussels emphatically rejected it, confident
that it could pry Ukraine away from Russia, because the initiative was always strategic rather
than economic .
The government of the day in Ukraine saw fairly clearly what was likely going to happen – and
so did we, didn't we? Yes, we did,
as detailed here . We pointed out that nearly half those Ukrainians who answered a survey that
they wanted Ukraine to join the EU did so because it would strengthen and grow the Ukrainian economy,
but that it was difficult to see how that would come about considering 60% of Ukraine's trade was
with the former Soviet market, and highlighted the unlikelihood that Europe was going to pick up
60%-plus of Ukraine's trade, resulting in prosperity. We pointed out that only half as many people
who responded to the survey that Ukraine's relations with Russia were characterized as 'friendly'
said the same of relations with the EU. So, you could kind of see how (a) a failure to see rapid
economic benefits as a result of signing the agreement, coupled with (b) the opposite effect, a precipitate
drop in trade, plus (c) severing of relations with a country nearly a quarter of Ukrainians considered
a friend, in exchange for a necrophiliac relationship with a trade union few cared much for except
for the usual percentage of lapdog dissidents, was very likely to result in widespread dissatisfaction
and an explosive situation. Did it? It sure did.
Anyway, as much fun as tooting our own horn is, that's not exactly what I wanted to talk about.
I want to review, in exquisite detail, the panorama of failure that is Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty's
(RFE/RL) feelgood
graphic presentation for the rubes and dimwits on how association with the EU was going to be
better than sex in warm chocolate for Ukraine. And that forecast has turned out to be about as accurate
as a prediction that Justin Bieber would be nominated UN Secretary-General by popular acclaim.
But let's not leave it at that. Because you know that if those who forecast disaster for Ukraine
– based on, I think, the ability to read and to add – had somehow been wrong, and Ukraine had sprinted
into double-digit economic growth and taken over the role of driving engine of the European economy,
we would never have been allowed to forget it. Turnabout, then, being fair play…
1. The cream-skimming oligarchy, accustomed to riding to wealth on the backs of its panting workforce,
will be out – swept away by a new era of small-business confidence. Did that happen? Hardly. The
President Ukraine eventually elected was fingered for
starting up a new offshore shell corporation even as his troops were being driven into a disastrous
encirclement at Ilovaisk. The
same old oligarchs continue to control more than 70% of Ukraine's GDP. The Anti-Corruption Committee
appointed by Poroshenko, unsurprisingly,
declined to investigate him for corruption . Now more than two years into his presidency, Poroshenko
still has not sold his assets as he promised to do if elected, and his businesses continue to fatten
his personal bottom line in
direct
contravention of Ukrainian law and the Constitution. Never a peep of protest about that, though,
from Poroshenko's
International
Advisory Council , which includes former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Australian
Prime Minister Tony Abbott, former Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski, former Swedish Prime
Minister Carl Bildt, former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and make-believe-economist wooden-head
Anders Aslund. This council continues to advise the President of what remains
the most corrupt country in Europe .
2. The boss at the company where you work will have to learn different ways to lead, because screaming
and ranting are not acceptable in Europe. In many European countries, the boss is just a senior worker
who you can call by his first name. This sort of rolls into the first point, but it seems sort of
self-evident that if Ukrainian companies do not do more business with Europe and replace their lost
Russian markets, and the same oligarchs still own the same companies, little will change about employee-employer
dynamics.
According to Eurostat , Ukraine's trade with the EU was down sharply in 2015 in both imports
and exports. A decrease in imports is not particularly surprising – Ukraine is
living
on handouts from the international community while it continues to pour funding into its armed
forces so that it can pursue the game of civil war, and hasn't any money. Not to mention thousands
of Ukrainian working stiffs are employed by Roshen, owned by the President, so I wouldn't be trying
out, "Morning, Petro – how's it hanging?" on my tongue any time soon if I were you. The new Prime
Minister, Vladimir Groysman, is unlikely to be 'Vova' to very many workers, either. He's quite wealthy
in his own right, at least part of that wealth
shunted from EU development funds to his father's cement and asphalt company. However, as an
unnamed Ukrainian politician is said to have quipped to a Ukrainskaya Pravda reporter when
Groysman received his new appointment, "Do you know what the difference is between Groysman and Yatsenyuk?
When Volodymir [Groysman] will start stealing, he will steal off the profit. Yatsenyuk was doing
it off the loss." It's good to see Ukrainians haven't lost their sense of humour.
3. As the standard of living improves in Ukraine, people will begin to trust each other. In Yanukovych's
Ukraine, people tended to trust only their own small circle, but in the New Ukraine, the doormat
will be changed from "Beat It, Shyster!" to "Come On In, Friend!" I'll let Thomas C. Theiner take
over on the subject of trust in Ukraine, post-Maidan. A committed Atlanticist neoconservative and
former cheerleader for Ukraine, Theiner lived in Kiev for 5 years, and has the advantage of personal
knowledge. In his assessment, if you are the type who likes to throw away money,
go to Vegas instead of Kiev – that way, at least there's a chance you'll see a return. Thomas?
"Even today, it's impossible for a foreign businessman to start a company in Ukraine without
being harassed for bribes. If you pay, they just demand more; if you don't pay, you won't succeed
at all. The only way out is to hire a local to help you navigate the bureaucracy and grease the correct
wheels. But whomever you hire will charge a 400-500 percent premium. Hiring a foreign law company
with offices in Kyiv, which charges Western prices, is the only alternative."
Expectations of a dramatic change were not realized, and the changing of the guard only brought
in different crooks. No significant progress has been made on corruption. If your company is successful
without the correct palms being greased, an expedient will be found for getting you out of town for
a few days. When you come back, the company will be under new ownership, and like George Thorogood
in "Move it on Over" ,
your key won't fit no more. Move over, little dog, a big ol' dog's movin' in. All puffickly legal,
as well, by Ukrainian courts.
4. Without gross, horrible, corrupt Yanukovych in charge, trust in the police will rise and pretty
soon they will be rescuing kitties from trees instead of taking bribes and roughing people up. Just
last month, at least three police officers in western Ukraine
beat Oleksandr Tsukerman and shot him dead in front of his relatives, including his mother. Around
200 local residents gathered in front of the police station, and uniformed officers had to keep them
back when the detained police officers who are accused of the crime were brought out. In case you
were thinking the dead man was a violent criminal who somehow invited his own death, the Ukrainian
Police Chief ordered the entire station disbanded. A group of people in the same region were
beating up passers-by right in front of the police , and officers involved in a wrongful death
and four officers who raped a woman and fractured her skull were not dismissed from their jobs. Call
me a pessimist, but that doesn't sound encouraging to me.
5. The difference in social status between the very wealthy and the middle class will gradually
disappear, and rich people will no longer be VIP's. It's pretty easy to show this one up for the
epic piece of optimistic stupidity it was. The President of Ukraine is also an active businessman
and multimillionaire, while per-capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power, for the ordinary folk,
has collapsed
and the unemployment rate is
leaping upward
in great jagged peaks. Yet according to the State Statistics of Ukraine, wage growth has been
steady and touched a record
high in July 2016. A month later, a Ukrainian miner on live TV
set himself afire at a press conference to protest wage arrears. This desperate protest is alleged
to have taken place after industrial action and hunger strikes failed to move the government. How
can these two realities co-exist? I guess it's easy for wages to be at a record high if you don't…you
know…pay them.
6. Women's rights; in the European Parliament, a third of the members are women. In the Verkhovna
Rada under jerky Yanukovych, only 10% were women. Well, folks, the glorious Maidan was not for nothing.
The current Rada is
12.02% women – only 87.98% are men. The gain is mostly illusory, as only 416 seats of the Rada's
statutory 450 are occupied due to the
banning of certain political parties . But a third of 416 would be 138 women rather than the
current 50, so women's rights groups should not relax just yet, as some work obviously remains to
be done.
7. In Yanukovych's Russia-friendly Ukraine, intolerance was the rule and blacks and homosexuals
mostly stayed hidden. Most Ukrainians would not vote for a Jewish presidential candidate, and even
fewer for a black one. How things have changed! Now Nazi symbology in public is
commonplace in Ukraine , whilst the government ostentatiously banned Communist symbology and
recognized Nazi-era collaborators as Freedom Fighters. As best I recall, the Nazis were not known
for their tolerance. How many Ukrainians in the new Europe-ready Ukraine would vote for a black or
a gay presidential candidate? A Gay Pride march in Kiev scheduled for 2014
was canceled when authorities refused to police the event and said they could not guarantee the
participants' safety from homophobic violence. At
another attempt in 2015 , international supporters from Canada had to cross three lines of police
to get to the meeting point, and were given a list of things to not do: Don't wear bright colours.
Don't kiss or hold hands. Don't speak to the police unless spoken to. The bus company which was approached
by Kiev Pride to take the marchers to and from the march allegedly refused, saying, "We'll take the
diplomats, we'll take the journalists, but we're not taking any faggots." Clearly, tolerance not
only has not improved, but is in full retreat and is not a priority for the new government.
8. Life expectancy. In
2010 , the year Yanukovych was elected president, it was 70.2 years. In
2016 ,
it's 69.6. I'm having a hard time seeing that as an improvement.
9. Health. Sports clubs encourage a healthier lifestyle. Most of Ukraine's sports clubs and facilities
were inherited from the Soviet Union. A search for "Poroshenko opens new sports club" yielded nothing
much except the news – I guess I shouldn't be surprised – that
he owns one : (search for "Poroshenko's
allies show up on website listing tax-haven firms") Fifth Element, at 29A Electrykiv St. in Kiev.
That's also the registered address of Intraco Management, owned by deputy head of Roshen Sergey Zaitsev.
Intraco Management showed up in Mossack-Fonseca's records, which came to be better known as the Panama
Papers. Meanwhile, health care in Ukraine
remains deplorable
and there has been no noticeable improvement.
In fact, although you can find the occasional bright spot if your business is finding bright spots
and spinning them into a tapestry of success, Ukraine is a nation in free-fall. The currency is
trading at 26.33 UAH to
the US greenback , slowly edging up to that truly scary record spike of 33.5 to the dollar in
February of last year. Pre-Maidan, the rate was about 7 hryvnia to the dollar. When Poroshenko assumed
his present office, it was 12 to the dollar. The president's approval rating has
corkscrewed down to around 10% . Believe it or not – and I frankly find it incomprehensible there
can be an electorate anywhere, whose fingers must be nothing but scar tissue now from being burnt
so many times, that so adamantly will not change its ways – the
current leader in the polls is… Yulia Tymoshenko. Yes, indeed; if anything can save the floundering
country, it's another stinking-rich oligarch. Yulia Tymoshenko, multi-millionaire.
Ukrainian family
living wage , 9,950 UAH per month, about $383.00 USD. Per month. And the reduced price for gas
for households was
canceled in May , as an anti-corruption measure.
By the benchmarks set in the happy-time graphic, Ukraine is failing catastrophically in every
metric, gasping for breath like a fish on the kitchen floor with someone standing on it. There is
zero chance of any kind of peace deal this year, since Poroshenko arbitrarily decided to reverse
the agreed-upon terms and announce no moves toward autonomy for the east could take place until Russia
returned control of the border to Ukraine – causing Russia to withdraw from the Normandy format,
since negotiations with such a fucking blockhead are a complete waste of everyone's time.
To be completely fair to RFE/RL, they did not originate the graphic; that came from the highly-imaginative
Institute of World Politics in Ukraine. But it fits perfectly with RFE/RL's style; it's hard for
a one-time CIA-funded leopard to change its spots, and many of it columnists seem to rely far more
on imagination themselves when they are writing their material. So they can own it.
As Europeans assess the fallout from the U.K.'s
Brexit referendum
, they face a series of elections that could equally shake the political establishment. In the
coming 12 months, four of Europe's five largest economies have votes that will almost certainly mean
serious gains for right-wing populists and nationalists. Once seen as fringe groups, France's National
Front, Italy's Five Star Movement, and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands have attracted legions
of followers by tapping discontent over immigration, terrorism, and feeble economic performance.
"The Netherlands should again become a country of and for the Dutch people," says Evert Davelaar,
a Freedom Party backer who says immigrants don't share "Western and Christian values."
... ... ....
The populists are deeply skeptical of European integration, and those in France and the Netherlands
want to follow Britain's lead and quit the European Union. "Political risk in Europe is now far more
significant than in the United States," says Ajay Rajadhyaksha, head of macro research at Barclays.
... ... ...
...the biggest risk of the nationalist groundswell: increasingly fragmented parliaments that will
be unable or unwilling to tackle the problems hobbling their economies. True, populist leaders might
not have enough clout to enact controversial measures such as the Dutch Freedom Party's call to close
mosques and deport Muslims. And while the Brexit vote in June helped energize Eurosceptics, it's
unlikely that any major European country will soon quit the EU, Morgan Stanley economists wrote in
a recent report. But they added that "the protest parties promise to turn back the clock" on free-market
reforms while leaving "sclerotic" labour and market regulations in place. France's National Front,
for example, wants to temporarily renationalise banks and increase tariffs while embracing cumbersome
labour rules widely blamed for chronic double-digit unemployment. Such policies could damp already
weak euro zone growth, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to drop from 2 percent in 2015
to 1.5 percent in 2017. "Politics introduces a downside skew to growth," the economists said.
On September 28 the French mission to the UN claimed that two hospitals in east-Aleppo had been bombed.
It documented this in a tweet with
a picture of destroyed buildings in Gaza. The French later deleted that tweet.
It is not the first time such false claims and willful obfuscations were made by "western" officials.
But usually they shy away from outright lies.
Not so the US Secretary of State John Kerry. In a press event yesterday, before talks with the French
Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault about a new UN resolution,
he said (vid
@1:00) about Syria:
Last night, the regime attacked yet another hospital, and 20 people were killed and 100 people
were wounded. And Russia and the regime owe the world more than an explanation about why they
keep hitting hospitals and medical facilities and children and women.These are acts that beg for
an appropriate investigation of war crimes. And those who commit these would and should be held
accountable for these actions.
No opposition group has claimed that such an extremely grave event happened. None. No press agency
has a record of it. The MI-6 disinformation outlet SOHR in Britain, which quite reliably notes every
claimed casualty and is frequently cited in "western" media", has not said anything about such an
event anywhere in Syria.
The grave incident Kerry claimed did not happen. Kerry made it up. (Was it supposed to happen, got
canceled and Kerry missed the memo?) Kerry used the lie to call for war crime investigations and
punishment. This in front of cameras, at an official event with a foreign guest in the context of
a United Nations Security Council resolution.
This is grave. This is nearly as grave as Colin Powell's false claims of WMD in Iraq in front of
the UN Security Council.
Early reports, like
this one at CBSNEWS, repeat the Kerry claim:
Kerry said Syrian forces hit a hospital overnight, killing 20 people and wounding 100, describing
what would be the latest strike by Moscow or its ally in Damascus on a civilian target.
But the New York Times write up of the event, which includes Kerry's demand for war crime investigations,
does not mention the hospital bombing claim. Not at all. For the self-acclaimed "paper of record",
Kerry's lie did not happen. Likewise the Washington Post which in its own write up
makes no mention of the false Kerry claim.
The latest AP write up by Matthew Lee
also omits the lie. This is curious as Matt Lee is obviously aware of it. The State Departments
daily press briefing yesterday
had a whole section
on it. Video (@3:30)
shows that it is Matt who asks these questions:
QUESTION: Okay. On to Syria and the Secretary's comments earlier this morning, one is: Do you
know what strike he was talking about in his comments overnight on a hospital in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I think the Secretary's referring actually to a strike that we saw happen yesterday
on a field hospital in the Rif Dimashq Governorate. I'm not exactly positive that that's what
he was referring to, but I think he was referring to actually one that was --
QUESTION: Not one in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I believe it was – I think it was – I think he – my guess is – I'm guessing here that
he was a bit mistaken on location and referring to one --
...
QUESTION: But you don't have certainty, though?
MR KIRBY: I don't. Best I got, best information I got, is that he was most likely referring to
one yesterday in this governorate, but it could just be an honest mistake.
QUESTION: If we could – if we can nail that down with certainty what he was talking about --
MR KIRBY: I'll do the best I can, Matt.
...
This goes on for a while. But there was no hospital attack in Rif Dimashq nor in Aleppo. Later on
DoS spokesman Kirby basically admits that Kerry lied: "I can't corroborate that."
It also turns out that Kerry has no evidence for any war crimes and no plausible way to initiate
any official international procedure about such. And for what? To bully Russia? Fat chance, that
would be a hopeless endeavor and Kerry should know that.
Kerry is desperate. He completely lost the plot on Syria. Russia is in the lead and will do whatever
needs to be done. The Obama administration has, apart from starting a World War, no longer any way
to significantly influence that.
Kerry is only one tool of the Obama administration. Later that day the US Director of National Intelligence,
James Clapper, made other
accusations against Russia:
The US Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directedthe recent
compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations.
The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by
the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed
efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.
Such activity is not new to Moscow-the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across
Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope
and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia's senior-most officials could have authorized
these activities.
Translation: "WE DO NOT KNOW at all ("we are confident", "we believe", "directed") who did these
hacks and WE DO NOT HAVE the slightest evidence ("consistent with","based on the scope and sensitivity")
that Russia is involved, so let me throw some chaff and try to bamboozle you all."
The former British ambassador Craig Murray calls it
a
blatant neocon lie. It was obviously the DNC that manipulated the US election by, contrary to
its mandate, promoting Clinton over Sanders. The hackers only proved that. It is also easy to see
why these accusations are made now. Murray:
That the Obama administration has made a formal accusation of Russia based on no evidence is,
on one level, astonishing. But it is motivated by desperation. WikiLeaks have already announced
that they have a huge cache of other material relating to Hillary's shenanigans. The White House
is simply seeking to discredit it in advance by a completely false association with Russian intelligence.
The Obama administration is losing it. On Syria as well as on the election it can no longer assert
its will. Trump, despite all dirty boy's club talk he may do, has a significant chance to catch the
presidency. He (-44%) and Clinton (-41%) are
more disliked by the U.S electorate, than Putin (-38%). Any solution in Syria will be more in
Russia's than the Washington's favor.
Such desperation can be dangerous. Kerry is gasping at straws when he lies about Russia. The president
and his colleagues at the Pentagon and the CIA have more kinetic means to express themselves. Could
they order up something really stupid?
"... 'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews): The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics. ..."
"... Yes, that would seem transparently obvious to anyone who doesn't have a vested interest in defending the neoliberal programme. ..."
"... The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution. Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for the short term. ..."
"... The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox. ..."
"... However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other with random farm implements. ..."
"... The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment for Democracy or their deputies... ..."
"... I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt. ..."
"... Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World. ..."
"... Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism" where none is to be found in reality ..."
"... the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks ..."
"... Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of a recourse usually). ..."
"... external factors are much more significant in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may have. It is not even luck. ..."
"... People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success. Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality. ..."
"... The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself." ..."
In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J. Trump appears
to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin has used Russian nationalist
sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we see growing ethnic political parties inspired
by national identity in countless other countries.
It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other than the obvious
circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about the horrors of ethnic conflict
in World War II or the rise in this century of forms of violent ethnic terrorism.
Economics is my specialty, and I think economic factors may explain at least part of the trend.
...
'End of Growth' Sparks Wide Discontent By Alastair Crooke (October 14, 2016, consortiumnews):
The global elites' false promise that neoliberal economics would cure all ills through the elixir
of endless growth helps explain the angry nationalist movements ripping apart the West's politics.
The last thing that powerful elites and their court economists want to talk about is the relationship
between an increasingly unequal distribution of income and wealth and the rise of ethnic nationalism...it
might force the elites to do something about it. One would think that that would entail redistribution.
Unfortunately, increasing militarization of the police seems to be a far cheaper solution...for
the short term.
The elites used religious, tribal and ethnic, conflict to keep a lid on the rabble for thousands
of years. They are supremely comfortable with this, it's part of the toolbox.
However I think they are overly complacent because it appears to me that in an industrial
society such conflicts now involve a lot more than a few hundred peasants going after each other
with random farm implements.
The media is shocked -- just shocked -- that a foreign government would tamper with US
elections...such behavior is supposed to be off limits to anyone but the CIA and National Endowment
for Democracy or their deputies...
Paradoxically Pravda in old times did have real insights into the US political system and for
this reason was widely read by specialists. Especially materials published by the Institute
of the USA and Canada -- a powerful Russian think tank somewhat similar to the Council
on Foreign Relations.
As for your remark I think for many people in the USA Russophobia is just displaced Anti-Semitism.
JohnH remark is actually very apt and you should not "misunderestimate" the level of understanding
of the US political system by Russians. They did learn a lot about machinations of the neoliberal
foreign policy, especially about so called "color revolutions." Hillary&Obama has had a bloody
nose when they tried to stage a "color revolution" in 2011-2012 in Russia (so called "white revolution).
A typical US citizen probably never heard about it or heard only about "Pussy riot", Navalny and
couple of other minor figures. At the end poor ambassador Michael McFaul was recalled. NED was
expelled. Of course Russia is just a pale shadow of the USSR power-wise, so Obama later put her
on sanctions using MH17 incident as a pretext with no chances of retaliation. They also successfully
implemented regime change in Ukraine -- blooding Putin nose in return.
But I actually disagree with JohnH. First of all Putin does not need to interfere in a way
like the USA did in 2011-2012. It would be a waist of resources as both candidates are probably
equally bad for Russia (and it is the "deep state" which actually dictates the US foreign policy,
not POTUS.)
The US political system is already the can of worms and the deterioration of neoliberal society
this time created almost revolutionary situation in Marxists terms, when Repug elite was not able
to control the nomination. Democratic establishment still did OK and managed to squash the rebellion,
but here the level of degeneration demonstrated itself in the selection of the candidate.
Taking into account the level of dysfunction of the US political system, I am not so sure the
Trump is preferable to Hillary for Russians. I would say he is more unpredictable and more dangerous.
The main danger of Hillary is Syria war escalation, but the same is true for Trump who can turn
into the second John McCain on a dime.
Also the difference between two should not be exaggerated. Both are puppets of the forces the
brought them to the current level and in their POTUS role will need to be subservient to the "deep
state". Or at least to take into account its existence and power. And that makes them more of
prisoners of the position they want so much.
Trump probably to lesser extent then Hillary, but he also can't ignore the deep state. Both
require the support of Republican Congress for major legislative initiatives. And it will very
hostile to Hillary. Which is a major advantage for Russians, as this excludes the possibility
of some very stupid moves.
Again, IMHO in no way any of them will control the US foreign policy. In this area the deep
state is in charge since Allen Dulles and those who try to deviate too much might end as badly
as JFK. I think Obama understood this very well and did not try to rock the boat. And there are
people who will promptly explain this to Trump in a way that he understands.
In other words, neither of them will escape the limit on their power that "deep state" enforces.
And that virtually guarantee the continuity of the foreign policy, with just slight tactical variations.
So why Russians should prefer one to another? You can elect a dog as POTUS and the foreign
policy of the USA will be virtually the same as with Hillary or Trump.
In internal policy Trump looks more dangerous and more willing to experiment, while Hillary
is definitely a "status quo" candidate. The last thing Russians needs is the US stock market crush.
So from the point of internal economic policy Hillary is also preferable.
A lot of pundits stress the danger of war with Russia, and that might be true as women in high
political position try to outdo men in hawkishness. But here Hillary jingoism probably will be
tightly controlled by the "deep state". Hillary definitely tried to be "More Catholic then the
Pope" in this area while being the Secretary of State. That did not end well for her and she might
learn the lesson.
But if you think about the amount of "compromat" (Russian term ;-) on Hillary and Bill that
Russians may well already collected, in "normal circumstances" she might be a preferable counterpart
for Russians. As in "devil that we know". Both Lavrov and Putin met Hillary. Medvedev was burned
by Hillary. Taking into account the level of greed Hillary displayed during her career, I would
be worried what Russians have on her, as well as on Bill "transgressions" and RICO-style actions
of Clinton Foundation.
And taking into account the level of disgust amount the government officials with Hillary (and
this is not limited to Secret Service) , new leaks are quite possible, which might further complicate
her position as POTUS. In worst case, the first year (or two) leaks will continue. Especially
if damaging DNC leaks were the work of some disgruntled person within the USA intelligence and
not of some foreign hacker group. That might be a plus for Russians as such a constant distraction
might limit her possibility to make some stupid move in Syria. Or not.
As you know personal emails boxes for all major Web mail providers are just one click away
for NSA analysts. So "Snowden II" hypothesis might have the right to exist.
Also it is quite probably that impeachment process for Hillary will start soon after her election.
In the House Republicans have enough votes to try it. That also might be a plus for s for both
Russia and China. Trump is extremely jingoistic as for Iran, and that might be another area were
Hillary is preferable to Russians and Chinese over Trump.
Also do not discount her health problems. She does have some serious neurological disease,
which eventually might kill her. How fast she will deteriorate is not known but in a year or two
the current symptoms might become more pronounced. If Bill have STD (and sometime he looks like
a person with HIV;
http://joeforamerica.com/2016/07/bill-clinton-aids/)
that further complicates that picture (this is just a rumor, but he really looks bad).
I think that all those factors make her an equal, or even preferable candidate for such states
as Russia and China.
I'm not sure that Putin has a preference. It may be enough for him to show that Russia can
play the destabilization card as well as NED. Displaying the profound corruption of the US political
system also serves to undermine the US abroad, since much of its standing is based on the myth
of its taking the moral high ground. International elites will have a harder time garnering support
for pro-US policies, if those policies are seen as morally bankrupt.
Procopius -> likbez... October 16, 2016 at 05:01 AM
Your analysis does give me some comfort. My greatest fear is that the Deep State seems to currently
be in disarray. Their actions in Syria are divided, contradictory, foolish, counterproductive,
and without direction.
Obama has mostly obviously obeyed the Deep State but has seemed to sometimes "nudge" them in
a direction that seems to me better for the country. The deal with Iran is an exception. It's
significant, but it is both sensible and pragmatic. It's hard to believe anything as important
as that was not sanctioned by the Deep State, in defiance of Israel, and yet it is quite uncharacteristic
of the Deep State's behavior over the last fifteen years.
Walker Connor, perhaps the leading student of the origins and dynamics of ethnonationalism,
has consistently stressed the importance of its political implications. In these essays, which
have appeared over the course of the last three decades, he argues that Western scholars and policymakers
have almost invariably underrated the influence of ethnonationalism and misinterpreted its passionate
and nonrational qualities....
[ I do appreciate the reference, which strikes me as fine since I would like to read older
essays or essays extending over a few decades for perspective on the matter. I will begin here.
]
Brexit. Theresa May's recent speeches at the Conservative conference was very nationalistic and
Little Englander. See Benjamin Friedman's book The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth.
Establishment economists are making excuses for slow growth and poor policy by pointing
at things like demographics and technology. Excuse-making isn't going to stem the rising tide
of ethnic nationalism. Thomas Friedman's Flat World is turning into Tribalistic World.
Your usual theatrics, but I largely agree with you lattermost statement. Things are always best
when we share. Tribesman can be especially selfish, even amongst themselves.
Frankly, I am not seeing it. Many of the "Rich" love to push the dialectics of "ethnic nationalism"
where none is to be found in reality or manipulated like half-jew Donald Trump, who is being
run by the rothschild flank in Russia due to his disaster when he went with fellow jews during
the post-Soviet Oligarch scam. Much like all his businesses, it flopped. He owes the bank of russia(owned
by rothschild) 100's of millions of dollars. They own him.
The point? The "monied elite" tell you what they want you to believe. The dialectical illusion
and collision of the duelism is how they stay in power. I feel bad for Trump supporters, most
are old and not very smart. But I also feel bad for Trump opposition who refuse to bring this
up, mainly because they are financed by the same crowd(aka the Clinton have worked with Rothschild
as well, they come from the same cloth).
Growth adjusted for population was not overly impressive in the 70's or 90's. Yet...............
Neoliberalism creates an impulse for nationalism in several ways:
1. It destroys human solidarity. And resorting to nationalism in a compensational mechanism
to restore it in human societies. that's why the elite often resorts to foreign wars if it feels
that it losing the control over peons.
2. Neoliberalism impoverishes the majority of population enriching top 1% and provokes the
search for scapegoats. Which in the past traditionally were Jews. Now look like MSM are trying
to substitute them for Russians
3. Usually the rise of nationalism is correlated with the crisis in the society. There
is a crisis of neoliberalsm that we experience in the USA now: after 2008 neoliberalism entered
zombie state, when the ideology is discredited, but forces behind it are way too strong for any
social change to be implemented. Much like was the case during "Brezhnev socialism" in the USSR.
So those who claim that we are experiencing replay of late 1920th on a new level might be partially
right. With the important difference that it does not make sense to establish fascist dictatorship
in the USA. Combination of "Inverted totalitarism" and "national security state" already achieved
the same major objectives with much less blood and violence.
the pointless destruction of the manufacturing sector of Western economies because of their
decision to have private banking systems and eschew tariffs - no surprises here folks
cm -> cm... , -1
Of course economy plus consequences of the state of the economy, i.e. many people being treated
like shit, without recourse, except turning away from mainstream politics (which isn't much of
a recourse usually).
cm -> Longtooth... October 15, 2016 at 02:19 PM
This analysis totally misses the point that often external factors are much more significant
in determining success or lack of it than any personal virtues or failings the individual may
have. It is not even luck.
Procopius -> cm... October 16, 2016 at 05:22 AM
I think you miss Longtooth's point. You are, of course, right that personal virtues or failings
usually have no effect on success or lack of it, but if I understand Longtooth correctly, he is
saying that's irrelevant. People do not blame the actual causes of their lack of success.
Instead, they seek and find scapegoats. Most Trumpista have heard all their lives from people
they respect that black and latino people unfairly get special treatment. That overrides the reality.
cm -> Procopius...
The comment started with: "When things aren't going as you expect or want, people always
have to find someone to blame... since the ego works to prevent you blaming yourself."
Robert Shiller is a talented guy who is pretty sleazy. Note that he never mentions neoliberalism
as the real reason we got into the current situation.
"Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but
it has been blocked." Blocked by whom? Elves and fairies? Klingons?
Instead he tried deceive along the lines of behavioral economics: " If they realize that they
are doing less well than their forebears, they become anxious... Ethnic nationalism creates an
ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure: Other groups are blamed for bad behavior
and conspiracies.
Notable quotes:
"... The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology that is replacing jobs. ..."
"... A 2015 study published in The American Economic Review by Michael Kumhof of the Bank of England, Romain Rancičre of the International Monetary Fund and Pablo Winant of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the 1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising inequality. ..."
"... Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default. ..."
Global economic weakness and a rise in inequality appear to be causing a
disturbing growth in ethnic nationalism.
Leaders today often do not openly declare themselves to be ethnic nationalists -
in which identity is defined by perceived genetic, religious or linguistic
heritage rather than democratic ideals or principles. But political appeals to
such forms of identity are nevertheless widespread.
In the United States, despite his attempts to woo minority voters, Donald J.
Trump appears to derive support from such sentiment. In Moscow, Vladimir V. Putin
has used Russian nationalist sentiment to inspire many of his countrymen. And we
see growing ethnic political parties inspired by national identity in other
countries.
It is natural to ask whether something so broad might have a common cause, other
than the obvious circumstantial causes like the gradual fading of memories about
the horrors of ethnic conflict in World War II or the rise in this century of
forms of violent ethnic terrorism. Economics is my specialty, and I think
economic factors may explain at least part of the trend.
Yet economic growth continues, though at a reduced pace, and not just in the United
States. According to the
International
Monetary Fund
, real world gross domestic product was 29 percent higher in 2015 than
it was just before the recession, in 2007. It has just grown at a lower rate than
before, 3.2 percent a year in the eight years after 2007 compared with 4.5 percent a
year in the eight years ending in 2007. Perhaps that doesn't sound like a big enough
difference to affect political outcomes.
But the modest slowdown could be a big part of the explanation for the apparent rise of
ethnic nationalism, if combined with another factor: rising inequality, along with
considerable fear about future inequality.
The numbers are stark. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics,
earnings have been basically static. In the bureau's language, "median usual weekly
earnings - in constant (1982-84) dollars (employed full time)" has hardly grown in a
generation. The total increase since this data series began in 1979 has been only 1.2
percent, or 0.03 percent a year. The increase has been less than 1 percent since 2007.
Even such paltry economic growth is going to the very top, not to the median wage
earner. That means that roughly half of full-time wage earners are doing less well in
real terms than their parents were.
Benjamin M. Friedman
of Harvard
University, in his book "The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth"
(Knopf, 2005)
,
said that at a deep level people make judgments about the economic progress that they
see in their own lifetimes, and in comparison with the progress made by the previous
generation, especially their own parents. Few people study economic growth statistics.
But nearly everyone knows what they are being paid. If they realize that they are doing
less well than their forebears, they become anxious. And if they can't see themselves
and others in their cohort as progressing over a lifetime, their social interactions
often become angry, resentful and even conspiratorial.
Ethnic nationalism creates an ego-preserving excuse for self-perceived personal failure:
Other groups are blamed for bad behavior and conspiracies. Often, ethnic, racial or
religious conflict follows. Among the horrific examples are the atrocities committed in
the name of nationalism during World War II - not coincidentally following
the Great Depression
. Mr. Friedman provides other such instances from the last two
centuries in which ethnic conflict followed slow economic growth.
He does point out many exceptions to these generalizations: Some poor and unequal
societies experience very little violence. But it appears that a sense of falling behind
economically among a substantial segment of a population does encourage ethnic
nationalism and conflict.
The rise in inequality in our time represents a seismic shift in economic power away
from the working class. Its cause is many-faceted, including globalization, the decline
of labor unions, changes in political alignments and advancing information technology
that is replacing jobs.
Even those who have not lost out yet in terms of economic power are fearful that they
might. The causes of inequality, particularly advances in information technology, are
not going away soon. These perceptions have damaged people's sense of economic security,
even beyond what economic data reveal to be objectively true.
A 2015 study published in The
American Economic
Review
by
Michael Kumhof
of the Bank of England,
Romain Rancičre
of the International Monetary Fund and
Pablo Winant
of the Bank of England found that both the Great Depression of the
1930s and the Great Recession of 2007-9 had their origins, in part, in rising
inequality.
Both were accompanied by increases in borrowing by low- to middle-income people, who
tried to maintain their standards of living. High-income people, described by the
authors as desiring wealth for its own sake, did the lending. The loans attracted
investors because high rates of interest compensated them for the risk of default.
Linking these causes to the rise of ethnic nationalism is imprecise; these factors
reflect a long-term loss of confidence. Such fears are often vague and ill formed, but
their effects are powerful.
There are some remedies, even if they are not popular or easily executed.
Hillary Clinton's proposals to raise taxes on those with the very highest incomes to
fund programs for lower-income people, for example, may not generate much enthusiasm
from those whose incomes have not grown as expected and who may be doing less well than
their parents. That is because many people do not like the sound of a proposed handout
even if it might help them; they aspire to prove their own worth by earning a good
income, and yet that prospect eludes them.
But something has to be done about the two trends of rising inequality and weak economic
growth, for if they continue we may see more unhappiness, discontent and political
disruption. Substantial fiscal stimulus might be helpful, but it has been blocked.
Making the tax system progressive enough to break the trend toward ever greater income
inequality has also been beyond our grasp, yet it may be the best option we have.
Small countries are just pawns in a bigger Washington geopolitical game, the game conducted with
the level of determination and cruelty that would bestow on them an approving nod from Mussolini. And
actually they do not shun allies in far right forces. As long as they promote pro-American pro-neoliberalism
policies. As in saying "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch
" (attributed to FDR about Somoza). Since the dissolution of the USSR the US has been the world
hegemon, sponsoring a world order on neoliberal principles and making the world safe for an often
rapacious multinationals. Political disinterest in foreign military adventures at home due to absence
of draft allowed hijacking the US military for racketeering abroad. The privatizing of the military-industrial
complex has converted it into formidable political force: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates
perpetual war as a marketing tool. American foreign policy has long been the special province of transnational
corporations, which were allowed to use US naval and military power for penetration into markets of
the countries without paying for it.
Notable quotes:
"... With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats. ..."
"... Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché much favored in Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table." ..."
"... Hillary Clinton chose a different course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better. ..."
"... What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she evidently actually has about nuclear issues. ..."
"... It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing audiences to nod-or nod off. ..."
"... With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home." ..."
"... In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016. ..."
"... Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on. ..."
"... Trump was incredibly naďve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term "first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition of any premises essential to the question. ..."
"... I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer. ..."
"... Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation. ..."
"... Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives. But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people. He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian control of speech. ..."
"... So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort. ..."
"... So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil". ..."
"... The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-ill. ..."
You may have missed it. Perhaps you dozed off. Or wandered into the kitchen to grab a snack. Or by
that point in the proceedings were checking out Seinfeld reruns. During the latter part
of the much hyped but excruciating-to-watch first presidential debate, NBC Nightly News anchor Lester
Holt posed a seemingly straightforward but cunningly devised question. His purpose was to test whether
the candidates understood the essentials of nuclear strategy.
A moderator given to plain speaking might have said this: "Explain why the United States keeps
such a large arsenal of nuclear weapons and when you might consider using those weapons."
What Holt actually said was: "On nuclear weapons, President Obama reportedly considered changing
the nation's longstanding policy on first use. Do you support the current policy?"
The framing of the question posited no small amount of knowledge on the part of the two candidates.
Specifically, it assumed that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton each possess some familiarity with
the longstanding policy to which Holt referred and with the modifications that Obama had contemplated
making to it.
If you will permit the equivalent of a commercial break as this piece begins, let me explain why
I'm about to parse in detail each candidate's actual answer to Holt's question. Amid deep dives into,
and expansive punditry regarding, issues like
how "fat" a former Miss Universe may have been and
how high an imagined future wall on our southern border might prove to be, national security
issues likely to test the judgment of a commander-in-chief have received remarkably little attention.
So indulge me. This largely ignored moment in last week's presidential debate is worth examining.
With regard to the issue of "first use," every president since Harry Truman has subscribed
to the same posture: the United States retains the prerogative of employing nuclear weapons to defend
itself and its allies against even nonnuclear threats.
In other words, as a matter of policy, the United States rejects the concept of "no
first use," which would prohibit any employment of nuclear weapons except in retaliation for a nuclear
attack. According to press reports, President Obama had
toyed with but then rejected the idea of committing the United States to a "no first use" posture.
Holt wanted to know where the two candidates aspiring to succeed Obama stood on the matter.
Cruelly, the moderator invited Trump to respond first. The look in the Republican nominee's eyes
made it instantly clear that Holt could have been speaking Farsi for all he understood. A lesser
candidate might then have begun with the nuclear equivalent of "
What is Aleppo? "
Yet Trump being Trump, he gamely-or naively-charged headlong into the ambush that Holt had carefully
laid, using his allotted two minutes to offer his insights into how as president he would address
the nuclear conundrum that previous presidents had done so much to create. The result owed less to
early Cold War thinkers-of-the-unthinkable like Herman Kahn or Albert Wohlstetter, who created the
field of nuclear strategy, than to Dr. Strangelove. Make that Dr. Strangelove on meth.
Trump turned first to Russia, expressing concern that it might be gaining an edge in doomsday
weaponry. "They have a much newer capability than we do," he said. "We have not been updating from
the new standpoint." The American bomber fleet in particular, he added, needs modernization. Presumably
referring to the recent employment of Vietnam-era bombers in the wars in
Afghanistan ,
Iraq , and Syria, he continued somewhat opaquely, "I looked the other night. I was seeing B-52s,
they're old enough that your father, your grandfather, could be flying them. We are not - we are
not keeping up with other countries."
Trump then professed an appreciation for the awfulness of nuclear weaponry. "I would like everybody
to end it, just get rid of it. But I would certainly not do first strike. I think that once the nuclear
alternative happens, it's over."
Give Trump this much: even in a field that tends to favor abstraction and obfuscating euphemisms
like "fallout" or "dirty bomb," classifying Armageddon as the "nuclear alternative" represents something
of a contribution.
Still, it's worth noting that, in the arcane theology of nuclear strategy, "first strike" and
"first use" are anything but synonymous. "First strike" implies a one-sided, preventive war of annihilation.
The logic of a first strike, such as it is, is based on the calculation that a surprise nuclear attack
could inflict the "nuclear alternative" on your adversary, while sparing your own side from suffering
a comparable fate. A successful first strike would be a one-punch knockout, delivered while your
opponent still sits in his corner of the ring.
Yet whatever reassurance was to be found in Trump's vow never to order a first strike-not
the question Lester Holt was asking-was immediately squandered. The Republican nominee promptly revoked
his "no first strike" pledge by insisting, in a cliché
much favored in
Washington , that "I can't take anything off the table."
Piling non sequitur upon non sequitur, he next turned to the threat posed by a nuclear-armed North
Korea, where "we're doing nothing." Yet, worrisome as this threat might be, keeping Pyongyang in
check, he added, ought to be Beijing's job. "China should solve that problem for us," he insisted.
"China should go into North Korea. China is totally powerful as it relates to North Korea."
If China wouldn't help with North Korea, however, what could be more obvious than that Iran, many
thousands of miles away, should do so-and might have, if only President Obama had incorporated the
necessary proviso into the Iran nuclear deal. "Iran is one of their biggest trading partners. Iran
has power over North Korea." When the Obama administration "made that horrible deal with Iran, they
should have included the fact that they do something with respect to North Korea." But why stop with
North Korea? Iran "should have done something with respect to Yemen and all these other places,"
he continued, wandering into the nonnuclear world. U.S. negotiators suitably skilled in the Trumpian
art of the deal, he implied, could easily have maneuvered Iran into solving such problems on Washington's
behalf.
Veering further off course, Trump then took a passing swipe at Secretary of State John Kerry:
"Why didn't you add other things into the deal?" Why, in "one of the great giveaways of all time,"
did the Obama administration fork over
$400 million in cash? At which point, he promptly threw in another figure without the slightest
explanation-"It was actually
$1.7 billion in cash"-in "one of the worst deals ever made by any country in history."
Trump then wrapped up his meandering tour d'horizonby decrying the one
action of the Obama administration that arguably has reduced the prospect of nuclear war, at least
in the near future. "The deal with Iran will lead to nuclear problems," he stated with conviction.
"All they have to do is sit back 10 years, and they don't have to do much. And they're going to end
up getting nuclear." For proof, he concluded, talk to the Israelis. "I met with Bibi Netanyahu the
other day," he added for no reason in particular. "Believe me, he's not a happy camper."
On this indecipherable note, his allotted time exhausted, Trump's recitation ended. In its way,
it had been a Joycean performance.
Bridge Over Troubled Waters?
It was now Clinton's turn to show her stuff. If Trump had responded to Holt like a voluble golf
caddy being asked to discuss the finer points of ice hockey, Hillary Clinton chose a different
course: she changed the subject. She would moderate her own debate. Perhaps Trump thought Holt was
in charge of the proceedings; Clinton knew better.
What followed was vintage Clinton: vapid sentiments, smoothly delivered in the knowing tone
of a seasoned Washington operative. During her two minutes, she never came within a country mile
of discussing the question Holt had asked or the thoughts she
evidently actually has about nuclear issues.
"[L]et me start by saying, words matter," she began. "Words matter when you run for president.
And they really matter when you are president. And I want to reassure our allies in Japan and South
Korea and elsewhere that we have mutual defense treaties and we will honor them."
It was as if Clinton were already speaking from the Oval Office. Trump had addressed his remarks
to Lester Holt. Clinton directed hers to the nation at large, to people the world over, indeed to
history itself. Warming to her task, she was soon rolling out the sort of profundities that play
well at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment, or the Council on Foreign Relations, causing
audiences to nod-or nod off.
"It is essential that America's word be good," Clinton continued. "And so I know that this campaign
has caused some questioning and worries on the part of many leaders across the globe. I've talked
with a number of them. But I want to - on behalf of myself, and I think on behalf of a majority of
the American people, say that, you know, our word is good."
Then, after inserting a tepid, better-than-nothing endorsement of the Iran nuclear deal, she hammered
Trump for not offering an alternative. "Would he have started a war? Would he have bombed Iran?"
If you're going to criticize, she pointed out, you need to offer something better. Trump never does,
she charged. "It's like his plan to defeat ISIS. He says it's a secret plan, but the only secret
is that he has no plan."
With that, she reverted to platitudes. "So we need to be more precise in how we talk about
these issues. People around the word follow our presidential campaigns so closely, trying to get
hints about what we will do. Can they rely on us? Are we going to lead the world with strength and
in accordance with our values? That's what I intend to do. I intend to be a leader of our country
that people can count on, both here at home and around the world, to make decisions that will further
peace and prosperity, but also stand up to bullies, whether they're abroad or at home."
Like Trump, she offered no specifics. Which bullies? Where? How? In what order? Would she start
with Russia's Putin? North Korea's Kim Jong-Un? Perhaps Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines? How about
Turkey's Recep Tayyip Erdogan? Or Bibi?
In contrast to Trump, however, Clinton did speak in complete sentences, which followed one
another in an orderly fashion. She thereby came across as at least nominally qualified to govern
the country, much like, say, Warren G. Harding nearly a century ago. And what worked for Harding
in 1920 may well work for Clinton in 2016.
Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet
sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into
it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of
posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with Hillary
Clinton. She is our Warren G. Harding. In her oratory, flapdoodle and balderdash live on.
The National Security Void
If I've taxed your patience by recounting this non-debate and non-discussion of nuclear first
use, it's to make a larger point. The absence of relevant information elicited by Lester Holt's excellent
question speaks directly to what has become a central flaw in this entire presidential campaign:
the dearth of attention given to matters basic to U.S. national security policy.
In the nuclear arena, the issue of first use is only one of several on which anyone aspiring to
become the next commander-in-chief should be able to offer an informed judgment. Others include questions
such as these:
What is the present-day justification for maintaining the U.S. nuclear "triad," a strike force
consisting of manned bombers and land-based ballistic missiles and submarine-launched
ballistic missiles?
Why is the Pentagon embarking upon a decades-long,
trillion-dollar program to modernize that triad, fielding a new generation of bombers, missiles,
and submarines along with an arsenal of
new warheads ? Is that program necessary?
How do advances in non-nuclear weaponry-for example, in the realm of cyberwarfare-affect theories
of nuclear deterrence devised by the likes of Kahn and Wohlstetter during the 1950s and 1960s?
Does the logic of those theories still pertain?
Beyond the realm of nuclear strategy, there are any number of other security-related questions
about which the American people deserve to hear directly from both Trump and Clinton, testing their
knowledge of the subject matter and the quality of their judgments. Among such matters, one in particular
screams out for attention. Consider it the question that Washington has declared off-limits: What
lessons should be drawn from America's costly and disappointing post-9/11 wars and how should those
lessons apply to future policy?
With Election Day now merely a month away, there is no more reason to believe that such questions
will receive serious consideration than to expect Trump to come clean on his
personal finances or Clinton to release the transcripts of her
handsomely compensated Goldman Sachs speeches.
When outcomes don't accord with his wishes, Trump reflexively
blames a "rigged" system. But a system that makes someone like Trump a finalist for the presidency
isn't rigged. It is manifestly absurd, a fact that has left most of the national media grasping wildly
for explanations (albeit none that tag them with having facilitated the transformation of politics
into theater).
I'll take a backseat to no one in finding Trump unfit to serve as president. Yet beyond the outsized
presence of one particular personality, the real travesty of our predicament lies elsewhere-in the
utter shallowness of our political discourse, no more vividly on display than in the realm of national
security.
What do our presidential candidates talk about when they don't want to talk about nuclear war?
The one, in a vain effort to conceal his own ignorance, offers rambling nonsense. The other, accustomed
to making her own rules, simply changes the subject.
The American people thereby remain in darkness. On that score, Trump, Clinton, and the parties
they represent are not adversaries. They are collaborators.
Trump was incredibly naďve or stupid for even answering that question. He should have asked
Holt to state what he understood "the nation's longstanding policy" to be and define the term
"first use." Rule one in debating: If you don't fully understand the question, demand a definition
of any premises essential to the question.
For God's sake, most Americans generally believe that the nation's police on nukes is that
we won't use them first. Introducing this kind of mixture of jargon and terms of art is good and
sufficient reason for rejecting the format of these awful "debates."
Dr. Bacevich is always insightful and worth reading. I wish we had a better choice of candidates.
I note, however, that Trump is a builder and Clinton is a destroyer.
Sounds like the Colonel will be voting for the Democrat for the third time in a row (maybe fourth,
he probably voted for Kerry, too). Although the Democrats have been marginally better on foreign
policy, they totally devoted to open borders.
Mass immigration will lead to more attacks at home which will lead to more wars overseas. Invite
the world/invade the world go hand in hand.
"Of Harding's speechifying, H.L. Mencken wrote at the time, "It reminds me of a string of wet
sponges." Mencken characterized Harding's rhetoric as "so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into
it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle
of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash." So, too, with
Hillary Clinton. "
Clinton's approach makes sense. She knows that the general public knows little and cares less
about nuclear minutiae, so she laid out her platitudes-which the public does understand-and raised
legitimate doubts about whether Trump would adopt a foreign policy as Joycean as his reply.
What did Bacevich tell us other than he is an expert in nuclear proliferation policy but the two
presidential candidates aren't. So what? We don't elect presidents to be nuclear war policy experts.
We elect them on how they use the monopoly that government grants them for the legitimate use
of power, coercion, deception and violence (we might call this "evil") . Do they use "evil" gratuitously
or for partisan purposes or self gain; or do they only use "evil" only as a last resort when there
is no other choice such as when Truman authorized dropping A-bombs on Japan? The self righteous
and arrogant Bacevich doesn't tell us which candidate would use evil-for-good or evil-for-bad
or gratuitous outcomes.
Bill Clinton authorized bombing a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan in 1998 to divert attention
away from his sex scandals in a 'wag-the-dog' operation for gratuitous purposes. Hillary supported
the Muslim Brotherhood to take over Egypt in a rigged election in 2012 after the Brotherhood murdered
countless police, prosecutors, judges and Coptic Priests and children and has enriched herself
from advance bribes through her Foundation. The Clintons indisputably use "evil" for gratuitous
purposes and have sold out the interests of the nation.
Trump advocates eminent domain but offered a widow four times the market value of her property
and lifetime occupancy in one of his luxury condos. The property was a rooming house the widow
never lived in on commercial zoned land. The property was foreclose on 20 years later for half
of what Trump offered her and the property was never acquired. Trump shows he does not use evil
gratuitously and is a generous person who nevertheless advocates the legal use of eminent domain
where necessary as a last resort.
Trump advocates waterboarding and stop and frisk as necessary policies to protect lives.
But this is what a leader is elected to do – to use power and coercion to protect the people.
He does not advocate torture or aggressive policing for political or egotistical purposes or to
intimidate the public into totalitarian submission. He opposes political correct and totalitarian
control of speech.
In sum, the Clintons put no limits on their use of "evil" for self gain or selling out to other
nations interests; while Trump wants to use soft power and voluntary market deals where possible
(eminent domain) or would use aggressive tactics to protect the public but in a limited and lawful
way.
So Bacevich can say Trump is unqualified but based purely on empirical grounds, the Clintons
have disqualified themselves from the presidency by their gratuitous use of power and influence
peddling; while Trump prefers to do deals (treaties) but would use aggressive tactics to protect
the public but only when absolutely necessary as a last resort.
So it is Bacevich who is unqualified to render an opinion that helps us judge which candidate
is qualified for the presidency because he believes he has greater knowledge on issues such as
nuclear proliferation. Bacevich is another know-it-all elite who knows better based on his superior
knowledge. But no one has such God like knowledge. What would Bacevich do if he could drop an
A-bomb and save countless lives on both sides of a war? He doesn't tell us and instead prefers
to bash the candidates as to not telling the truth to the American public. The records of the
candidates, summarized above, give us a glimpse of how they would use "evil".
The irony is Bacevich lost a son in a war Trump opposed but Hillary voted for. He is to
be respected for his loss but not for his unqualified opinion as to which candidate would use
evil-for-good or evil-for-ill.
"... "Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th president of the US." ..."
"... The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table. ..."
"... I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects. ..."
"... One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup. ..."
"... Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few of them really like being foot soldiers for empire. ..."
"... Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations. One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic "humanitarian" wars. ..."
"... So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have any meaning outside of an imperial context? ..."
"... Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence in xUSSR space. ..."
"... Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges. ..."
"... Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially taking many functions formerly performed by CIA ..."
"... It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy. Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under Hillary Clinton). ..."
"... ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out. ..."
"... The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the list. ..."
"... Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something. ..."
"... To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative, since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting: we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!") ..."
"... But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global military/economic power struggles. ..."
"... And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives, they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll settle for just calling it bizarre. ..."
"... American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it. ..."
"... Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice. Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing tool. ..."
"... ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world" I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis. ..."
"... Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been. Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad. He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job - so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after. ..."
"... Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively. I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political economy. ..."
"... Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want to believe. ..."
"... Ch. 1: The Advent of Semiwar. ..."
"... Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control ..."
"... Ch. 3: The Credo Restored. ..."
"... "In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all." ..."
"... The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit. ..."
"... Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves. ..."
"... Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism. He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual. ..."
"... It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of your own independent moral compass and political thought. ..."
"... If you need an eloquent summary of how the dysfunction of the American political system has become manifest in a foreign policy of perpetual and costly failure . ..."
"Hillary is not the only individual with Libyan and Syrian blood on her hands. She's
simply the only individual directly involved in Iraq, Libya, and Syria running to the 45th
president of the US."
Very true. The danger of Hillary is the danger of yet another neocon administration in
power for the next four years. We probably need to think in term of Cheney and Rumsfeld, because
this is the policies that Hillary will bring to the table.
But I think it is a mistake to view Syria regime change actions of US neocons in isolation
from the same actions in Ukraine. Those are closely interconnected events.
And Nuland action in Ukraine for the installation of far right nationalist regime (and virtual
occupation of the rest of Ukraine by Western Ukrainian nationalists) virtually guarantee economic
and military alliance of China and Russia. Russia will not forget and will not forgive Nuland's
valiant efforts of installing far right nationalists in Kiev instead of corrupt Yanukovich regime,
despite the fact that they were not very sympathetic to Yanukovich (and refused to play the card
of "legitimate president in exile", which they easily can making US position in Kiev untenable).
I think that experience with US neocons in Ukraine also makes Russia position on Syria
quite different and less accommodating for the US neoliberal empire expansion projects.
IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat of
direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep the
boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups (which
are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with their Kurds
militia.
And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation
in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators.
If you add to China-Russia alliance cemented by events in Ukraine Pakistan, where anti-American
feelings are also quite strong you can see the net result of Barack foreign policy efforts.
Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this alliance
and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad cop, good
cop approach).
I'm starting to believe that there may be a Putin troll operation and that with the commenter
Ze K gone, the operation has sent commenter likbez to the Crooked Timber plate as pinch-hitter.
(Sorry for the baseball metaphor. Turning off computer now.)
"IMHO with the level of dysfunction of Obama administration there is some level of threat
of direct military confrontation in case one of three competing arms of US government overstep
the boundaries. Quite possible in case of CIA and supported by them al Qaeda affiliated groups
(which are mercilessly wiped out by Syrians army), probably less possible for Pentagon with
their Kurds militia.
And I think that any direct confrontation in Syria will automatically lead to confrontation
in Ukraine, were large part of Eastern regions might greet Russians as liberators."
I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. I think the Obama foreign policy
has been an improvement on the Bush government's foreign policy, and Obama inherited a very bad
situation if you look at him coming to the Presidency in 2008.
What does Russian foreign policy want now that the Cold War is over? America power is on the
decline with the rise of other countries, and Russian power is on the decline too. Both countries
had a lot of power due to the Cold War after WWII ended and the lack of development in many countries,
and Europe needing to rebuild so much after the war.
But why does Syria need to be a proxy war between America and Russia when the Cold War is over?
Someone from Afghanistan was telling me recently that in Afghanistan they consider they have had
war ongoing for 50 years now, since they had the wars with Russia years ago, and then they have
had the wars with America now, plus the country is riven by splits now after wars for so long.
The Middle East is going to need a lot of help to rebuild after these wars, they don't need
Russia and America fighting over power in the region.
"Actually I think that one on key ideas of Trump foreign policy agenda is to reverse this
alliance and split Russia from China by treating it differently then Obama administration (bad
cop, good cop approach)."
Also, I live in Australia so we have more coverage of Asian politics, and Obama has been pretty
good with China overall I think. China got cross about the pivot to Asia, and gave The Philippines
a very sharp warning in the official newspaper, and gave Australia a caution in the newspaper,
since then its all gone reasonably well I think.
Ah, foreign policy. I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin
troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments,
and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's
assumptions.
I'll write some more about populism. One of the things that Lupita likes to point out is
how strange it is that somehow Americans are the decider of military intervention everywhere (LFC
again) and how American exceptionalism is part of our imperial setup.
One of the things that people forget about populism is that it's generally a revolt against
that - Americans may like empire, but for the people who actually have to fight, very few
of them really like being foot soldiers for empire.
Left agitation in the early part of the 20th century and in the 60s was in large part anti-war
agitation, and it was one of the main reasons why the government actually crushed left organizations.
One of the main reasons why you can tell that HRC supporters are not really on the left in any
important sense is the easy way that they switched from opposing Bush's war to approving of Democratic
"humanitarian" wars.
So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical
interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments that
we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these have
any meaning outside of an imperial context?
"I don't really understand Russian foreign policy at the moment. "
Russian foreign policy IMHO is mostly reactive and defensive. It is directed mainly on
preservation of (currently rapidly shrinking) Russia's economic and political and cultural influence
in xUSSR space.
Obama administration was very aggressive toward Russia and attempted to implement "regime
change" in 2011-2012 to prevent Putin re-election (so called "White revolution" with McFaul as
the key player and the network on NGO as the coordination / training / recruiting / propaganda
centers). This attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Russia backfired making Russian political
establishment more hostile to the USA. It also led to expulsion of several NGO from Russia. Later
events in Ukraine led to deterioration of political standing of Russian neoliberals as a political
force. They lost all the legitimacy among the population and now viewed by-and-large as US stooges.
The USA also try to play Islamic insurgence card via proxies and hurt economics of Russia via
sanctions and low oil prices (which simultaneously decimated US own shale/LTO oil industry). Obama
actually bragged about the latter.
My impression is that this is just a part of the more general plan of expansion of global neoliberal
empire led by the USA, enforcing neoliberal globalization and crushing all opposing regimes (including
"resource nationalists" like Russia ) that Obama administration is hell bent on (neocon vision
of "Pax Americana"). Obama (or, more correctly, forces behind him) proved to be a staunch neoliberal
(and neocon) on par with Bush II and Bill Clinton and he essentially continued Bush II "muscular"
foreign policy.
Hillary as the Secretary of State was even more jingoistic neocon then Obama and has during
her term in the office an outsize influence on the US foreign policy including the attempt to
stage a "white revolution" in Russia in which State Department played an outsize role, essentially
taking many functions formerly performed by CIA
I think that Russia foreign policy can be understood as not always successful attempts to counter
the attempts of the USA to subdue it and survive in the situation when then the major power using
affiliated with it states tries to deny its sovereignty and wants to convert into vassal state
(and Russia were the US vassal under Yeltsin regime), or, if possible, to dismember it into smaller
and weaker states using the rising wave of nationalism in the regions.
It also tried to oppose the "encirclement" - the creation of the belt of hostile states
around Russia with US or NATO forces/bases - Ukraine is just the most recent example of this policy.
Missile defense bases in Rumania and Poland belong to the same script. Actually the US Department
of Defense on those issues has its own outsize influence on the US foreign policy and works in
close coordination with the State Department (alliance started under Bush II and forged under
Hillary Clinton).
As Russophobia replaced anti-Semitism for the US elite, I see nothing good for Russia in this
respect in the future.
So the rearmament attempts and the attempts to develop alternatives to Western strategic products
and services (which at any time can be included under sanctions) as well as more deep political
and military alliance with China might well be their only options.
But China has its own geopolitical aspirations in xUSSR region and wants to play a leading
role in this alliance using Russia's difficult situation for its own advantage.
So Russian situation is not enviable and might soon became worse, in Hilary is elected.
Moreover, Putin in not eternal, and at some point needs to leave his position and that, taking
into account the amount of power he concentrated in his hands, might create the leadership vacuum
that will be very dangerous taking into consideration the level of hostility of the USA. Coming
to power of more nationalistically oriented politicians on the wave of anti-American sentiments
produced by sanctions also can't be excluded.
I am not a specialist in Russian affairs, so please take those considerations with a grain
of salt.
ZM: "But I wish there was some sort of international protocol about it." There was supposed
to be one - the whole apparatus of U.N. intervention. We've seen how that played out.
'So why should we have to care about any of this foreign policy nonsense? What critical
interest does any American have in Asia, Ukraine, etc.? The vast and lofty left sentiments
that we are citizens of the world and that an injury to one is an injury to everyone - do these
have any meaning outside of an imperial context?'
The sentiments have certainly been a useful pretext for imperial interventions, going
well beyond 'interest' to intimations of existential crisis, etc. I remember when, if we did
not 'help' the Vietnamese by bombing them back into the Stone Age, bad people from there were
going to invade California. So it was both to 'our' interest and theirs to kill millions of
them. You see the same thinking in Syria, Libya, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, and the rest of the
list.
But on the other side, at the business end of the stick:
Cet animal est trčs méchant;
Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.
"No one wants one country to rule the world as if its Lord Of The Rings"
Oh, come on. I'd completely vote for Sauron. That all-seeing eye would spy out all foreign
armies and spies, except for hobbits of course. Regretfully, in our own defense, we'd have to
bomb all hobbit terrorist villages.
Well with technology there is the possibility of that, Australia is part of the Five Eyes
alliance with the USA, which is where the English speaking countries all share intelligence, then
there is a larger group that gets a bit less intelligence, and maybe others like an onion or something.
But its not really what anyone hardly wants as far as I can tell.
I had no idea there even was that much information collected by the government on people until
the Snowdon whistleblower revelations about the NSA.
Rich @ 348: "I think that LFC should consider that while some commenter may well be a Putin
troll operation, the style is pretty much indistinguishable from strongly held local ethnic commitments,
and LFC's own writing sounds similarly weird and overcommitted to someone who doesn't share LFC's
assumptions."
To me this is the wierdest and most hypocritical aspect of the whole "Putin stooge!" narrative,
since part of the core ethos of US-aligned liberal discourse in settings like this is precisely
a willingness and eagerness to voluntarily assume the role of stooge for whatever ruling-class
figure one has decided to back. Look at the core message liberals here seem to be trumpeting:
we may not like the faction of the ruling class embodied in someone like Hillary Clinton, but
since we've decided to back this faction over another faction we consider worse, we'll suspend
our earnest search for truth and understanding so we can add our voices into the fight. ("We know
Hillary is bad, but save it for after Trump!")
There's probably a lot more that can be said about this, but at least as far as the non-ruling-class
public is concerned, what Americans call "partisanship" in this Inside-Baseball sense can be read
as a political analogue of the apocryphal Steinbeck line about temporarily embarrassed millionaires,
absurdly overinflating the importance of their own little Machiavellian calculations to maintain
a pathetically optimistic political self-image, not as the depoliticized and socially atomized
ideological consumers they actually are, but as temporarily embarrassed technocratic insiders.
But the kicker re: Putin is that somehow, these same liberals can't fathom the idea that
ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad
but save it for after Syria!") especially when it comes to nationalist fervor stirred up by global
military/economic power struggles.
And to the extent that they see such people not as the Russian ideological equivalents
of themselves but as literal agents of the Kremlin, precisely the way one might imagine all the
Hillary defenders on this thread as COINTELPRO plants and/or paid Clinton campaign PR operatives,
they're able to see this obsequious defense of ruling-class power for the creepy authoritarian
servility it is. One could call the double standards closed-minded or even xenophobic, but I'll
settle for just calling it bizarre.
bruce wilder , 10.03.16 at 2:51 pm
American foreign policy has long been the special province of deeply interested portions of
the elite, which were allowed to use U.S. naval and military power without paying for it.
Early in the 19th century, it was Yankee traders in China and South America paddling their
boats in the British Empire's wake. The Americans were there, junior partners and useful instruments
of British foreign policy: Monroe Doctrine, founding Hong Kong, opening Japan and Korea, disciplining
unruly or bankrupt Latin American states. The U.S. nearly matched the British in the race to build
Dreadnoughts before the First World War, proclaimed the Open Door in China, neutralized the German
Navy in Morocco and in the Venezuela Crisis, and finally settled the First World War.
Since the First World War, the U.S. has been the hegemon, sponsoring a world order on liberal
principles in theory and making the world safe for an often rapacious commercial order in practice.
Popular disinterest at home has preserved the tradition of hijacking the U.S. military for racketeering
abroad, but the privatizing of the military-industrial complex has converted it from sideline
into a reason for being: arms sales follow a Says Law that motivates perpetual war as a marketing
tool.
ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world"
I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy that
demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis.
Will G-R: liberals can't fathom the idea that ordinary Russians might be gripped by precisely
the same kind of dynamic ("we know Putin is bad but save it for after Syria!")
I'm not sure that's the relevant analogue.
Americans seem to have some difficulty understanding just how competent Putin has been.
Putin is a consummately gifted gambler, who has played a weak hand aggressively at home and abroad.
He is popular in Russia, because he has been successful by being phenomenally good at his job
- so good that any Russian who isn't dead stupid is worried about what comes after.
Obama, the most gifted politician I've seen in my lifetime, has played his hand very conservatively.
I rail against him, because I think he should have taken much bigger chances on a radical reform
agenda, using the crisis he was gifted to take apart the oligarchies choking the American political
economy. But, he chose not to play the game at that level of risk, and I think history will
judge him to be weak because of the consequences, though he has not been politically weak and
he has been remarkably successful in terms of his chosen agenda.
Both Americans and Russians, I think, are inclined to see their roles in the world as more
benign than they are. The Americans, though, have better PR and a lot of people abroad still want
to believe. No one believes the Russians are a benign force, especially in Russia's Near
Abroad.
The scary thing is that Americans have been propagandized into thinking Clinton is competent,
that she will be the adult in the room, the experienced leader who will take the call at 3 am
(and not tweet out some link to a porn tape).
In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that she
is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all.
That Clinton is so cavalier about making Putin the scapegoat for her email problems is an early
indication that she doesn't know what she is doing.
I know that it's a digression, but I really should write some more about hobbits. The one thing
that would shake my convictions as an anarchist would be a political leader who promises to wipe
out their barbaric "mathom culture".
First of all, they never can get ahead economically because of this premodern habit of putting
their economic surplus into items that they pass around aimlessly. And the way they waste food
- has anyone seen the depravity of their so-called wedding parties? I know that drones are a harsh
remedy, but really.
And of course the feminist case for bombing hobbits is as strong as it ever was. Has anyone
even heard of a female hobbit? Of course you haven't, because they keep them in those primitive
holes, and they only appear in brief cameos when the hobbits have to conceal their unadmitted
homosocial orientation. Strong hobbit women will be much better off if we kill the men keeping
them down as well as some of their children.
And lastly, genocide. Are their even any members of other racial groups living in the Shire?
Where did they all go? Hobbit society is deeply racist, and those holes are dumping groups for
bodies as well as potential storehouses for chemical weapons. I know that some people say that
we shouldn't bomb them, but that's only because those people can't even imagine what it's like
not to have the privilege that they do.
likbez 10.03.16 at 3:48 pm
Bruce,
@ 358
"ZM is ridiculously wrong about one thing: "No one wants one country to rule the world"
I think there is actually quite a demand for exactly that. That the U.S. capacity to satisfy
that demand is diminishing rapidly is creating a gathering world crisis."
As president, Barack Obama's efforts to change the U.S.'s exercise of power "have seldom risen
above the cosmetic"(20). He made clear he subscribes to the "catechism of American statecraft,"
viz. that 1) the world must be organized, 2)only the U.S. can do it, 3) this includes dictating
principles, and 4) not to accept this is to be a rogue or a recalcitrant (20-21).
It follows that the U.S. need not conform to the norms it sets for others and that it should
maintain a worldwide network of bases (22-23).
Imagine if China acted in a comparable manner (23-25). The extraordinary American military
posture in the world (25-27). To call this into question puts one beyond the pale(27). James Forrestal
called this a permanent condition of semiwar, requiring high levels of military spending(27-28).
American citizens are not supposed to concern themselves with it (29-30). As to how this came
about, the "standard story line" presents as the result of the decisions of a "succession of presidential
administrations," though this conceals as much as it reveals (30-32).
Eisenhower's 1961 Farewell Address on the "military-industrial complex" was a rare exception
(32-34). More important than presidents were Allen Dulles [1893-1969] and Curtis Lemay [1906-1990]
(34-36).
Bacevich attributes the vision for an American-dominated post-World War II world with the CIA
playing an active role to the patrician Dulles (36-43). The development of the U.S. military into
a force capable of dominating the world, especially in the area of strategic weapons, he attributes
to the hard-bitten Curtis LeMay, organizer of the StrategicAir Command (SAC) (43-52). Dulles and
LeMay shared devotion to country, ruthlessness, a certain recklessness (52-55). They exploited
American anxieties and insecurities in yin (Dulles's CIA) yang(LeMay's SAC) fashion, leaving the
mainstay of American military power, the U.S. Army, in a relatively weak position(55-58).
Ch. 2: Illusions of Flexibility and Control
Kennedy kept Dulles and LeMay to signal continuity, but there was a behind-the-scenes struggle
led by Gen. Maxwell Taylor to reassert the role of the U.S. Army by expanding and modernizing
conventional forces that was "simultaneously masked by, and captured in, the phrase flexible response
" (60; 59-63).
This agenda purported to aim at "resisting aggression" but really created new options for limited
aggressive warfare by the U.S. (63-66).
McNamara engaged in a struggle with LeMay to control U.S. policy on nuclear weapons, but he embraced
the need for redundancy based on a land-sea-air attack "triad" and LeMay et al. "got most of what
they wanted" (66-72).
In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy instituted the morally and legally "indefensible"
Operation Mongoose," in effect, a program of state-sponsored terrorism" against Cuba (80; 72-82
[but Bacevich is silent on its wilder elements, like Operation Northwoods]).
U.S. recklessness caused the Cuban Missile Crisis, and to his credit Kennedy acknowledged this
(albeit privately) and "suspended the tradition" in defusing the crisis (82-87).
Bacevich rejects as a romantic delusion the view that in the aftermath of this crisis Kennedy
turned against the military-industrial complex and the incipient Vietnam war and shows no interest
in Kennedy's assassination itself (87-92).
He sees a parallel between escalation in Vietnam and post-9/11 aggression as "fought to sustain
the Washington consensus" (107; 92-107).
Ch. 3: The Credo Restored.
William Fulbright's The Arrogance of Power (1966) urged a rethinking of the Washington rules
(109-15). A radicalized David Shoup, a Medal of Honor winner and former commandant of the MarineCorps,
argued in "The New American Militarism" (Atlantic, April 1969) that the U.S. had become "a militaristic
and aggressive nation" (120; 115-21). The 1960s Zeitgeist shift made LeMay "an embarrassment,
mocked and vilified rather than venerated," which showed that the Washington rules had incurred
serious damage in Vietnam; the Army was in dire shape (122; 121-27).
Yet astonishingly, in the subsequent decade the "sacred trinity" (cf. 11-15) was "fully restored"
(127). As in post-1918 Germany, élites looked for scapegoats and worked to reverse "the war's
apparent verdict" (128). The Council on Foreign Relations 1976 volume entitled The Vietnam Legacy:
The War, American Society, and the Future of American Foreign Policy is an expression of élite
consensus that the Vietnam war was insignificant, an anomaly (129-34).
By 1980, Democrats and Republicans were again on the same page (134-36).Reagan's election "sealed
the triumph of Vietnam revisionism" (136; 136-38). And the end of the Cold War posed no challenge
to the Washington rules, as Madeleine Albright's pretentious arrogance exemplifies (138-45).
stevenjohnson 10.03.16 at 3:55 pm
"In fact, Clinton has shown a number of indications that she is not competent at all, that
she is, unlike Obama, going to unleash the U.S. foreign policy establishment and military-industrial
complex in all its decadent schizophrenia without any governor or restraint at all."
Backing away from openly bombing the Syrian government when the English PM couldn't get the
vote from Parliament is not restraint. Signing a booby trapped pact with the Iranian government
which will not end sanctions is not restraint. Endorsing the Indian attack on Pakistan is not
restraint. Endorsing the Saudi invasion of Yemen is not restraint. A trillion dollar upgrade of
nuclear weapons is not restraint. Supporting IS all the time and bombing it some time is not restraint.
The raving chorus of criticism of Clinton's foreign policy on ostensibly leftist grounds
that falsifies the current state of affairs is viciously reactionary, especially when indissolubly
mixed with openly reactionary criticisms. The falsification of what exactly is different about
Trump's candidacy is also part and parcel. It's all very like the fake leftists who said defeating
the Scottish referendum wasn't an endorsement of English imperialism, then pretended to act surprised
when the rightward surge they helped to build led to a racist campaign for Brexit.
Putin is weak. He sacrificed a struggle against fascism in Ukraine for a naval base, rather
than call on popular support. Then he doubled down on another naval base in Syria, despite having
no idea how to reach a solution. He can't cope with the economic warfare the US is waging, he
only tries to use simple repression of the population at large and an elaborate combination of
select repression and appeasement of the oligarchs he ultimately serves.
Putin is popular I think largely because he appears to be the human face of capitalism.
He's falsely sold himself as the corrective to Yeltsin, when in truth he is just the normalization
of Yeltsinism. Yetltsin did the dirty work of attacking the people of Russia in the name of capitalist
restoration. Now, Putin is just business as usual.
Bruce, I meant "bad" in a good/evil sense, not a competent/incompetent sense. Clinton partisans
may be fairly unanimous in waxing rhapsodic about her competence, but plenty of them are willing
to cop to her position as a defender of an ultimately evil form of ruling-class power, they simply
think it shouldn't be talked about (see Collin Street @ 184 for an exemplary specimen).
It's the insidious ideology of the Uncle Sam poster, where a slightly-less-evil form of
ruling-class power needs you not just to passively submit to its dictates but to actively
defend its position against its slightly-more-evil ideological enemies, even at the expense of
your own independent moral compass and political thought. The point of this facade isn't
what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are
actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing; the point is what they're not accomplishing,
which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about how ruling-class power works in general
and how the governed classes might effectively counter it.
"... The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter, where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will) is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology, which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined, we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East. ..."
"... He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism and who is a terrorist and why they do it. ..."
"... He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping, even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq, but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). ..."
Blocking Consensus: A Critical View of "America's War for the Greater Middle East: A
Military History" , April 15, 2016
"America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the third book I have read by Andrew Bacevich,
who has unique authority to speak on the subject as the war claimed his son's life. Unfortunately,
this book lacks the power of the first two books, "The Limits of Power" and "Breach of Trust."
The overall indictment of American society that it delivers was more convincing in "Breach of
Trust," or perhaps I am simply blinded by the very ideology that Bacevich decries in this book.
I have bought into the status quo in this respect: I believe some, if not most, of the goods recognized
by Americans are indeed universal. I am unwilling to concede that the millions of Afghan girls
and women who got an education in the years after the Taliban's control of that country were first
challenged would be better off if we had never gone in. I also believe that the number of casualties
we are now sustaining in CENTCOM and AFRICOM is low enough that what we are doing is sustainable
indefinitely, unless the Muslim world gets so angry at us that it unites into a new superpower
to challenge us globally. This will disappoint a lot of people and isn't necessarily consistent
with what I have argued at other times but the absence of even one critical review on Amazon was
something I couldn't stomach anymore.
Per Bacevich, the first American lives lost in America's War for the Greater Middle East were
the fatalities of the aircraft collision as special operators were queuing up to leave Desert
One after the mission was called off. I think it does a disservice to President Carter to imply
that sending troops for a rescue mission committed the United States to perpetual war for unachievable
aims, or even to call it the Poland of this war. Bacevich's position that the Carter Doctrine
calling for the free transit of Saudi and other Gulf Arab oil through the Straits of Hormuz made
Desert One and other interventions inevitable is somewhat more supportable.
The strongest part of "America's War for the Greater Middle East" is the thirteenth chapter,
where Bacevich dissects Bush 43's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power. While I have previously
argued that American war aims in the Iraq war were unidentifiable Bacevich's formulation of said
aims (namely, that our overarching aim was to force everyone in the region to bend to our will)
is plausible. The weakest part of the book is the very limited discussion (limited basically to
chapter 16) of the US special relationship with Israel, a pariah state based on an obsolete ideology,
which in my opinion is the real driver of the war. If this relationship could be ended or redefined,
we would in one stroke go most of the way towards a rational policy in the Middle East.
This book is headed for some Books of the Year lists and maybe some awards. It's well researched,
unusually well-written and deeply disturbing. It is not an easy read; there are hundreds of names,
locations and events over four decades. It deals with how we got into the mess, how we kept at
it and how we're not going to get out. That's the disturbing point, the number of factors that
indicate that we are going to continue with what the book calls the War for the Greater Middle
East. I wish he was wrong, but his case is overwhelming and logically developed. Rather than describe
this book as other reviews have done, I'll consider some details that struck me and add a couple
of quotes to give the flavor. Note: the author has strong opinions, and has ample criticism for
all presidents from Carter to Obama, and strong criticism of many generals, but Republican readers
will not like some of his comments, one cited below. His overall view is rather similar to the
famed quote from World War 1, about lions led by donkeys.
"...combined incoherence with self-deception, both to become abiding hallmarks of America's
evolving War for the Greater Middle East." (44).
"Like the present-day GOP, the Northern Alliance was a loose coalition of unsavory opportunists,
interested chiefly in acquiring power." (227)
"Instead of intimidating, US military efforts have annoyed, incited and generally communicated
a lack of both competence and determination." (367).
He cites many examples of Americans deceiving themselves about what constitutes terrorism
and who is a terrorist and why they do it. The book covers in considerable detail the Carter
actions in Iran, Reagan's Marines in Lebanon, the Bush's wars in Iraq, Clinton's actions in Somalia--in
considerable detail, these actions involved 38,000 US troops at one point, and resulted quite
simply in defeat. He notes that US actions in Bosnia and Kosovo rescued Muslims, who now are enlisting
in considerable numbers as jihadis in the Middle East. In Kosovo he notes that US protection resulted
in a Kosovar state that promptly engaged in an ethnic cleansing of Serbs. He notes that US troops
defeated Iraq's military but the numbers were too small to effectively deal with Baghdad (a city
of 5 million at the time), leading to the collapse of law and order. He thinks the point of defeat
is the incident of Abu Ghraib.
He also makes a convincing case for the war having begun with Carter and never stopping,
even in periods between more known wars; much of the action was American use of air power in Iraq,
but also tensions with Iran in the Persian Gulf, what was once very strong US support of jihadis
fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan (1979-89). Putting situations that tend to be forgotten
about in succession with larger events makes it obvious that the war began under Carter and has
simmered ever since, with periodic intensifications.
And near the book's end he discusses several reasons why the war is going to continue. One,
there is no anti-war or effective anti-interventionist party. Two, electoral expediency means
major party candidates will continue to support military actions. Three, some individuals and
organizations (and companies) benefit from continued war (jobs, military contracts). Four, Americans
largely seem oblivious to the war. There's more, but these are main reasons.
"... Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds. ..."
"... Let's note that pre-9/11 the foreign policy wasn't exactly just/moral/sane. ..."
"... Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and Lybian conflicts? ..."
"... Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist) pushed war clandestinely? ..."
"... Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior. ..."
"... At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians. ..."
"... I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and de facto ..."
"... On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization. That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should not be particularly shocking. ..."
"... Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition. Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire. ..."
"... Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US, and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better. ..."
"... If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years. The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats. ..."
"... FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision. ..."
"... "Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East." ..."
"... I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees, etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler. ..."
"... The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year. ..."
"... "THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)". ..."
"... It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka the Islamic State. ..."
"... It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State – remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra). ..."
Yves: It's amazing how infrequently this point is made in any political debate or news coverage.
(Jeremy Corbyn being one rare example of someone who brings it up.):
Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe
is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East.
If there were any justice, the refugees would be swamping the UK, US, and France in huge numbers,
as those are the countries that cooked up the Libya failed state and also most active in Syria.
Crazy or stupid (your choice) Hollande vowed to increase the French warfare in Syria after the
recent terror attacks in Paris and elsewhere. As though MORE BOMBS ever managed to decrease terrorism,
right?
Though Merkel made her own bed with her "let them all come to Germany!" invitation, and now
she is sleeping in it. Good riddance when and if she goes.
Yes. As many have said, critical thinking in DC went out the door with 9/11. Those in DC
who shouldn't be in jail, probably should at most be mopping floors at McDonalds.
Hey now. I mop floors. I know people who mop floors. Those perps, sir, are not fit to mop floors.
Unless it's in prison. And even then I'm sure they'd suck. Takes integrity to do a humble job
well.
Who cares? Since when did we live in a democracy? How many people wanted the Syrian and
Lybian conflicts? If I recall, war was averted in parliament and congress.
Do we all have to die in poverty because our leaders (in the case of these wars, Zionist)
pushed war clandestinely?
Funny how that logic is never applied to others who are attacked (victims of our foreign
policy). They should act like saints and we should bomb more (or, rather, commit genocide). Maybe
might makes right, but then say it and stop masquerading as some burdened savior.
as James Baldwin said: "aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages."
Thanks for posting this Grossman interview. One facet of the development of the far right that
Grossman hints at, and maybe can only do so because there isn't much data, is its transnational
quality. This summer we visited some lefty friends in Lund, Sweden where each year they hold a
large May Day rally.
At this year's celebration a couple of people were badly injured by Ukrainian rightists
who reportedly fled back to the Ukraine, escaping justice. And, as I recall, there was a recent
report of a French rightist who had received bomb materials from Ukrainians.
As I think about, there's an ugly resonance with Yves' noting the refugees are substantially
a result of US policies. The development of a rightist terrorist potential in the Ukraine has
the same general source.
I recently read accounts of the rise of neo-nazi and right-wing extremist groups in the
former DDR after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Apparently they were substantially infiltrated
by US and German intelligence services and, as a result, enjoyed a certain level of impunity and
de facto financial support from these governments. They were also linked to members
of the 'stay behind' organizations (see
Operation Gladio
), and were 'useful' in violently opposing left-wing groups as well as punk rockers. The modern
AfD is strongest in the states of the former DDR, and are the ideological if not logistical heirs
of these right-wing groups. But to conflate 15% of the electorate with semi-pro neo-nazis and
racists is a bit of a stretch. While they are surely motivated by a strong nativist impulse and
anti-immigrant fervor, their voters also represent the kind of disaffected and disenfranchised
populations that carried the Brexit vote to victory.
On the other hand, the link between US 'intelligence' and Ukrainian neo-nazis is reasonably
well established and is unlikely to have sprung into existence moments before their Maidan mobilization.
That they would now use their safe harbor in Ukraine as a base for operations across Europe should
not be particularly shocking.
No, the AfD is not linked to the CIA It is a pro-social welfare, anti-TPP group that also
wants fair migrant exchanges, that is not just to Europe. It is pestered and censored in Germany.
Just expressing support in ways a security agent deems 'offensive' gets you fined and ostracized.
The fight over private property rights continues. Liberal Democracy has failed around the world
due to the unholy alliance with corporate power. Unchecked corporate power has been unmasked as
the destructive force that it truly is.
The left needs to evolve into a political force that can shape the consciousness of the masses
away from individual greed toward the undeniable benefit of cooperative action. The right will
use fear to drive people into some sort of trembling mass and only by combating this fear can
movement be made.
The compromise the left needs to make is to use any means possible, not to seize the means
of production form existing owners, but to start building alternative ones. It is all too easy
for the right to bring out their tried and true methods to hold power. It is time to starve the
beast, and one way is to not participate and build in another direction.
Corporate power is what needs to be broken. From my limited view, the left has always been
a reactionary force. It needs to evolve into a proactive one, literally building something in
the real world. Another major mistake by the left is to reject and confuse the power of religion.
Neoliberalism is a new religion and gains much power by the use of unquestioning faith. The left
has failed to counteract this religious faith because they have not even tried to counter it with
their own. Just as finance has evolved into a military weapon, it can be argued that religion,
in essence, is a military force.
The political landscape is being reshuffled into defining what we are willing to fight and
die for. Until the left starts offering coherent answers to these questions, the status quo will
continue to pick from the low hanging fruit.
Okay, I have some serious problems with this. One, Israel is not just Jewish in its composition.
Two, not all Jewish people live in Israel. Three, Jewish people lived along side Muslims and Christians
for hundreds of years in that region before Britain, the USA and some useful idiot Zionists decided
to make a geopolitical springboard in 1948. You may be right that every nation pursues its own
agenda, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about the nation or nations pursuing their
agenda(s) that have the most wealth and the biggest bombs. I'm concerned about the ones running
the empire, and Israel is a useful servant to that empire.
Israel is a nation state. Identifying as Jewish is another matter altogether. Israel is
a colony that was formed at the wrong place and the wrong time. They could have pulled it off
in the 18th or 19th century (see USA, Canada, Australia, the entire Western Hemisphere), but doing
so immediately after a global war that was largely the end result of nation's colonial ambitions
was a big no-no. The window of opportunity for such shenanigans had passed and the British, US,
and Zionist progenitors of Israel knew better.
In addition, it is nonsense that we have normalized the formation of a nation state around
a single ethnic or religious identity. Particularly after the Holocaust (the irony of this never
ceases to amaze me). Would we have the same sympathies for the the countless indigenous ethnic
groups in the Americas who, per capita, had even worse genocides inflicted on them, all documented,
all accepted as inevitable or necessary in most histories of the Americas? Israel is a contorted
hypocrisy that has to either embrace heterogeneity of disappear. Ideally as an inclusive country
that is no longer a colony as it has been for hundreds of years. The fetish that is Israel has
been an unfair burden to all people living in the Middle East and Jewish people the world over
that are forced to (through the sheer force of political dogma) shackle their identities to a
racist, rogue state.
" AfD stands for Alternative for Germany. It's a young party, about 2 years old. It's
built basically on racism."
Got more important things to do than rant about the above statement….
Just will quote basic Sun Tzu via Star Trek-know your opponent, know yourself and victory will
be yours.
If AfD opponents simplistically think that the AfD are a rabble of angry closet Neo-Nazis…..boy
their moral/intellectual smugness is going to be shattered at the ballot box in the upcoming years.
The core of AfD are the German equivalent of ol' time bottom 90% FDR Democrats.
And on the other side Sarah Wagenknecht, a leader in the left, hit a lot of flak from many
in her party when she said there needs to be an "Obergrenze" or limit on the number of refugees.
It would hard to call her racist since she is half Persian. It really is a conflict between those
who cannot think realistically….those who are supported or secure enough not to have to take responsibility
for anyone, and those who will need to make the world function. As a Socialist she apparently
is aware that you cannot have a strong social net and combine that with open immigration from
places that have astronomical birthrates that are outgrowing their resources without destroying
that net. I recall Hillary and the open border people attacked Bernie on that as well. I thought
it was unfair and it is this pandering, among other issues, that will keep me from voting for
her. There is a lot of commonality between AfD and the Linke. Don`t forget that the notion of
German population replacement had some currency during and after WW2 in order to permanently solve
the German problem and we may just be actualizing it now.
In fairness, US immigration policy has slowly been getting tougher over the last 16 years.
Immigration policy in the US goes beyond dialect. I doubt Clinton would be overly "easy".
It's easier. Apart from the new Obama rule to issue visas to H1b holders, effectively tripling
the numbers issued but still under the cap, to a myriad of other programs, it's much easier.
Of the several foreign students I've dated, it gets easier every year. Back in 03, one had
to have an accountant degree with CPA certs, and even then, you often were slave labor in Chi-Town
until you hooked up with an American company. Now the black market foreign industry is so large,
that a mere B.A. is enough. The gov doesn't care. Everyone is approved, save the cap.
spooky quatsch comment from oho – hard to tell what oho means with "90% bottom- line fdr dems".
The very diverse FDR / Dem majority coalesced during and in response to economic crisis. The AfD
has emerged during a German boom. It is successful in East Germany, which in the wake of economic
collapse immediately following reunification has been the beneficiary of massive inner-German
transfers. And it is successful in West Germany much of which is effectively at full-employment.
Its core supporters are the 10% of any populazion that is racist, nationalist, and ignorant. You
might try to argue that there is a uniquely irrational fear in Germany, something associated with
its position on the left edge of Eurasia maybe, a heterogenous cultural unit without convincing
access to the sea, trapped if you will and vulnerable to human flows. Sounds silly but it's hard
to account for German fear.
The AfD is using this irrational fear for political gain. FDR was supported largely by voters
with very real fears.
FDR was probably the only American president who was not entirely the servant of the capitalist
ruling class. His reforms were for the benefit of American workers and he dragged the Democratic
party along with him in creating the American social welfare system. He truly favored cooperative
competition with the Soviet Union. Believing his vision of liberalism to be superior to Soviet
socialism he had none of the knee jerk fear and hatred of them that has always characterized the
American ruling class' relationship with Russia – even now 20 years after the collapse of the
Soviet Union. He was entirely confident the working class would choose his vision.
His reactionary political enemies, concentrated in finance capital, had no reason to be
so confident. Their fear and loathing of the working class was/is legitimately earned.
"Notice that this interview fails to mention that the huge influx of refugees into Europe
is the direct result of the US creating failed states in the Middle East."
That's typical of all MSM (not saying TRNN is mainstream) coverage of refugees. There's lots
of discussion and hand-wringing about accepting refugees, but exactly zero about why they're refugees
in the first place.
Yes the US has had a lot to do with destabilizing Asia and Africa but a lot of it has simply
been a continuation of British policy after WW2. As Britain shrank its foreign involvement the
US expanded. But the real cause is the inability of our politicians and leaders to face up to
the reality that population growth is hitting the limits of resource availability in Asia and
Africa and to institute realistic ways to control population. Absent the population explosion
in these regions in the last decades we would not be seeing the poverty and anger and constant
confllict because there would be enough for all. As much bad press as China has gotten for its
population policy it is one of the few bright spots in world economic development. Interestingly
China does not seem very interested in accepting millions of third world refugees.
I've always assumed the costs of the Syria intervention - geopolitical insecurity, refugees,
etc. were seen as a useful collateral dampener on the rise of a Germany-dominated Europe. Perhaps
not sought after, but when those costs were put in the calculus and were seen to affect the European
states the most, the cost-shifting became a net enabler.
In my naďve point of view it hit me last year that it was a brilliant stroke of Angela Merkel
to grab as many refugees as she could before any other country.
They are a tremendous natural resource. One that many modern countries are beginning to see a
coming shortage of. Many countries, like Germany, France, etc are looking at population shortages
in the working age groups. Merkel's grab of this mass of human resource was maybe an accidentally
brilliant idea.
can't tell if the above comment is satire or astroturfing or naivety?
Merkel's migrants have zero higher-level first-world skills. AfD is strong in ex-East Germany
because there is popular resentment as ex-East Germans get austerity shoved down their throats
while Merkel unfurls the red carpet for migrants.
in der Frage nach festen Arbeitsplätzen für Flüchtlinge ruhen die Hoffnungen zunehmend auf
mittelständischen Unternehmen und Handwerksbetrieben. Denn wie eine Umfrage dieser Zeitung ergab,
hat die große Mehrzahl der im deutschen Aktienindex (Dax) notierten Konzerne noch keine Flüchtlinge
eingestellt. Einzig die Deutsche Post gab an, bis Anfang Juni 50 Flüchtlinge und damit eine nennenswerte
Größe fest angestellt zu haben.
Not true. Syrians are very highly educated. Very good public education and high average attainment.
But Merkel was an idiot if she actually did recognize that Syrians were high potential workers
yet did nothing re how to integrate them, most important, acquisition of German and jobs matching.
The fact capitalism is a ponzi scheme is a key here. When the Aristocracy bowed to the Sephardic
bankers, they created this mess. They were the same idiots that bowed to the Christians 1500+
years before.
Maybe it is time for a new aristocracy. If you want to build internally, you have to abolish
capitalism and its market based scam. That is why "right wingers" won't last without the Sephardic
banks via market expansion. They run the scheme and always have. From their immigration into the
Iberian trails during the 15th century, to their financing and eventual leadership into the protestant
reformation, to the first capitalists scheme at Amsterdam to bribing William the Orange into taking
it into old England.
1. Most of the refugees arriving in Europe are Syrian. The US did not act to topple the Syrian
dictator and did not create a new Syrian government. The United States is responsible for these
refugees.
2. A portion of the refugees are Libyan. At the urging of its European allies (not just the
UK), the US helped topple the Libyan government, but has not created a new government. The US
is responsible for these refugees.
3. A portion of the refugees are from Iraq or Afghanistan. The US toppled the old governments
and installed new ones. The US is responsible for these refugees.
4. A significant portion of the refugees are from African countries including Nigeria and Eritrea.
I assume that these aren't included in the statement above as they are not Middle Eastern.
So, in other words – the US is responsible whether or not we intervene and whether or not we
then attempt to set up a government? I wonder under what circumstances you would not view the
US as responsible?
I would suggest, that given the situation in the Middle East and the fact that the results
are similar regardless of US actions something more basic is at work. Most of the nations of the
Middle East and Africa were artificial creations of primarily Britain and France; they are nations
derived neither from ethnic homogeneity nor the consent or shared history of the governed. Whatever,
the United States did or does, they would ultimately have shattered in one way or another and
refugees would have headed for Europe.
Nope, you don't. The US and its Gulf state "allies" are indeed trying to oust Assad and, if
not set up, at least allow the creation of a Salafist regime.
The US Road Map To Balkanize Syria
By Pepe Escobar
September 22, 2016 "Information Clearing House" – "RT" – Forget about those endless meetings
between Sergei Lavrov and John Kerry; forget about Russia's drive to prevent chaos from reigning
in Syria; forget about the possibility of a real ceasefire being implemented and respected
by US jihad proxies.
Forget about the Pentagon investigating what really happened around its bombing 'mistake'
in Deir Ezzor.
The definitive proof of the Empire of Chaos's real agenda in Syria may be found in a
2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document declassified in May last year.
As you scroll down the document, you will find page 291, section C, which reads (in caps,
originally):
"THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE
IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN
SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION
WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF
THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)".
The DIA report is a formerly classified SECRET/NOFORN document, which made the rounds
of virtually the whole alphabet soup of US intel, from CENTCOM to CIA, FBI, DHS, NGA and the
State Department.
It establishes that over four years ago US intel was already hedging its bets between
established al-Qaeda in Syria, aka Jabhat al-Nusra, and the emergence of ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, aka
the Islamic State.
It's already in the public domain that by a willful decision, leaked by current Donald
Trump adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Washington allowed the emergence of the Islamic State
– remember that gleaming white Toyota convoy crossing the open desert? – as a most convenient
US strategic asset, and not as the enemy in the remixed, never-ending GWOT (Global War on Terra).
It's as clear as it gets; a "Salafist principality" is to be encouraged as a means
to Divide and Rule over a fragmented Syria in perpetual chaos. Whether it's established
by Jabhat al-Nusra – aka "moderate rebels" in Beltway jargon – or al-Baghdadi's "Califake"
is just a pesky detail.
It gets curioser and curioser as Hasaka and Deir Ezzor are named in the DIA report – and
directly targeted by the 'mistaken' Pentagon bombing. No wonder Pentagon chief Ash 'Empire
of Whining' Carter took no prisoners to directly sabotage what Kerry had agreed on with Lavrov.
No one will ever see these connections established by US corporate media – as in, for instance,
the neocon cabal ruling the Washington Post's editorial pages. But the best of the blogosphere
does not disappoint.
The rest is just blame-shifting that conveniently let's the US off the hook.
Have you not read any press in the last 5 years, or do you just make a habit of making shit
up? The US has been trying to topple Assad for God only knows how long. What, for instance, do
you think the desperate fig leaf of trying to claim that we are supporting non-existant "moderate
Syrian rebels" is about?
"the danger of this right wing group mostly in the form of parties which is by the way it gets
its votes by being anti-immigrant, anti-foreigner, and especially anti-Muslimism. That�'s their
big call."
The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə])
is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or
otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore
might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists,
and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents
of the intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of
modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress,
but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to
describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by
those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained
that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders
of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither
the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are
more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant
social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals
is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to
do it.
But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of
society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under
conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore
they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society,
which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by
the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals
are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it
wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while
in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.
"... cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy. ..."
"... Neoliberalism cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. ..."
"... In this form, cultural nationalism provides national ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation among thelower orders. ..."
"... As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora – where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within the global and imperial hierarchy. ..."
This is where cultural nationalism comes in. Only it can serve to mask, and
bridge, the divides within the 'cartel of anxiety' in a neoliberal context.
Cultural nationalism is a nationalism shorn of its civic-egalitarian and developmentalist
thrust, one reduced to its cultural core. It is structured around the culture
of thee conomically dominant classes in every country, with higher or lower
positions accorded to other groups within the nation relative to it. These positions
correspond, on the whole, to the groups' economic positions, and as such it
organises the dominant classes, and concentric circles of their allies, into
a collective national force. It also gives coherence to, and legitimises, the
activities of the nation-state on behalf of capital, or sections thereof, in
the international sphere.
Indeed, cultural nationalism is the only ideology capable of being a legitimising
ideology under the prevailing global and national political economy.
Neoliberalism
cannot perform this role since its simplicities make it harsh not just towards
the lower orders, but give it the potential for damaging politically important
interests amongst capitalist classes themselves. The activities of the state
on behalf of this or that capitalist interest necessarily exceed the Spartan
limits that neoliberalism sets. Such activities can only be legitimised as being
'in the national interest.'
Second, however, the nationalism that articulates
these interests is necessarily different from, but can easily (and given its
function as a legitimising ideology, it must be said, performatively) be mis-recognised
as, nationalism as widely understood: as being in some real sense in the interests
of all members of the nation. In this form, cultural nationalism provides national
ruling classes a sense of their identity and purpose, as well as a form of legitimation
among thelower orders.
As Gramsci said, these are the main functions of every
ruling ideology. Cultural nationalism masks, and to a degree resolves, the intense
competition between capitals over access to the state for support domestically
and in the international arena – in various bilateral and multilateral fora
– where it bargainsfor the most favoured national capitalist interests within
the global and imperial hierarchy.
Except for a commitment to neoliberal policies, the economic policy content
of this nationalism cannot be consistent: within the country, and inter-nationally,
the capitalist system is volatile and the positions of the various elements
of capital in the national and international hierarchies shift constantly as
does the economic policy of cultural nationalist governments. It is this volatility
that also increases the need for corruption – since that is how competitive
access of individual capitals to the state is today organised.
Whatever its utility to the capitalist classes, however, cultural nationalism
can never have a settled or secure hold on those who are marginalised or sub-ordinated
by it. In neoliberal regimes the scope for offering genuine economic gains to
the people at large, however measured they might be, is small.
This is a problem for right politics since even the broadest coalition of
the propertied can never be an electoral majority, even a viable plurality.
This is only in the nature of capitalist private property. While the left remains
in retreat or disarray, elec-toral apathy is a useful political resource but
even where, as in most countries, political choices are minimal, the electorate
as a whole is volatile. Despite, orperhaps because of, being reduced to a competition
between parties of capital, electoral politics in the age of the New Right entails
very large electoral costs, theextensive and often vain use of the media in
elections and in politics generally, and political compromises which may clash
with the high and shrilly ambitiou sdemands of the primary social base in the propertied
classes. Instability, uncertainty ...
Yet another response [ to globalization] is that I term 21stcentury fascism.The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad strokes,
this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital
and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global
working class – such as white workers in the North and middle layers in the
South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the specter of downward
mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism
and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant
workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century fascism evokes mystifying
ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy and xenophobia, embracing an
idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare
and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed
even as heroic.
Notable quotes:
"... over-accumulation ..."
"... Cyclical crises ..."
"... . Structural crises ..."
"... systemic crisis ..."
"... social reproduction. ..."
"... crisis of humanity ..."
"... 1984 has arrived; ..."
"... The crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society. ..."
"... In broad strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of the global working class ..."
"... It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation, homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats, such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. ..."
"... Neo-fascist culture normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination with domination that is portrayed even as heroic. ..."
World capitalism is experiencing the worst crisis in its 500 year history.
Global capitalism is a qualitatively new stage in the open ended evolution of
capitalism characterised by the rise of transnational capital, a transnational
capitalist class, and a transnational state. Below, William I. Robinson argues
that the global crisis is structural and threatens to become systemic, raising
the specter of collapse and a global police state in the face of ecological
holocaust, concentration of the means of violence, displacement of billions,
limits to extensive expansion and crises of state legitimacy, and suggests that
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward to the poor majority of
humanity is the only viable solution.
The New Global Capitalism and the 21st Century Crisis
The world capitalist system is arguably experiencing the worst crisis in
its 500 year history. World capitalism has experienced a profound restructuring
through globalisation over the past few decades and has been transformed in
ways that make it fundamentally distinct from its earlier incarnations. Similarly,
the current crisis exhibits features that set it apart from earlier crises of
the system and raise the stakes for humanity. If we are to avert disastrous
outcomes we must understand both the nature of the new global capitalism and
the nature of its crisis. Analysis of capitalist globalisation provides a template
for probing a wide range of social, political, cultural and ideological processes
in this 21st century. Following Marx, we want to focus on the internal dynamics
of capitalism to understand crisis. And following the global capitalism perspective,
we want to see how capitalism has qualitatively evolved in recent decades.
The system-wide crisis we face is not a repeat of earlier such episodes such
as that of the the 1930s or the 1970s precisely because capitalism is fundamentally
different in the 21st century. Globalisation constitutes a qualitatively new
epoch in the ongoing and open-ended evolution of world capitalism, marked by
a number of qualitative shifts in the capitalist system and by novel articulations
of social power. I highlight four aspects unique to this epoch.1
First is the rise of truly transnational capital and a new global production
and financial system into which all nations and much of humanity has been integrated,
either directly or indirectly. We have gone from a world economy, in
which countries and regions were linked to each other via trade and financial
flows in an integrated international market, to a global economy, in
which nations are linked to each more organically through the transnationalisation
of the production process, of finance, and of the circuits of capital accumulation.
No single nation-state can remain insulated from the global economy or prevent
the penetration of the social, political, and cultural superstructure of global
capitalism. Second is the rise of a Transnational Capitalist Class (TCC), a
class group that has drawn in contingents from most countries around the world,
North and South, and has attempted to position itself as a global ruling class.
This TCC is the hegemonic fraction of capital on a world scale. Third
is the rise of Transnational State (TNS) apparatuses. The TNS is constituted
as a loose network made up of trans-, and supranational organisations together
with national states. It functions to organise the conditions for transnational
accumulation. The TCC attempts to organise and institutionally exercise its
class power through TNS apparatuses. Fourth are novel relations of inequality,
domination and exploitation in global society, including an increasing importance
of transnational social and class inequalities relative to North-South inequalities.
Cyclical, Structural, and Systemic Crises
Most commentators on the contemporary crisis refer to the "Great Recession"
of 2008 and its aftermath. Yet the causal origins of global crisis are to be
found in over-accumulation and also in contradictions of state
power, or in what Marxists call the internal contradictions of the capitalist
system. Moreover, because the system is now global, crisis in any one place
tends to represent crisis for the system as a whole. The system cannot expand
because the marginalisation of a significant portion of humanity from direct
productive participation, the downward pressure on wages and popular consumption
worldwide, and the polarisation of income, has reduced the ability of the world
market to absorb world output. At the same time, given the particular configuration
of social and class forces and the correlation of these forces worldwide, national
states are hard-pressed to regulate transnational circuits of accumulation and
offset the explosive contradictions built into the system.
Is this crisis cyclical, structural, or systemic? Cyclical crises
are recurrent to capitalism about once every 10 years and involve recessions
that act as self-correcting mechanisms without any major restructuring of the
system. The recessions of the early 1980s, the early 1990s, and of 2001 were
cyclical crises. In contrast, the 2008 crisis signaled the slide into astructural
crisis. Structural crises reflect deeper contradictions that can only
be resolved by a major restructuring of the system. The structural crisis of
the 1970s was resolved through capitalist globalisation. Prior to that, the
structural crisis of the 1930s was resolved through the creation of a new model
of redistributive capitalism, and prior to that the structural crisis of the
1870s resulted in the development of corporate capitalism. A systemic crisis
involves the replacement of a system by an entirely new system or
by an outright collapse. A structural crisis opens up the possibility
for a systemic crisis. But if it actually snowballs into a systemic crisis –
in this case, if it gives way either to capitalism being superseded or to a
breakdown of global civilisation – is not predetermined and depends entirely
on the response of social and political forces to the crisis and on historical
contingencies that are not easy to forecast. This is an historic moment of extreme
uncertainty, in which collective responses from distinct social and class forces
to the crisis are in great flux.
Hence my concept of global crisis is broader than financial. There are multiple
and mutually constitutive dimensions – economic, social, political, cultural,
ideological and ecological, not to mention the existential crisis of our consciousness,
values and very being. There is a crisis of social polarisation, that is, of
social reproduction. The system cannot meet the needs or assure the
survival of millions of people, perhaps a majority of humanity. There are crises
of state legitimacy and political authority, or of hegemony and
domination. National states face spiraling crises of legitimacy as they
fail to meet the social grievances of local working and popular classes experiencing
downward mobility, unemployment, heightened insecurity and greater hardships.
The legitimacy of the system has increasingly been called into question by millions,
perhaps even billions, of people around the world, and is facing expanded counter-hegemonic
challenges. Global elites have been unable counter this erosion of the system's
authority in the face of worldwide pressures for a global moral economy. And
a canopy that envelops all these dimensions is a crisis of sustainability rooted
in an ecological holocaust that has already begun, expressed in climate change
and the impending collapse of centralised agricultural systems in several regions
of the world, among other indicators.
By a crisis of humanity I mean a crisis that is approaching systemic
proportions, threatening the ability of billions of people to survive, and raising
the specter of a collapse of world civilisation and degeneration into a new
"Dark Ages."2
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way
as to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.
This crisis of humanity shares a
number of aspects with earlier structural crises but there are also several
features unique to the present:
The system is fast reaching the ecological limits of its reproduction.
Global capitalism now couples human and natural history in such a way as
to threaten to bring about what would be the sixth mass extinction in the
known history of life on earth.3 This mass extinction would
be caused not by a natural catastrophe such as a meteor impact or by evolutionary
changes such as the end of an ice age but by purposive human activity. According
to leading environmental scientists there are nine "planetary boundaries"
crucial to maintaining an earth system environment in which humans can exist,
four of which are experiencing at this time the onset of irreversible environmental
degradation and three of which (climate change, the nitrogen cycle, and
biodiversity loss) are at "tipping points," meaning that these processes
have already crossed their planetary boundaries.
The magnitude of the means of violence and social control is unprecedented,
as is the concentration of the means of global communication and symbolic
production and circulation in the hands of a very few powerful groups.
Computerised wars, drones, bunker-buster bombs, star wars, and so forth,
have changed the face of warfare. Warfare has become normalised and sanitised
for those not directly at the receiving end of armed aggression. At the
same time we have arrived at the panoptical surveillance society and the
age of thought control by those who control global flows of communication,
images and symbolic production. The world of Edward Snowden is the world
of George Orwell; 1984 has arrived;
Capitalism is reaching apparent limits to its extensive
expansion. There are no longer any new territories of significance that
can be integrated into world capitalism, de-ruralisation is now well advanced,
and the commodification of the countryside and of pre- and non-capitalist
spaces has intensified, that is, converted in hot-house fashion into spaces
of capital, so that intensive expansion is reaching depths never
before seen. Capitalism must continually expand or collapse. How or where
will it now expand?
There is the rise of a vast surplus population inhabiting a "planet
of slums,"4 alienated from the productive economy, thrown
into the margins, and subject to sophisticated systems of social control
and to destruction – to a mortal cycle of dispossession-exploitation-exclusion.
This includes prison-industrial and immigrant-detention complexes, omnipresent
policing, militarised gentrification, and so on;
There is a disjuncture between a globalising economy and a nation-state
based system of political authority. Transnational state apparatuses
are incipient and have not been able to play the role of what social scientists
refer to as a "hegemon," or a leading nation-state that has enough power
and authority to organise and stabilise the system. The spread of weapons
of mass destruction and the unprecedented militarisation of social life
and conflict across the globe makes it hard to imagine that the system can
come under any stable political authority that assures its reproduction.
Global Police State
How have social and political forces worldwide responded to crisis? The
crisis has resulted in a rapid political polarisation in global society.
Both right and left-wing forces are ascendant. Three responses seem to be in
dispute.
One is what we could call "reformism from above." This elite reformism is
aimed at stabilising the system, at saving the system from itself and from more
radical responses from below. Nonetheless, in the years following the 2008 collapse
of the global financial system it seems these reformers are unable (or unwilling)
to prevail over the power of transnational financial capital. A second response
is popular, grassroots and leftist resistance from below. As social and political
conflict escalates around the world there appears to be a mounting global revolt.
While such resistance appears insurgent in the wake of 2008 it is spread very
unevenly across countries and regions and facing many problems and challenges.
Yet another response is that I term 21stcentury fascism.5
The ultra-right is an insurgent force in many countries. In broad
strokes, this project seeks to fuse reactionary political power with transnational
capital and to organise a mass base among historically privileged sectors of
the global working class – such as white workers in the North and middle
layers in the South – that are now experiencing heightened insecurity and the
specter of downward mobility. It involves militarism, extreme masculinisation,
homophobia, racism and racist mobilisations, including the search for scapegoats,
such as immigrant workers and, in the West, Muslims. Twenty-first century
fascism evokes mystifying ideologies, often involving race/culture supremacy
and xenophobia, embracing an idealised and mythical past. Neo-fascist culture
normalises and glamorises warfare and social violence, indeed, generates a fascination
with domination that is portrayed even as heroic.
The need for dominant groups around the world to secure widespread, organised
mass social control of the world's surplus population and rebellious forces
from below gives a powerful impulse to projects of 21st century fascism. Simply
put, the immense structural inequalities of the global political economy cannot
easily be contained through consensual mechanisms of social control. We have
been witnessing transitions from social welfare to social control states around
the world. We have entered a period of great upheavals, momentous changes and
uncertainties. The only viable solution to the crisis of global capitalism is
a massive redistribution of wealth and power downward towards the poor majority
of humanity along the lines of a 21st century democratic socialism, in which
humanity is no longer at war with itself and with nature.
About the Author
William I. Robinson is professor of sociology, global and
international studies, and Latin American studies, at the University of California-Santa
Barbara. Among his many books are Promoting Polyarchy (1996),
Transnational Conflicts (2003), A Theory of Global Capitalism
(2004), Latin America and Global Capitalism (2008),
and
Global Capitalism and the Crisis of Humanity (2014).
A pretty devious scheme -- creating difficulty for the government neoliberal
wanted to depose by pushing neoliberal reforms via IMF and such. They channeling
the discontent into uprising against the legitimate government. Similar process
happened with Yanukovich in Ukraine.
Notable quotes:
"... the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians ..."
"... it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt. ..."
"... President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison. ..."
"... Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end in itself. ..."
"... No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi, but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing what they preached. ..."
"... According to the European model of diplomacy imposed upon the globe, countries have interests not friends. ..."
"... A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting. ..."
"... Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist. ..."
"... On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous sadists in his crew. ..."
"... This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed. ..."
"... you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting firearms. ..."
"... The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited by (((foreign powers))) ..."
"... This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years ago Syria was a peaceful country. ..."
"... Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick countries do sick things. ..."
"... no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate on this naked truth. ..."
"... when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all other rights. ..."
"... This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch with US, Saudi etc $$$s. ..."
"... I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against humanity, crimes of war. ..."
"... As one of the bloggers rightly stated Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. ..."
"... If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually a compliment to Assad. Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective power around. Russia was still busy recovering. ..."
"... As demeter said Posted by: Demeter @14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money. Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started, if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils, and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition. ..."
"... Salafism is Racism. It de-egitimizes the entire anti Assad revolution. ..."
"... Wesley Clark's "seven countries in five years" transcript for anyone who has forgotten: http://genius.com/General-wesley-clark-seven-countries-in-five-years-annotated ..."
"... the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments to use extremists as a weapon. ..."
"... Furthermore, Debsisdead sets up the same "binary division" that he says he opposes by tarnishing those who oppose using extremists as a weapon of state as Assad loving racists. The plot was described by Sy Hersh in 2007 in "The Redirection" . ..."
"... The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels, or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional, diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish. ..."
"... "the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree. ..."
"... It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years, from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau, in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually had. ..."
"... It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style religious dictatorship on Syria. ..."
"... The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial problem. ..."
"... All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing. If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes upon each other. We've not evolved here. ..."
"... t in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries. ..."
"... Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory, the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place. ..."
"... Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government. ..."
"... There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil. But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's government would have won this war quite a while ago. ..."
"... And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live. ..."
"... Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire! ..."
"... I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient' and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and articles have been written explicitly defining it. ..."
"... American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus and let the market run things. ..."
"... The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice. The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative. ..."
"... The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock news. ..."
"... The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's Neuschwanstein. ..."
"... I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971 to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do not know. ..."
"... Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well. ..."
"... I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism" when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. ..."
"... Manifest Destiny is fundamentalism. ..."
"... "Full Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in nature. ..."
"... I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started. Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls in the vice and all. ..."
"... He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know this very well. ..."
"... Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors know that as a fact. ..."
"... if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly. ..."
"... If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without foreign help. ..."
"... OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097 ..."
"... And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA). He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari ..."
"... of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files", assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof). ..."
"... i seriously doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings. they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance of how the region is. ..."
"... also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european "powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary. ..."
"... Look I know the MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and contributors. ..."
"... The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful). ..."
"... Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism besides the Kurds. ..."
"... There's no way to a solution for the Syrian people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control. ..."
"... As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people. In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia, etc., etc. ..."
"... So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil", corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved, nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter. ..."
"... Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem. This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist form of Islam. ..."
"... Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control. People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired on police and civilians. ..."
"... I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government. ..."
"... There were a lot of people posting how Bashar al Assad was doing full neoliberalism. And at was true. ..."
"... So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA, pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife' (sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.) ..."
It is sad to see so many are so locked into their particular views that they
see any offering of an alternative as 'neoliberal' or laughable or - if it weren't
so serious - Zionist.
1/ I do not see the Syrian civil war as racist or race based, I do believe
however that the rejection of all Islamic fundamentalism as being entirely comprised
of 'headchoppers' is racist down to its core. It is that same old same old whitefella
bullshit which refuses to consider other points of view on their own terms but
considers everything through the lens of 'western' culture which it then declares
wanting and discards.
2/ Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked
off the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians. I realize many have
quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue
- mostly because he is seen to be standing up to American imperialism. That
is a virtuous position but it doesn't make President Assad virtuous of himself
and neither does it reflect the reality that when push came to shove Assad put
his position ahead of the people of Syria and kissed neoliberal butt.
3/ President Assad revealed his stupidity when he didn't pay attention
to what happens to a leader who has previously been featured as a 'tyrant' in
western media if he lets the neoliberals in: They fawn & scrape all the while
developing connections to undermine him/her. If the undermining is ineffective
there is no backing off. The next option is war. The instances are legion from
President Noriega of Panama to President Hussein of Iraq to Colonel Ghaddaffi
of Libya - that one really hurts as the Colonel was a genuinely committed and
astute man. Assad is just another hack in comparison.
4/ These Syrian leaders are politicians, they suffer the same flaws of
politicians across the world. They are power seekers who inevitably come to
regard the welfare of their population as a means to an end rather than an end
in itself.
5/ My Syrians friends are an interesting bunch drawn from a range of people
currently living inside and outside of Syria. Some longer term readers might
recall that I'm not American, don't live in America and nowadays don't visit
much at all. The first of the 'refugee' Syrians I got to know, although refugee
is a misnomer since my friend came here on a migrant's visa because his skills
are in demand, is the grandchild of Palestinian refugees - so maybe he is a
refugee but not in the usual sense. Without going into too many specifics as
this is his story not mine, he was born and lived in a refugee camp which was
essentially just another Damascus suburb. As he puts it, although a Palestinian
at heart, he was born in Syria and when he thinks of home it is/was Damascus.
All sides in the conflict claimed to support Palestinian liberation, yet he
and his family were starved out of their homes by both Syrian government militias
and the FSA.
When he left he was initially a stateless person because even though he was
born in Syria he wasn't entitled to Syrian citizenship. He bears no particular
grudge against the government there but he told me once he does wish they were
a lot smarter.
On the other hand he also understands why the people fighting the government
are doing so. I'm not talking about the leadership of course (see above - pols
are pols) but the Syrians who just couldn't take the fading future and the petty
oppression by assholes any longer.
6/ No one denies that the opposition have been used and abused by FUKUSi,
but that of itself does not invalidate the very real issues that persuaded them
to resist an austerity imposed from above by assholes who weren't practicing
what they preached.
I really despair at the mindset which reduces everything to a binary division
- if group A are the people I support they must all be wonderful humans and
group B those who are fighting Group A are all evil assholes.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even though they
have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause) then everyone in Group
B must be pro-Zionist even though I don't know what they say about it (the leadership
of the various resistance groups are ME politicians and therefore most claim
to also support Palestinian independence). Yes assholes in the opposition have
done sleazy deals with Israel over Golan but the Ba'ath administration has done
similar opportunist sell outs over the 40 years when the situation demanded
it.
I fucking hate that as much as anyone else who despises the ersatz state
of Israel, but the reality is that just about every ME leader has put expedience
ahead of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't. Why do they? That is what all pols and diplomats
do not just Arab ones. According to the European model of diplomacy imposed
upon the globe, countries have interests not friends.
As yet no alternative to that model has succeeded since any attempt to do
so has been rejected with great violence. The use of hostages offered by each
party to guarantee a treaty was once an honorable solution, the hostages were
well treated and the security they afforded reduced conflict - if Oblamblam
had to put up one of his daughters to guarantee a deal does anyone think he
would break it as easily as he currently does? Yet the very notion of hostages
is considered 'terrorism' in the west. But I digress.
The only points I wanted to make was the same as those I have already made:
A solution which reduces numbers of humans killed is worth attempting.
Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or foreign
mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are too
stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever it
was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure in the
knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination and Zionism
but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?
Posted by b on September 12, 2016 at 03:33 AM |
Permalink
Plus one more - it is humorous and saddening to see people throw senseless
name-calling into the mix. It is the method preferred by those who are
too stupid and ill informed to develop a logical point of view.
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,
i see exactly the same.
This war is about destroying real history, civilization, culture
and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in that region
wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it. Most Islamic,Christian,
Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
you make some good points concerning Assad flirting with neoliberalism
however, i don't know how you call an opposition 'moderate' when its toting
firearms.
The protests against Assad were moderate, and to his credit Assad
was willing to meet them halfway. However, this situation was exploited
by (((foreign powers)))
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have ended
a long time ago.
This is not about "good or evil", this is about TOW missiles made in
USA against T-55, Saudi money for mercenaries, Israeli regional ambitions
and so on. Syria is another country that the US wants to destroy. Six years
ago Syria was a peaceful country.
Allegedly president Assad is a bad guy but Erdogan, Netanyhu and
bin Saud are noble and good men. Who believes in such nonsense? The US has
become similar to Israel and this is the reason why "Assad must go". Sick
countries do sick things.
If either side were so simplistically good or evil it would have
ended a long time ago
no, because one side is so simplistically evi l(armed to the fucking
teeth and resolved to violent insurrection!!!), if Assad didn't have the
backing of the vast majority of his people and of his overreached army it
would have ended a long time ago and Syria would be a failed state flailing
away in the grip of anarchy. perhaps your Syrian 'friends' should meditate
on this naked truth.
If group A claim to support Palestinian self determination (even
though they have done sweet fuck all to actually advance that cause)...
when that shitty little country called Israel was squeezed onto the
map in 1948, Syria welcomed Palestinian refugees with open arms by the hundreds
of thousands. no, they didn't grant them citizenship, but prettty much all
other rights.
so thanks, b, for headlining this obfuscatory drivel. thus, for posterity.
This whole nightmare was dreamed up from within the US Embassy in Damascus
in 2006. Bashir al Assad was too popular in the country and the region for
America's liking, so they plotted to get rid of him. Near all the organ
eating, child killing, head chopping "moderate" opposition are from other
countries, those that are Syrian, as was the case in Iraq, mostly live outside
the country and are not in touch with main stream opinion, but very in touch
with US, Saudi etc $$$s.
Here again is the reality of where this all started, article from 2012
(below.). And never forget Wesley Clark's Pentagon informant after 9/11
of attacking "seven countries in five years." Those in chaos through US
attacks or attempted "liberation" were on the list, a few more to go and
they are a bit behind schedule. All responsible for this Armageddon should
be answering for their actions in shackles and yellow jump suits in The
Hague.
|~b~ Thank you for putting Debsisdead's comment @ 135 prior post into readable
form. Failing eyesight made the original in its extended format difficult
to read.
Reference Debsisdead comment:
Your definition of neoliberal would be nice to have. Usually it is used
as ephemerally as a mirage, to appear in uncountable numbers of meaning.
Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity? Neoliberal seems best used as
the reactionary faux historic liberalism as applied to economic agendas
(neocon is the political twin for neoliberal, libertarian had been previously
been co-opted).
Instead of F•UK•US•i, maybe a F•UK•UZoP would suffice (France•United
Kingdom•United Zionist occupied Palestine) given the spheres of influence
involved.
Agree with your observations about the limited mentality of dualism;
manichaeism is a crutch for disabled minds unaware and blind to subtle distinctions
that comprise spectrums.
Though not paying close attention to Syrian history, it was Hafez al-Assad
who became master of the Syrian Ba'athist coup d'état and politically stabilised
Syria under Ba'athist hegemony. In the midst of the 'Arab-spring' zeitgeist,
an incident involving a child with security forces led to a genuine public
outcry being suppressed by state security forces. This incident, quickly
settled became cause célčbre for a subsequent revolt, initially by SAA dissidents
but soon thereafter by external interests having the motive of regime overthrow
of Syrian Ba'athists and their leadership. Other narratives generally make
little sense though may contain some factors involved; the waters have been
sufficiently muddied as to obscure many original factors - possibly Bashar
al-Assad's awareness of his security forces involvement in US rendition
and torture as to compromise his immediately assuming command of his security
forces in the original public protest over the child. Those things are now
well concealed under the fogs of conflict and are future historians to sort.
I consider Bashar al-Assad the legitimate Syrian President and attempts
to remove him by external interests as grounds for charges of crimes against
humanity, crimes of war.
Classic western sheeple disconnect. As one of the bloggers rightly stated
Wesley Clarke spilled the whole beans and revealed their true ilk. 7 countries
in 5 years. How coincidental post 9/11. This total disconnect with global
realities is a massive problem in the west cause the 86000 elite /oligarchs
r pushing for a war with both the bears/ Russian and Chinese along with
Iran. These countries have blatantly stated they will not be extorted by
fascism. All western countries r all living a Corporate state. Just look
all around every facet of our society is financialised. Health ,education
, public services.
Wake up cause if we dont we will be extinct Nuclear winter
I am of syrian origin, born in Beirut Lebanon.
My family lived a happy life there, but shortly after I was born, Israel
invaded Lebanon, and my family fled and emigrated to Europe, I was 1 year
old.
I call major bullshit on your piece.
If you say "Assad was flirting with Neo Liberalism" then this is actually
a compliment to Assad.
Why? Because he wanted to win time. He wanted to prevent the same happening
to Syria that has happened to Iraq. At that time there was no other protective
power around. Russia was still busy recovering.
What do you think would
have happened had Assad not pretended he would go along? Syria would have
been bombed to pieces right then. Why did Assad change his mind later and
refused to cooperate with Qatar, Saudi and US? Because the balance of power
was about to change. Iran and Russia were rising powers (mainly in the military
field).
I could say so much more. I stopped reading your post when you mentioned
that your Palestinian friend ( I know the neighbourhood in Damascus, it
is called Yarmouk and it is indeed a very nice suburb) does not have Syrian
citizenship. Do you know why Palaestinians don't get Syrian citizenship?
Because they are supposed to return to their homeland Palestine.
And they can only do that as Palestinians and not as Syrians. That is
why.
And that so many (not all!) Palestinians chose to backstab the country
that has hosted them and fed them and gave them a life for so many years,
and fought side by side with islamist terrorists and so called Free Syrian
Army traitors is a human error, is based on false promises, is lack of character
and honour and understanding of the broader context and interests. How will
some of these fools and misguided young men feel when they realise that
they have played right into the hand of their biggest enemy, the Zionists.
I would like to remind some of you who might have forgotten that famous
incident described by Robert Fisk years ago, when a Syrian Officer told
him upon the capture of some of these "freedom fighters' on Syrian soil,
one of them said: "I did not know that Palestine was so beautiful", not
realising that he was not fighting in Palestine but in Syria.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic fundamentalists
call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living according to their
rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver to live.
Though reluctant to get involved in what seems to be for some a personal
spat, I would like to point out one fundemental point that renders the above
published and counter arguments difficult to comprehend which is that they
lack a time frame.
The 'Syrian opposition' or what ever you wish to call it is not now what
it was 6 years ago. Thus, for me, at least, it is not possible to discuss
the make up of the opposition unless there are some time frames applied.
An example is a Syrian who was an officer in the FSA but fled to Canada
last year. He fled the Syrian conflict over 3 years ago to Turkey -which
is how I know him - where he did not continue ties with any group. He simply
put his head down and worked slavishly living at his place of work most
of the time to escape to Canada - he feared remaining in Istanbul. He claimed
that he and others had all been taken in by promises and that the conflict
had been usurped by extremists. He was not a headchopper, he was not the
beheader of 12 year old children. He was and is a devout Muslim. He was
a citizen of Aleppo city. I know him and of him through other local Syrians
in Istanbul and believe his testimony. I mention him only to highlight that
the conflict is not what it was, not what some intended it to be ... Nor
is it what some paint it to be. There are many who fight whomever attacks
their community be they pro / anti Government. - Arabs especially have extended
village communities/ tribes and pragmatically they 'agree' to be occupied
as long as they are allowed to continue their lives in peace. If conflict
breaks out they fight whomever is necessary.
DebIsDead makes some very excellent points in his/her comments. They
deserve appraisal and respectful response. It is also clear thar he/she
is writing defensively in some parts and those detract from what is actually
being said.
The piece suffers from several errors. As demeter said Posted by: Demeter
@14, the flirrting with neoliberalism bought them time as neocons were slavering
for a new target. It also made the inner circle a ridiculous amount of money.
Drought made life terrible for many rural syrians. When the conflict started,
if you read this website you'd notice people wondering what was going on
and as facts unfolded. realizing that Assad was the lesser of two evils,
and as the war has gone on, look like an angel in comparison to the opposition.
You can't change the fact that it took less than 2 years for the opposition
to be dominated by both foreign and domestic takfiris who wanted to impose
saudi style culture on an open relatively prosperous cosmopolitan country.
They've succeeded in smashing it to pieces. Snuff your balanced account
and your bold anti racism
Debsisdead sets up a strawman - racism against Islamic fundamentalists
and validity of opposition against Assad - and uses this to sidestep
that the armed conflict originated with scheming by foreign governments
to use extremists as a weapon.
"If you want to call me a Zionist lackey of the imperialists or whatever
it was go right ahead - it is only yourself who you tarnish, I'm secure
in the knowledge of my own work against imperialism, corporate domination
and Zionism but perhaps you, who have a need to throw aspersions are not?"
Passive-aggressive much?
The fight IS "binary". You support Assad and his fighters, the true rebels,
or you don't. Calling Assad a "hack" is a slander of a veritable hero. Watch
his interviews. Assad presides over a multi-cultural, multi-confessional,
diverse, secular state, PRECISELY what the Reptilians claim they cherish.
"the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting neoliberal strictures
ahead of the welfare of Syrians." - on that we can agree.
It continues to annoy me that the primary trigger for the civil war in
Syria has been totally censored from the press. The government deliberately
ignited a population explosion, making the sale or possession of condoms
or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing that it was every woman's
patriotic duty to have six kids. The population doubled every 18 years,
from 5 million to 10 million to 20 million and then at 22 the water ran
out and things fells apart. Syria is a small country mostly arid plateau,
in principle it could be developed to support even more people just not
in that amount of time and with the resources that the Syrians actually
had.
No the issue was not 'climate change'. The aquifers in Syria had been
falling for years, even when rainfall was above normal. Don't blame the
weather.
"The more the merrier" - tell me exactly how people having more children
than they can support creates wealth? It doesn't and it never has.
Whenever governments treat their people as if they were cattle, demanding
that they breed the 'correct' number of children rather than making the
decision based on their own desires and judgement of how many they can support,
the result is always bad.
Assad treated the people of Syria as if they were cattle. Surely this
deserves mention?
Cultural "left" bullshit at its best. Cultural "leftists" don't need to
know any hostory or have any understanding of a political issue: it's sufficient
to pull out a few details from the NATO press and apply their grad school
"oppression" analysis.
Thanks to b for posting the comment of Debs is Dead. The point I would take
issue with is where he states "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO,
adopted President Assad as some sort of model of virtue. . ."
I don't believe this is a correct realization. I think the many to whom
he refers know very well that any person in leadership of a country can
be found to have flaws, major and minor, and even to have more of such than
the average mortal. The crucial counterpoint, however, which used to be
raised fairly often, is that it is the acceptance of the majority of the
people governed by such leaders that ought to be the international norm
for diplomatic relations.
I respect the knowledge DiD has gained from his Syrian friends and contacts.
But I also remember a man called Chilabi and am very leery of destabilization
attempts this country has been engaged in lo these many generations, using
such displaced persons as surrogates. And rather than properly mourn the
9/11 victims and brave firemen and rescuers of that terrible day, I find
myself mourning the larger tragedy of unnecessary wars launched as a consequence
of our collective horror at that critical moment in our history.
After making sound point about black-and-white worldview being unrealistic,
the guy goes full retard. Position towards Palestinians as the one and only
criteria to judge ME developments... C'mon, it's not even funny.
And while started from a "My Syrian friends" then he goes on reasoning on
behalf of one single ex-Palestinian ex-Syrian guy...
Looks like self-revelation of a kind. Some guy, sitting in Israel, or whatever,
waging informational warfare for the Mossad/CIA/NGO who pays his rent.
"The government deliberately ignited a population explosion, making the
sale or possession of condoms or birth control pills illegal and propagandizing
that it was every woman's patriotic duty to have six kids."
DiD: "I realize many have quite foolishly IMO, adopted President Assad as
some sort of model of virtue. . ." The big reveal is that DiD can't name
a single contributor here who has written that Assad is "some sort of model
of virtue."
It doesn't mean he's a saint that Assad is leading the very popular 'secular/multi-confessional
Syria' resistance against an extremely well-funded army primarily of non-Syrians
who are mainly 'headchoppers' who will stop at nothing to impose Saudi-style
religious dictatorship on Syria.
The 'moderate' opposition to Assad has
largely disappeared (back into the loyal opposition that does NOT want a
Saudi-style state imposed on Syria), but those who remain in armed rebellion
surely must know that they are a powerless, very small portion of what is
in fact mercenary army completely subservient to the needs and directives
of its primary funders/enablers, the US and Saudi Arabia. So whatever their
original noble intentions, they've become part of the Saudi/US imperial
problem.
Thanks for addressing the problem of angry comments by some posters who
just want to throw verbal grenades is unacceptable. I hope this site continues
to be a great source for sharing information and ideas.
Why in God's name was this pointless comment by Debs is Dead promoted this
way?!!! The only point being made, that I can see, is that the war in Syria
does have some legitimate issues at its root. WELL OF COURSE IT DOES. The
Hegemon rarely to never makes up civil unrest in countries it wants to overthrow
out of whole cloth. They take some dispute that is already there and ramp
it up; this process escalates until it turns into some form of a proxy war
or coup. In other words, the domestic political process is DISTORTED until
it is no longer remotely recognizable as a domestic process.
So sure, if the US and its allies had not stoked political factionism
in Syria into a global proxy war, we could discuss the fine details of the
Syrian domestic process very usefully. At this point, though, IT IS IRRELEVANT.
I do agree on one point: Assad joins the horrendous list of overlords
who thought they could make a deal with the Hegemon on their own terms.
Assad will pay for that mistake with his life very soon I would guess and
I think that Putin will too, though that might take a little longer. If
they had chosen to stand on principle as Chavez did, maybe they would be
dead as Chavez is (possibly done in, who knows), but they'd be remembered
with honor as Chavez is.
It is a shame no one stood up for Libya, for a surviving Gaddafi would have
emerged considerably stronger - as Assad eventually will.
Whatever genuine opposition there was has long been hijacked by opportunistic
takfiris, wahabbists and there various paymasters. And so as ruralito says
@25: "The fight IS "binary...". The fight is indeed binary, the enemy is
plural. Assad versus the many appearances of both the first and fourth kind.
Appearances to the mind are of four kinds.
Things either are what they appear to be;
or they neither are, nor appear to be;
or they are, and do not appear to be;
or they are not, and yet appear to be.
Rightly to aim in all these cases is the wise man's task. ~Epictetus
Where there is obfuscation lay the enemy, hence Russia's long game of
identification.
Does anyone remember the essay posted on this site a while back titled "The
Feckless Left?" I don't believe B posted it, but if memory serves it's posted
front and centre on the navigation bar beside this piece?
It really hammers those people like Tariq Ali, who while surely having
legitimate grievances against the Assad govt, opened the door for legitimation
of foreign sponsored war. They thought that funneling millions of dollars
worth of training, weapons and mercs would open the door for another secular
govt, but this time much 'better.' Surely.
No one thinks Assad is great. I really have trouble understanding where
that notion comes from. It's just that the alternative is surely much worse.
Lots of people didn't like Ghaddafi but jesus, I'm sure most Libyans would
wish they could turn back the clock (at the risk of putting words in their
mouths). It's not binary, no one sees this as good vs evil, its just that
its become so painfully obvious at this point that if the opposition wins
Syria will be so fucked in every which way. Those with real, tangible grievances
are never going to have their voices heard. It will become the next Libya,
except the US and it's clients will actually have a say in what's left of
the political body in the country if you could even label it that at that
point (which is quite frightenening in my eyes. Libya is already a shit
show and they don't have much of a foothold there besides airstrikes and
that little coastal base for the GNA to have their photo ops).
I find it ironic that when criticisms are levelled at Assad from the
left they usually point out things that had he done more of, and worse of,
he probably would be free of this situation and still firmly in power. If
he had bowed down to Qatar and the KSA/USA I wonder if the 'armed opposition'
would still have their problems with him? That's the ultimate irony to me.
If he had accepted the pipelines, the privatization regimes, etc. would
they still be hollering his name? It's very sad that even with the balancing
act he did his country has been destroyed. Even if the SAA is able to come
out on top at this point, the country is wholly destroyed. What's even the
point of a having a 'legitimate' or 'illegitimate' opposition when they're
essentially fighting over scraps now. I'd be surprised if they could rebuild
the country in 120 years. Libya in my eyes will never be what it once was.
It'll never have the same standards of living after being hit with a sledgehammer.
I don't mean to be ironic or pessimistic, its just a sad state of affairs
all around and everyday it seems more and more unlikely that any halfway
decent solution for the POPULATION OF SYRIA, not Assad, will come out of
this.. It's like, I'm no nationalist, but in many countries I kind of would
rather that than the alternative. Ghaddafi wasn't great but his people could've
been a lot worse of - and ARE a lot worse of now. I'm no Assad fan, but
my god look what the alternative is here. If it wasnt 95% foreign sponsored
maybe id see your point.
Read the essay posted on the left there. "Syria, the Feckless Left" IIRC.
I thought that summed up my thoughts well enough.
And guys, even if you agree with me please refrain from the name calling.
It makes those of you with a legitimate rebuttal seem silly and wrong. I've
always thought MoA was so refreshing because it was (somewhat) free of that.
At least B is generating discussion. I kind of appreciate that. It's nice
to hear ither views, even if they are a little unrealistic and pro violent
and anti democratic.
An example of an armed opposition with legitimate grievances that is
far from perfect but still very sympathetic (in my eyes) is hizbollah. They
have real problems to deal with. While they recieve foreign sponsorship
they aren't a foreign group the way the Syrian opposition is. And they will
be all but destroyed when their supply lines from Syria are cut off. I wonder
how that fits in with OPs post.
What makes Debs is Dead's turgid comment so irrational is that it endorses
Regime Change in Syria as an ongoing, but necessary and inevitable, "good".
But in doing so it tip-toes around the fact that it doesn't matter how Evil
an elected President is, or is not, it's up to the the people who elected
him to decide when they've had enough. It most certainly is NOT Neoconned
AmeriKKKa's concern.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and counting)
hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
Whatever happened to the age old expression that one has to walk in someone
else's shoes to understand their walk in life?
In an all too obvious fashion, another arm chair expert is blessing the
world with his/her drivel.
To make it as concise as possible:
What would you have done in Assad's position? The U.S. is trying to annex
Syria since 1948 and never gave up on the plan to convert it to what the
neo-fascists turned Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and the Republic of
Yugoslavia - whereas Yemen is still in the making, together with Ukraine,
Turkey and Africa as a whole.
In the light of U.S. 'foreign policy', the piece reeks of the stench
of obfuscation.
Debs also 'forgot' to justify totally wrecking yet another of many ME
countries because of perceived and imaginary character flaws in a single
individual.
We shouldn't be surprised. Even a basic pragmatic approach to this conflict
has been lost by many in the one sided, over the top shower of faeces that
is the western MSM.
It does not compute; but then neither does "Israel's" 70 year (and
counting) hate crime, The Perpetual Palestinian Holohoax.
All that land, all that resource...and a unifying language. Amazing.
If only the Arab world could unite for the collective good of the region
we might witness a rogue state in an abrupt and full decline. A sad tactic of colonial powers over the years, setting the native tribes
upon each other. We've not evolved here.
It is impossible for any one of us to possess the whole picture, which is
why we pool our experience, and benefit from these discussions. The thing
I see at the root of the Syrian war is the process of ethnic cleansing.
In many cases that involve murderous prejudice, it erupts as civil war;
but in recent history the foreign policy of powerful nations is aimed at
sponsoring social disintegration within the borders of targeted countries.
Ethnic cleansing means destruction of culture, of historical memory,
the forced disappearance of communities that were rooted in a place.
The objectives of the perpetrators have nothing to do with the convictions
of the fundamentalists who do the dirty work; and the sectarian and mercenary
troops are merely the tools of those who are creating hell on earth.
I agree with what papa wrote at the top of this thread:
why you think your article is different from others senseless name-calling,[?]
i see exactly the same. This war is about destroying real history, civilization,
culture and replacing with fake. The war in Yemen is the same. Who in
that region wants to replace real history with fake. Think about it.
Most Islamic,Christian, Assyrian history is systematically being destroyed.
Compare President Assad's leadership to that of the western, or Saudi, sponsors
of terror; or measure his decisions against those of the hodgepodge of rebels
and mercenaries, with their endless internal squabbles and infighting. Assad
is so much more of a spokesman for the rights of sovereignty, and his words
carry more weight and outshine the banalities that spring from the mouths
of those who are paying the bills, and supplying weapons, and giving all
kinds of diplomatic comfort to the enemies of the Syrian government.
Debsisdead has always brought much food for thought to this watering
hole. I have always respected him, and I think he has a fine mind. Nonetheless,
despite the valuable contribution of this piece as a beginning place, in
which we might reevaluate some of our presumptions, I maintain there are
a few errors which stand out, and ought to be discussed.
I call into question these two points:
(1) Just because someone chooses an option that you disagree with does
not make them evil or headchoppers or Islamofacist.
Up thread @14, we were reminded of Robert Fisk's report about misdirected,
misinformed "freedom fighters" naively wandering around in Syria, while
thinking that they were fighting in Palestine. In this ruin of Syria, where
the well-intentioned are captured, or co-opted into evil acts against the
civilian population, --is it really incumbent upon us, --from where we sit,
to agonize over the motives of those who are committing the actual atrocities
against the defenseless? What is the point?
(2) On balance I would rather see Assad continue as leader of Syria
but I'm not so naive as to believe he is capable of finding a long term
resolution, or that there are not a good number of self interested murderous
sadists in his crew. By the same token I don't believe all of those
resisting the Ba'athist administration are headchopping jihadists or
foreign mercenaries. This war is about 5 years old. If either side were
so simplistically good or evil it would have ended a long time ago.
There is no need for sorting things into absolutes of good and evil.
But there is a condition under which fewer, a lot fewer, humans would have
died in Syria, Without foreign interference--money, weapons, and training--Assad's
government would have won this war quite a while ago.
And as for "Islamic Fundamentalism", it is this abnormal form of Islam
that is purely based on racism and not the other way around. Islamic
fundamentalists call everybody, and I mean everybody, who is not living
according to their rule a non-believer, a Takfiri, who does not deserver
to live.
Fundamentalism is never satisfied until it can become a tyranny over the
mind. Racism and fundamentalism are as American as apple pie. You have to
take a close look at who is pouring oil on this fire!
@9 I disagree with you in that neoliberalism is seriously not difficult to
define. It boils down to belief that public programs are bad/'inefficient'
and that society would be better served by privatizing many things(or even
everything) and opening services up to 'competition'. It's mainly just cover
for parasites to come in and get rich off of the masses misery. The 'neoliberalism
is just a snarl word' meme is incredibly stupid, since plenty of books and
articles have been written explicitly defining it.
"Having determined your definition of neoliberal, are you sure it WAS
neoliberal rather than a hegemonic entity?"
American economic hegemony is inherently neoliberal, and has been for
decades. The IMF is essentially an international loan shark that gives countries
money on the condition that they dismantle their public spending apparatus
and let the market run things.
I usually enjoy DiD's rants (rant in the nice sense), but in this case he
is wrong. His remarks are out of date.
No doubt he has Syrian friends in NZ, including the Syro-Palestinian
he mentions. They will have been living their past vision of Syria for some
time. Yes, back in 2011, there was a big vision of a future democratic Syria
among the intellectuals. However those who fight for the rebellion are not
middle class (who left) but rural Islamist Sunnis, who have a primitive
al-Qa'ida style view.
The Syrian civil war is quite like the Spanish civil war. It started
with noble republicans, including foreigners like Orwell, fighting against
nasty Franco, but finished with Stalin's communists fighting against Nazi-supported
fascists.
The situation is different now. One Syrian lady, who came to see me in
April, who lives in California, told me that her father, who was a big pre-war
oppositionist, now just wants to return to Syria to die. There's no question. if you want peace in Syria, Asad is the only choice.
The jihadis, who dominate the opposition, don't offer an alternative.
Noirette comes close to identifying one of the issues that kicked off
the conflict, that the Syrian government put staying in power via adopting
neoliberal strictures ahead of the welfare of Syrians.
The Ba'thist regime is a mafia of the family, not a dictatorship of Bashshar.
Evidently their own interest plays a premier role, but otherwise why not
in favour of the Syrian people? There's lot of evidence in favour of Syrian
peace.
The lesson of Viet Nam was to keep the dead and wounded off the six o'clock
news.
The jackals are going in. Another coup. Syria was on the list. Remap
the Middle East. Make it like Disney World. Israel as Mad King Ludwig's
Neuschwanstein.
Islam and its backward dictates, and Christianity with its backward dictates
and Manifest Destiny are problematic.
I may be white and I may be a fella but don't believe I'm in the fold as
described. Fundamentalists of any sort are free to believe as they will
but when they force it on others via gun, govt, societal pressures, violence
there's trouble. I've seen comparisons to the extremes from Christianity's
past with the excuse of Islam as being in its early years. No excuses. Fundies
out. But we don't see that in places like Saudi Arabia or Iran. Facts on
the ground rule. Iran had a bit more moderation but only under the tyrant
Shah. A majority may have voted for the Islamic Republic and all that entails
but what of the minority?
BTW, where are the stories (links) that show Bashar has embraced neoliberalism?
In the end, DiD reduced to pointing to two evils (with multi-facets) and
it looks like Assad is the lesser. But who can come up with a solution for
a country so divided and so infiltrated by outsiders? And here in the US,
look at the choice of future leaders that so many do not want. Where is
the one who will lead the US out of its BS? And who will vote for him/her?
Thanks to B for republishing the comment from Debsisdead. The comment raises
some issues about how people generally see the war in Syria, if they know
of it, as some sort of real-life video game substitute for bashing one side
or another.
I am not sure though that Debsisdead realises the full import of what
s/he has said and that much criticism s/he makes about comments in MoA comments
forums could apply equally to what s/he says and has said in the past.
I don't think anyone who comments here regularly ever assumed that Bashar
al Assad was a knight in white shining armour. Most of us are aware of how
he came to be President and that his father did rule the country from 1971
to 2000 with an iron fist. Some if not most also know that initially when
Bashar al Assad succeeded to the Presidency, he did have a reformist agenda
in mind. How well or not he succeeded in putting that across, what compromises
he had to make, who or what opposed him, how he negotiated his way between
and among various and opposed power structures in Syrian politics we do
not know.
Yes, I have trouble reconciling the fact that Bashar al Assad's government
did allow CIA renditioning with his reformist agenda in my own head. That
is something he will have to come to terms with in the future. I don't know
if Assad was naive, under pressure or willing, even eager in agreeing to
cooperate with the CIA, or trying to buy time to prepare for invasion once
Iraq was down. Whether Assad also realises that he was duped by the IMF
and World Bank in following their advice on economic "reforms" (such as
privatising Syria's water) is another thing as well.
But one thing that Debsisdead has overlooked is the fact that Bashar
al Assad is popular among the Syrian public, who returned him as President
in multi-candidate direct elections held in June 2014 with at least 88%
of the vote (with a turnout of 73%, better than some Western countries)
and who confirmed his popularity in parliamentary elections held in April
2016 with his Ba'ath Party-led coalition winning roughly two-thirds of seats.
The fact that Syrians themselves hold Assad in such high regard must
say something about his leadership that has endeared him to them. If as
Debsisdead suggests, Assad practises self-interested "realpolitik" like
so many other Middle Eastern politicians, even to the extent of offering
reconciliation to jihadis who lay down their weapons and surrender, how
has he managed to survive and how did Syria manage to hold off the jihadis
and US-Turkish intervention and supply before requesting Russian help?
Copeland @58: I don't see why you call the problem "Islamic fundamentalism"
when in fact it is Sunni fundamentalism. Admittedly it's tough to 'name'
the problem. I'm sure I speak for most here that the problem isn't fundamentalism
but 'warring imperialist fundamentalist and misogynist Sunni Islam' that
is the problem.
It'd be nice to have a brief and accurate way of saying
what this is: 'Saudi Arabia violently exporting its worst form of Islam'.
When people refer to Christian fundamentalism they use the broad term
as well. Nothing is otherwise wrong with denominational belief, if past
a certain point it is not fundamentalist. You say the problem is not fundamentalism,
but something else. Indeed, the problem is fundamentalism.
Manifest
Destiny is fundamentalism. There are even atheist fundamentalists. "Full
Spectrum Dominance" and other US Military doctrines are fundamentalist in
nature. We are awash in fundamentalism, consumerist fundamentalism, capitalist
fundamentalism. If we are unlucky and don't succeed in changing the path
we are on; then we will understand too late the inscription that appeared
in the Temple of Apollo: "Nothing too much".
They say that the first casualty of war is truth and from what I read in
comments such a mental state prevails among readers, they see Assad, quite
reasonably, as the only one who can end this horrible war and the only one
who is really interested in doing so while US and even seemingly Russia
seems to treat this conflict as a instrument of global geopolitical struggle
instigated by US imperial delusions.
But of course one cannot escape conclusion that although provoked by
the CIA operation Bashir Assad failed years befor 2011 exactly because,
living in London, did not see neoliberalism as an existential threat ad
his father did but a system that has its benefits and can be dealt with,
so for a short while Saddam, Gaddafi and Mubarak thought while they were
pampered by western elites.
Now Assad is the only choice I'd Syrians want to keep what would resemble
unified Syrian state since nobody else seems to care.
I have no doubt that Assad was little more than a crude Arab strongman/dictator
prince back in the 2011 when the uprising started.
Since then, he has evolved into a committed, engaged defender of his
country against multilateral foreign aggression, willingly leaving his balls
in the vice and all.
He could have fled the sinking ship many times so far. Instead, he decided
to stay and fight the Takfiri river flowing in through the crack, and risk
going down with the ship he inherited. The majority of the Syrians know
this very well.
Bashar of 2016 (not so much the one of 5 1/2 years ago) would not only
win the next free elections, but destroy any opposition. The aggressors
know that as a fact.
Which is precisely why he "must go" prior to any such elections. He would
be invincible.
"This war is about 5 years old. If either side were so simplistically
good or evil it would have ended a long time ago."
Question to you:
if Syria had control over its borders with Turkey, Israel, Jordan and
Iraq would the war have ended a long time ago ? Answer honestly.
If yes, then the so-called "opposition" of the union of headchoppers
does not represent a significant portion of the Syrian people. Were it otherwise
Assad wouldnt be able to survive a single year, let alone 5. With or without
foreign help.
And that, my friend, may be the biggest oft ignored cui bono of the entire
Syrian war.
If Assad goes:
Syria falls apart. Western Golan has no more debtor nation to be returned
to as far as the UN go. It immediately becomes fee simple property of the
occupying entity, for as long as the occupier shall exist (and, with Western
Golan included, that might be a bit longer perchance...).
Hizbullah loses both its best supply line and all the strategic depth
it might have as well as the only ally anywhere close enough to help. It
becomes a military non-entity. Who benefits?
I think this cui bono (and a double one at that!) is a $100 difficulty
level question, although it feels like a $64k one.
Best opinion post I've yet read on this site. "Binary division," also very
much affects the U.S. election. If you hate Hillary, you must just LOVE
Trump, even though many of the best reasons to hate her--her arrogance,
her incompetence, her phoniness, her lies, her and Bill's relentless acquisition
of great wealth, etc.--are also reasons to hate Trump. Assad is a bastard,
Putin is a bastard, Saddam was a bastard--but so are Obama, Netanyahu, Hollande,
etc. Is it REALLY that hard to figure out?
@ 62 john... we'll have to wait for debs to explain how all that (in your
link) adds up, so long as no one calls him any name/s.... i'd like to say
'the anticipation of debs commenting again is killing me', but regardless,
killing innocent people in faraway lands thanks usa foreign policy is ongoing..
OK here is an interesting article from 2011 on Abdallah Dardari, the fellow
who persuaded Bashar al Assad to adopt the disastrous neoliberal economic
reforms that not only ruined Syria's economy and the country's agriculture
in particular but also created an underclass who resented the reforms and
who initially joined the "rebels". http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/2097
And where is Dardari now? He jumped ship in 2011 and went to Beirut to
work for the UN's Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia (ESCWA).
He seems like someone to keep a watchful eye on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_Dardari
not even sure where to begin...this article is barely worthy of a random
facebook post and contains a roughly even mix of straw men and stuff most
people already know and don't need dictated to them by random internet folks.
of COURSE assad flirted with the west. between housing cia rendition
houses and the less-than-flattering aspects of the wikileaks "syria files",
assad and/or his handlers (family and/or military) have tried a little too
hard to "assimilate" to western ideals (or the lack thereof).
i seriously
doubt they will make that mistake again. they saw what happened to al-qaddafi
after he tried to play nice and mistook western politicians for human beings.
they've learned their lesson and become more ruthless but they were always
machiavellians because they have to be. not an endorsement, just an acceptance
of how the region is.
and then there's "just about every ME leader has put expedience ahead
of principle with regard to Palestine. Colonel Ghadaffi would be the only
leader I'm aware of who didn't". that might be a surprise to nasrallah and
a fair share of iran's power base. i'd also say "expedience" is an odd way
to describe the simple choice of avoiding israeli/saudi/US aggression in
the short term since the alternative would be what we're seeing in syria
and libya as we speak. again, not an endorsment of their relative cowardice.
just saying i understand the urge to avoid salfist proxy wars.
[also: israel, the saudis (along with qatar and the other GCC psychopaths
in supporting capacity) and the US are the main actors and throwing european
"powers" into the circle of actual power does them an undue favor by ignoring
their status as pathetic vassal states. "FrUkDeUSZiowhatever" isn't necessary.]
as for "calling all islamic fundamentalism" "headchopping" being "racist",
be sure not to smoke around all those straw men. never mind the inanity
of pretending that all islamic "fundamentalism" is the same. never mind
conflating religion with ethnicity. outside of typical western sites that
lean to the right and are open about it few people would say anything like
that. maybe you meant to post this on glenn beck's site?
whatever. hopefully there won't be more guest posts in the future.
I read this site regularly and give thanks to the numerous intelligent posters
who share their knowledge of the middle east and Syria in particular. Still,
I do try to read alternative views to understand opposition perspectives
no matter how biased or damaging these might they appear to the readers
of this blog. So in the wake of recent agreements, I try find out what the
mainstream media is saying about the Ahrar al-Sham refusal to recognize
the US/Russia sponsored peace plan....and type that into google.......and
crickets. All that comes up is a single Al-Masdar report.
Look I know the
MSM is utterly controlled - but the extent of that control still shocks
at times. It is simply not possible to be "informed" by any normal definition
of the word anymore without the alternative media - and for that reason
this site serves a valuable purpose and I once again thank the host and
contributors.
The irony is, Assad is 10x smarter and bigger person than Debs. Yes, he
made some mistakes, but if not "flirting with neoliberalism", war against
Syria would have started many years earlier, when Resistance wasnt ready
one bit (neither Russia, nor Iran, while on the other hand US was more powerful).
The other ironic point, Debs is guilty of many things he blames other
for, hence comments about his hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness.
The essay I refered to earlier at 45/46 from this site I'll post below.
I think it has a lot of bearing on what DiD is implying here. It's DEFINITELY
worth a read and is probably the reason why I started appreciating this
site in the first place.
Support for rebel groups was misguided at best at the beginning of the
war. One could conceivably not appreciate the capacity of the KSA/USA/Quatar/Israel
to influence and control and create these groups. Jesus it's hard for me
to think of a single local opposition group that isnt drenched in fanaticism
besides the Kurds. But now that we understand the makeup and texture of
these groups much more and to continue support, even just in the most minor
of ways, is really disheartening.
There's no way to a solution for the Syrian
people, the population not imported that is, if these groups win. I hate
to be so binary but its so naive in my eyes to think anything good will
come from the long arm of the gulf countries and the USA taking control.
WORTH A READ. ONE OF THE BEST THINGS EVER POSTED ON MoA.
Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM |
79
The problem with this post is simple: all this might have been true back
when the insurgency STARTED. TODAY it is UTTERLY IRRELEVANT.
As I've said repeatedly, the GOAL of the Syria crisis for the Western
elites, Israel and the ME dictatorships is to take Syria OUT by any means
necessary in order to get to IRAN. Nothing else matters to these people.
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
So, yes, right NOW the whole story is about US elites, Zionist "evil",
corrupt monarchs, and scumbag fanatics, etc., etc. Until THAT is resolved,
nothing about how Syria is being run is going to matter.
I don't know and have never read ANYONE who is a serious commenter on
this issue - and by that I mean NOT the trolls that infest every comment
thread on every blog - who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At
this point it does not matter. He personally does not matter. What matters
is that Syria is not destroyed, so that Hizballah is not destroyed, so that
Iran is not destroyed, so that Israel rules a fragmented Middle East and
eventually destroys the Palestinians and that the US gets all the oil for
free. This is what Russia is trying to defend, not Assad.
And if this leaves a certain percentage of Syrian citizens screwed over
by Assad, well, they should have figured that out as much as Assad should
have figured out that he never should have tried to get along with the US.
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
In the same vein, nothing else matters to ninety percent of the CURRENT
insurgents than to establish some Salafist state, exterminate the Shia,
etc., etc.
"We had to be fighters," he said, "because we didn't find any other
job. If you want to stay inside you need to be a part of the FSA [Free
Syrian Army, the group that has closest relations with the West]. Everything
is very expensive. They pay us $100 a month but it is not enough.
"All this war is a lie. We had good lives before the revolution.
Anyway this is not a revolution. They lied to us in the name of religion.
"I don't want to go on fighting but I need to find a job, a house.
Everything I have is here in Muadhamiya."
...
.. who seriously thinks Assad is a "decent ruler". At this point it does
not matter. He personally does not matter.
...
Frankly, this is a pointless post which is WAY out of date.
Posted by: Richard Steven Hack | Sep 13, 2016 3:38:32 AM | 79
Well, according to RSH, who specialises in being wrong...
Assad does matter because he is the ELECTED leader chosen by the People
of Syria in MORE THAN ONE election.
Did you forget?
Did you not know?
Or doesn't any of that "democracy" stuff matter either?
Israel said its aircraft attacked a Syrian army position on Tuesday after
a stray mortar bomb struck the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights, and it
denied a Syrian statement that a warplane and drone were shot down.
The air strike was a now-routine Israeli response to the occasional spillover
from fighting in a five-year-old civil war, and across Syria a ceasefire
was holding at the start of its second day.
Syria's army command said in a statement that Israeli warplanes had attacked
an army position at 1 a.m. on Tuesday (2200 GMT, Monday) in the countryside
of Quneitra province.
The Israeli military said its aircraft attacked targets in Syria hours
after the mortar bomb from fighting among factions in Syria struck the Golan
Heights. Israel captured the plateau from Syria in a 1967 war.
The Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane and a drone
after the Israeli attack.
Denying any of its aircraft had been lost, the Israeli military said
in a statement: "Overnight two surface-to-air missiles were launched from
Syria after the mission to target Syrian artillery positions. At no point
was the safety of (Israeli) aircraft compromised."
The seven-day truce in Syria, brokered by Russia and the United States,
is their second attempt this year by to halt the bloodshed.
Copeland @60: No, I don't think the problem is fundamentalism. It's the
warring crusade method of spreading a belief's 'empire' that is the problem.
This is a problem uniquely of the Saudi 'do whatever it takes' crusade to
convert the entire 'Arab and Muslim world' to their worst, most misogynist
form of Islam. T
here are of course many fundamentalists (the Amish and some
Mennonites are examples from Christianity) that are not evangelical, or
put severe (no violence, no manipulation, no kidnapping, stop pushing if
the person says 'no') limits on their evangelism.
Only the Saudis, or pushers
of their version of Islam, seem to put no limits at all on their sect's
crusade.
Just want to mention that from the beginning there were people who took
up arms against the government. This is why the situation went out of control.
People ambushed groups of young soldiers. Snipers of unknown origin fired
on police and civilians.
There are plenty of people in the United States right now who are just
as oppressed - I would wager more so - than anyone in Syria. Immigrants
from the south are treated horribly here. There are still black enclaves
in large cities where young men are shot by the police on a daily basis
for suspicious behavior and minor driving infractions. And then there are
the disenfranchised white folks in the Teaparty who belong to the NRA and
insist on 'open carry' of their weapons on the street and train in the back
woods for a coming war. Tell me what would happen if there were a guarantor
these people found believable who promised them that if they took up arms
against the government (and anyone else in the country they felt threatened
by) they would be guaranteed to win and become the government of a 'New
America'. What if that foreign guarantor were to pay them and improve their
armaments while providing political cover.
I rather like Assad. I won't lie. But, he is not the reason for the insurrection
in Syria ~ well, except for his alliances with Russia and Iran and his pipeline
decisions and his support for Palestinian and Iraqi refugees. What happened
in Syria is happening all over the globe because the nation with the most
resources in the world, the self-declared exceptionalist state thinks this
is the way to rule the world. . . . because they want to rule and they don't
care how much destruction it takes to do so. And lucky for us there is no
one big enough and bad enough to do it to us - except for our own government.
"All of the petrodollars Saudi Arabia spends to advance this claim of
leadership and the monopolistic use of Islam's greatest holy sites to manufacture
a claim of entitlement to Muslim leadership were shattered by this collective
revolt from leading Sunni Muslim scholars and institutions who refused to
allow extremism, takfir, and terror ideology to be legitimized in their
name by a fringe they decided that it is even not part of their community.
This is the beginning of a new era of Muslim awakening the Wahhabis spared
no efforts and no precious resources to ensure it will never arrive."
Assad (=> group in power), whose stated aim was to pass from a 'socialist'
to a 'market' economy. Notes.
*decreased public sector employment.* -- was about 30%, went far
lower (1) - was a staple: one 'smart' graduate in the family guaranteed
a good Gvmt job, could support many.
*cut subsidies* (energy, water, housing, food, etc.) drought (2005>)
plus these moves threw millions into cities with no jobs.. pre-drought
about 20% agri empl. cuts to agri subsidies created the most disruption.
…imho was spurred by the sharply declining oil revenues (peak oil..)
which accounted for ?, 15% GDP in 2002 for ex to a few slim points edging
to nil in 2012, consequences:
> a. unemployment rose 'n rose (to 35-40% youth? xyz overall?), and social
stability was affected by family/extended f/ district etc. organisation
being smashed. education health care in poor regions suffered (2)
> b. small biz of various types went under becos loss of subs, competition
from outsiders (free market policy), lack of bank loans it is said by some
but idk, and loss of clients as these became impoverished. Syria does not
have a national (afaik) unemployment scheme. Assad to his credit
set up a cash-transfer thingie to poor families, but that is not a subsitute
for 'growing employment..'
*opened up the country's banking system* (can't treat the details..)
So Assad was hit by a Tri-horror: global warming, dwindling cash
FF resources, and IMF-type pressure, leaving out the trad. enemies, KSA,
pipelines , etc. MSM prefer to cover up serious issues with 'ethnic strife'
(sunni, shia, black lives matter, etc.)
1. all nos off the top of my head.
2. Acceptance of a massive refugee pop. (Pals in the past, Kurds, but
numerically important now, Iraqis) plus the high birth rate
2011> 10 year plan syria in arabic (which i can't read) but look at images
and 'supporters' etc.
"... This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad. ..."
"... The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'. ..."
"... As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda copper didn't like. ..."
"... Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators. ..."
"... See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy. ..."
"... Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday? ..."
"... The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy. ..."
"... What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia. ..."
"... Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy. ..."
The story of Chile's popular, and democratic rejection of government by oligarchs is today's must-read, and provides unsettling
similarities to current events, most strikingly in my estimation, recently in Venezuela.
The Popular Unity government enjoyed promising successes during its first year in power. Domestic production spiked in 1971,
leading to a GDP growth rate of almost 9 percent. Unemployment fell from 7 percent to below 3 percent, and wages increased dramatically,
particularly for the lowest earners. Allende's land reform program - along with intensified popular attacks on large, unproductive
landholdings - led to near record harvests and a new abundance of food for the poor.
Of course no good deed goes unpunished by oligarchs.
On the other hand, Chilean elites also pursued a more top-down strategy in their effort to bring the economy to its knees.
Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding consumer
essentials, secretly warehousing enormous quantities of basic goods only to let them spoil as avoidable food shortages rocked
the nation.
And of course there's the USA's never-ending efforts to spread peace and democracy.
Meanwhile, in Washington, President Nixon was making good on his promise to "make Chile's economy scream." He called for an
end to all US assistance to the Allende government, and instructed US officials to use their "predominant position in international
financial institutions to dry up the flow" of international credit to Chile.
And finally a sobering reminder, that in the end, if they can't beat you at the polls, they are not above putting and end to you
altogether.
Deeply committed to maintaining the legality of the revolutionary process, the UP government sought to slow the pace of radical
democratic reforms at the grassroots in a misguided effort to avoid a putsch, or the outbreak of open civil war. In the end, this
error proved fatal - an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an
invaluable line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation.
When Henry Kissinger began secretly taping all of his phone conversations in 1969, little did he know that he was giving history
the gift that keeps on giving. Now, on the 35th anniversary of the September 11, 1973, CIA-backed military coup in Chile, phone
transcripts that Kissinger made of his talks with President Nixon and the CIA chief among other top government officials reveal
in the most candid of language the imperial mindset of the Nixon administration as it began plotting to overthrow President Salvador
Allende, the world's first democratically elected Socialist. "We will not let Chile go down the drain," Kissinger told CIA director
Richard Helms in a phone call following Allende's narrow election on September 4, 1970, according to a recently declassified transcript.
"I am with you," Helms responded.
The comparison with Venezuela is hugely important, especially with regard to the suppliers boycot, where the Venezuelan opposition
seem to be directly copying the Chilean playbook. Even so, there is another aspect that should be of greater concern. Chile stands
out for its reliance on mining, especially copper. By failing in his bid to diversify the Chilean economy, Allende left his country
vulnerable to the fluctuations of the global economy and the whims of first world importers.
If memory serves, in 1973 mining represented around ~25% of the Chilean economy. Venezuela, by contrast, now has 45% of its
GDP tied up in oil exports. The only fact that should be surprising, then, is that the Bolivarian governments have lasted as long
as they have; perhaps a testament to the sweeping social improvements that have won them a mass-supported bulwark against constant
right wing assaults. Even so, with the economy undiversified, that bulwark will only hold out for so long.
This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.
For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy. In
an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic workers unskilled
and idle.
Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity, in
fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.
Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing to a shortage,
followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.
Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the boom
years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.
Is this suppose to explain what happened in Chile in 1973? Catallactics, ushered in AND imposed via a brutal military dictatorship,
yet fail to recognize the contradiction in the so-called "effects of violent intervention with the market"
This phenomenon has been termed the "resource curse." It consists of multiple elements, all bad.
The curse is mostly the result of having powerful and rapacious neighbors with no compunction but to use whatever means
necessary to install a 'friendly' government willing to repress its own people in order to allow the theft of their 'resources'.
For one, the ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price reduces the incentive to diversify one's economy.
It was not the people of Chile, who profited by the "ability to produce a commodity at the world's lowest price" and so cannot
be blamed for the inability to diversify their economy.
As for Chile's governing elite, they wore the comfortable version of the "copper collar', the one made of money as opposed
to chains, and so paid-off, lived in wealth and comfort so long as they kept their countrymen from doing anything that Anaconda
copper didn't like.
In an extreme case like Saudi Arabia, even the workers hired to produce the oil are mostly foreign, leaving domestic
workers unskilled and idle.
The extreme case of Saudi Arabia is a direct result of the hegemonic tactics just described, install a government 'friendly'
to American 'interests' in this case the House of Saud, and make them so fabulously wealthy that there is no questioning their
loyalty, until it becomes questionable
Second, contrary to the belief early in the industrial revolution that commodity prices would be driven up by scarcity,
in fact technological improvement has more than counterbalanced scarcity to keep commodity prices flat to down in real terms.
Finally, as every commodity trader knows, the stylized secular chart pattern of any commodity is a sharp spike owing
to a shortage, followed by a long (as in decades) bowl produced by excessive capacity brought online in the wake of the shortage.
Until finally, after the inevitable effect of monopolistic control of commodity 'markets' and the corrupting influence of corporate
power destroy the working man's earning potential, and by extension his purchasing power, and so extinguishes 'demand'.
Governments, not adept at realizing that commodity price spikes are not sustainable, accumulate fixed costs during the
boom years and then get crunched in the subsequent price crash.
It was not the Chilean government who concerned themselves with sustainability, as they were paid not to, and the corporations
who made all the money didn't give a damn either.
It should be easy to understand the logic, and necessity of voting out the ruling elite who were very good at lining their
own pockets, but not so good at planning for their people's well-being.
The Chilean people grew tired of rule by greedy people bought-off by American corporations, and elected a socialist government
in an effort to remedy the situation.
For their troubles, they were treated to a violent coup with thousands killed, tortured and disappeared.
And finally, it appears that you think this is all the 'natural' operation of 'markets'?
Superb stuff, especially "monopolistic control of commodity markets", supply and demand pressures on wheat and oil and
copper have mostly faded to insignificance with hyper-leveraged commodities markets and supine (complicit) regulators.
See: oil going to $140 not so many years ago despite building supply and weak demand. Goldman famously decided commodities
were an "asset class" in 2003 and completely f*cked up these critical price signals for the world economy.
" . an armed popular base, exercising direct control over its communities and workplaces, could have been an invaluable
line of defense for the Allende administration, as well as for its broader goal of total societal transformation."
"Those who do not learn history" are condemned to being exploited and controlled by those who do.
'Objecting to government-mandated price controls and export restrictions, powerful business interests took to hoarding
consumer essentials.'
Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding." But if mandated prices are set below cost, of course goods will
not be sold at a loss. Blaming the victims instead of the price controllers is like blaming a murder victim for "getting in the
way of my bullet."
Goods perhaps, but not labor. If mandated prices (for labor) are set below cost, serfs will still sell their labor. For example,
any soldier who never came back from Iraq obviously under-priced his labor.
Businesses don't exist for the purpose of "hoarding."
Oh, right, our precious middlemen call it "sequestration" and "arbitrage". There's a million pounds of aluminum in the
Mexican desert that calls bullshit on your claim. Any more self-absorbed theology you would like to discuss this fine Monday?
The terrible legacy of the Pinochet years were also done by the "Chicago boys" who were hired to run the government. In
their hate of the people and the embrace of neoliberal capitalism, they did something much worse: they changed the Constitution
of the country so that undoing all their hateful legislation would be near impossible to override. When you hear of Student Protests
in Chile – they are still fighting to undo the terrible legacy.
Sidenote: US has one of the Chicago Boys, entrenched at the Cato Institute.
yeah the chicago austerity mongers, and kissinger. guess who takes advice from kissinger, and pushes neoliberal economic policies.
the democrats used to be opposed to that sort of thing, at least in public.
What was Allende's Socialist party's policies, were they Nordic-style Social Democracy? I still am not sure if there is
a meaningful ideological difference between Nordic Social Democracy, & Latin American "Socialism of the 21st Century" in Venezuela,
Ecuador, Bolivia.
Norway & Venezuela both have a state-owned oil company, the profits of which are actually used to help their citizens, specifically
in education & health funding. Yet the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praise Norway & slam Venezuela.
Allende was even a full White Guy TM like the Nordics, albeit not blond-hair blue eyes like some Nordics. I suspected this
was perhaps an important reason the likes of 0bama/Bush43 praises the Nordic nations while labeling the part-Native American &/or
Black Venezuelan/Ecuador/Bolivian Presidents as being "Commie" "Dictators".
Perhaps the Nordics have a special secret deal with Murica & the US Imperial MIC: go along with the US Imperial foreign
policy, & don't loudly promote your Social Democratic system, to anyone but especially not to nonwhite nations; & in turn we won't
falsely slander you as Commie Dictators as we do any other nation attempting Social Democracy.
Far right nationalism is essentially an externality caused of neoliberal
globalization. that means that neoliberalism inevitably produces a splash of
virulent far right nationalism in countries were the standard of living dropped
considerably and unemployment hit high marks.
The author failed to mention neoliberalism and the crisis of neoliberal globalization
even once. What a sucker. Very few of Guardian commenter realized that this we
are now facing with a strong, driven by nationalism, backlash to neoliberal globalization.
In this case with neoliberals represented by EU bureaucrats.
Notable quotes:
"... There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though he were some Socialist hero. ..."
"... Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude. ..."
"... I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate nations. ..."
"... conservative and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour) pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which people come before profit. ..."
"... Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural greatness. ..."
"... Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army is a part of NATO. ..."
"... There is no independent government left or right since everything they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption. ..."
"... Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled out of the woodwork ..."
"... They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage, pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you? ..."
"... Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." ..."
"... perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct of the nazis in the first place ..."
"... in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you were saying something about Americans imposing peace? ..."
"... The huge elephant in the room is NATO. A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under control nationalism will continue to rise. ..."
There goes Mason again -- spouting his pro-global fascist bile as though
he were some Socialist hero.
Sovereign nations are the ONLY bulwark against the banking cartel's
now-obvious global tyranny of debt servitude.
The more sovereign nations and centres of sovereign power we have, the
more insulated we are from the kind of global fascism that Mason, being
the snake oil salesman he is, peddles.
I always seems hypocritical to slate nationalism in one breath and celebrate
cultural diversity in the next. Given that most cultures in existence are
very much defined by national identity...you have only to look at
how people define themselves...'progressives' find themselves constantly
having to square the circle of protecting cultures whilst trying to eliminate
nations.
Perhaps the resultant cultural homelessness is just as much a cause of
issues as is nationalism in itself.
For me the reason nationalist parties are doing well is that conservative
and middle of the road parties (and for a long time this included Labour)
pushed an agenda that favoured the rich, and left the middle class by the
wayside. If you want to find the cheerleaders of globalism you don't have
to look much further than most of the world's conservative parties. Far
right (or far left) parties aren't very successful in democracies in which
people come before profit.
As for Weimar, since you brought it up. Fascism wasn't voted into power.
A group of bankers and industrialists (conservatives) persuaded the German
president to make Hitler the chancellor. The rest is history. As a darkly
humorous coda, one of the high ups in the Reichsbank was interviewed after
the war and asked why he helped do this - considering the awful things Hitler
had been saying. His answer was along the lines of; 'we didn't think he
was serious about that...'
Mason is right of course. I do fear a repeat of history. One thing that
strikes me looking at the nationalist conspiracy theorists is how familiar
it is. I've been looking a lot recently at the far right since the end of
the 19th century up to World War 2. It's basically the same guff that Ukippers
spout.
Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state,
undermining ethnic unity, using well meaning liberal fools to make true
government impossible and preventing people from achieving their natural
greatness.
The only real difference is that at the time the bastards used the Jews
to personify a global conspiracy of the wealthy and now they use the more
malleable "elite". It's a much more flexible term. Disagree with me and
using facts? You are part of a metropolitan bubble or academic ivory tower
etc...Also big difference is that at the time they did have to stand on
a street corner to spout their bile and risk a scrap. Now it's swamping
the comments section of a left wing newspaper. Much safer if a bit more
cowardly.
Funny stuff to read. There is no Croatia as a independent state. It
is owned by multinational companies. Everything is foreign except forests
and drinking water. The is no Croatian independent army - Croatian army
is a part of NATO.
There is no independent government left or right since everything
they do is to listen to their masters from Brussels who are slaping then
while they are amassing wealth by means of corruption.
Result is 53% of turnout in elections. People don't care or try to chance
something that is impossible to change.
We are a nation of 4 million - a great threat to core values of EU where
everything is great. Kick us out and enjoy your multiculturalism - I will
rather take my dog for a walk not having to the lock the door in my house...
Now that the global economy is shaken, the olden demons have crawled
out of the woodwork and the inherently Fascist nations (the ones who
chose militarist authoritarianism or totalitarianism on their own before
WWII) are reverting to type. Croatia, Poland, Hungary, Finland, the Baltic
states.
We can only hope Spain, Portugal, Italy, Austria, Germany, Romania, and
Bulgaria can find the inner strength to resist this temptation to regress.
Just once, I'd love for a Guardian 'journalist' to define what 'far-right'
means; it's, by some distance, their most commonly used slur. I know they
think it's a pejorative term, but what alludes them is it's the precise
definition of anarchism or extreme individualism. They seem to think it's
a synonym for 'racist.'
It probably has something to do with the fact they've been taught history's
worst tyrant was 'far-right' because, well, 'he was waycist.' Except, what
they've failed to notice is
the name of his party
the fact he was
a ruthless statist and advocated supreme state-control
he despised laissez-faire
capitalism
he hated liberal individualism.
racism isn't a political
policy and the left doesn't oppose racism, it merely opposes racism against
non-white people 6. he was a self-avowed socialist!
They also seem a bit lost on Mussolini, a man they compare to Trump
on an incessant basis (I cringe a little each time I read it). This a man
who, in his Fascist Manifesto, advocated in favour of the minimum wage,
pandering to the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and
abolishing the upper-chamber. Does that sound 'far-right' to you?
His manifesto reads like the manifesto of a modern progressive party
(which is why the progressives of the 20's championed him). It just demonstrates
how utterly narrative driven progressive politics is; then again, those
who live by narrative die by narrative.
Adolf Hitler, 1927: "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic
economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its
unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according
to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."
He basically sounds like your modern-day progressive.
Leigh Richards , 2016-09-13 06:36:12
perhaps it's a case of the EU reaping what it's sowed? let's face the leading
members of the eu at the time - in particular Germany - did all they could
to hasten the break up of Yugoslavia. The 'state' of Croatia was a construct
of the nazis in the first place FFS!
It was, ultimately, US diplomacy that imposed the peace of 1995.
in 1992, before the war in Bosnia started, Europe sent Jose Cutilleiro
to broker a peace deal. He did it and all three sides (Bosnian Serbs, Bosnian
Croats and Bosnian Muslims) signed it and the collective sigh of relief
could be heard on the Moon. But then Warren Zimmerman, US diplomat, called
the leader of Bosnian Muslims for a talk that lasted five days and after
that, Alija Izetbegovic retracted his signature, a Muslim killed a Serb
in Sarajevo, the first shots were fired after that and the war started...you
were saying something about Americans imposing peace?
They used to say of the Balkans that it is like tectonic plates building
up pressure one against the other. Eventually they will explode again. This
seems likely.
"Money interests controlling the world demeaning the nation state, undermining
ethnic unity"
That's not a conspiracy theory, that's the truth. The far-right are opportunistic
vultures of course but people's concerns are very real, even if most of
them don't know the full facts. Who does?
The huge elephant in the room is NATO.
A highly corrupt, highly undemocratic institution that has long acted
like the world police, meddling everywhere and funding tyrants which won't
stop until it completes its aim of full globalisation. It actively aims
to flood Europe with migrants without giving democratic elected governments
a say. You think Juncker is bad, well he is, but read up on Peter Sutherland
and other shady characters in NATO. Until NATO is somehow brought under
control nationalism will continue to rise. Chilling.
It is not true that announced referendum in Republika Srpska is about independence.
It is actually to check people's opinion about constitutional court that
forbidding Serbs to celebrate 09 January as National Day - just one more
decision in a row made exclusively to further lower Serb autonomy in region
guaranteed by peace agreement.
Just across the mountains lies Republika Srpska – the Serb enclave
created in the country of Bosnia and Herzegovina by the Dayton Agreement
in 1995, after a bitter civil war. Republika Srpska's leaders are threatening
to hold a referendum on independence, which would blow up the deal that
has brought peace to the region for 20 years.
In response, Croatia's politicians have upped the rhetoric..
Three paragraphs, that is how long I had to wait for the first "It's
actually Serbs' Fault" bit. Croatia has no interest in Republika Srpska
at the moment, and if it does, it is observing its moves to eventually copy
them and get out of the very uncomfortable partnership with Bosnian Muslims
whom they see as a much greater threat, so mr. Mason completely missed the
mark - I would have a word with the researchers if I was him, this is quite
embarrassing.
Croatia is silently desensitizing EU for a very long time: a mass for
fascist leader Pavelic here, a monument to an ustasha terrorist there, a
nazi minister yesterday, releasing a war criminal today - little by little,
Croatia is being nazified under the nose of EU officials.
It all started in 1990 and never stopped. Imagine the German Jews waking
up one morning discovering the German constitution has been altered to exclude
them from sharing the equal rights with the rest and that Nazi money, flags
and other symbols are reinstated and that even some old Nazi politicians
are brought from abroad to take positions in the government - all that happened
to Croatian Serbs in 1990, the regime that killed 200 000 of them in 1941
seemed to be resurrected. Worse even, nobody in Europe minded that Croatian
defense minister Susak openly uses Nazi salute and the rest of them lionizes
the Nazi Independent State of Croatia.
It is happening again, in Croatia, Hungary and Poland and again EU doesn't
react so I start to think that EU actually doesn't mind Nazis at all.
I think some countries are just more susceptible to nationalism than others.
It's no accident that among the activist demographic, Paul is citing 40%
unemployment.
Nationalism and fascism are growing forces across the world.
It is a highly complex issue, but the source of hatred towards others
and the exultation of the "you and yours" is fear and insecurity. It is
an animalistic response, a tribalism within our DNA.
To my mind, there are some simple pillars of resistance. Education, of
course. A significant reduction in inequality, and the reintroduction of
hope particularly to young men. A fair crack of the whip for all.
But the big point for me that people miss is the complete lack of a narrative
from the developed world, except dog-eat-dog, individualism, selfishness
and false utopia of wealth generation. Nationalism and fascism have a story,
have a decisive message. It is seductive to those who are lost.
Until the developed world can find what it really stands for (and don't
tell me it's "democracy and freedom" because neither is fully true), our
society will continue to fracture and the next world war will edge ever
closer.
This article gets it wrong. There is not a single Member of the Croatian
Parliament, who could be labeled as "far right", or anybody resembling Farrage,
the BNP, Marine Le Pen, or the Italian Right, where memorial services for
Mussolini are casually being held. Croatian politics has no right wing,
period.
Bullshit dude, you're flat out lying. There are Pavelić and Ustaša memorials
all over the country, masses held, za dom spremni ustaša in football stands
without any action by the police or politics. There are proponents of this
policy in the Sabor, luckily less now than before, so if you're trying to
preach to the British, you lose. Delete your account.
Shows exactly how 'European values' repetitively thrown at us as the founding
blocks of the EU, are pretty meaningless in reality. The standards to which
Turkey must adhere according to EU whims are far different to those of Balkan
entities (nicely 'Christian' and unlike Cyprus, unequivocally 'European'
in geography).
OK to low standards from member states, but not OK to higher standards than
some members from Turkey. And yet this is all about 'values', such as fundamental
rights, justice, education, which have to be anchored in perceived religion
and the paranoia of those who don't know who they are unless a national
identity is legislated for them.
This article completely ignores the fact that the right-wing HDZ leader,
Karamarko, is now long and gone. The new leader Plenkovic has 180-degree
opposite rhetoric, which is typical of HDZ in general, a party without a
consistent left-right positioning. It arose as a populist movement to form
independent Croatia.
The new leader of the HDZ was elected with the same majority of the same
people as the previous Karamarko. Plenković is a facade behind the same
pro-fascist, criminal organization as before. HDZ has from the outset been
positioned right, and surprisingly the least right during Tuđman, former
Tito general and communist.
Utter tosh - Britain voted for Brexit as it is sick & tired of being dictated
to be unelected undemocratic Brussels bureaucrats & the ECJ. The United
States of Europe project is an corpse that has not the intelligence to realise
it is dying & the sooner the better. If the EU reverted in being purely
a trading arrangement rather than a supra-national political ideal it may
still have a miniscule chance of survival but with cretins like Juncker,
Tusk et al in charge - no chance. The sooner we exercise Article 50 & begin
the divorce proceedings the better.
So out of touch, Mr. Mason or is it a slow day at the office? Where to start?!?
Perhaps go back to the nineties when Franjo Tudjman spoke to the crowds
and declared "thank God my wife is neither a Serb or a Jew". Europe praised
him and supported his ethnic cleansing of more than 250.000 Serbs from the
Krajina. Successive Croat governments have rehabilitated war criminals from
WWII and renamed squares and streets after racist butchers. In the meantime
Europe has aided and abetted whether by actively participating or by ignoring
what is going on. You need to read a lot more about the situation and stop
weaving the Russians into this mess. It is the EU and US mess. The solution
should e looked for st their door!
Xenophobic croatians? They are trying to uphold those millions of demanding
invaders so you can peacefully write bull like this in your north london
garden. They were happy to recover from the war and now they are cracking
again under the financial burden of the illegal immigrant crisis. Rampant
corruption in Croatia? Your whole elite is in bed with Saudies and Russian
oligarchs. London is the moneylaundering capital of the world a safehaven
for crooks.
Didn't graun know this ? Croatia has long been a 'frontier post' of European
'civilisation'. Fascist tendency is well known trait in Croatian society(just
as Nationalism has in Serbia). Anyone with the basic knowledge on Balkans
is aware of this.
Anyway to be honest I am not at all surprised with such 'articles' where
the author gets sos surprised after similar things happen. It occurred in
-
1. In post Qaddafi Libya graun was 'surprised' to know that rebels have
islamist leaning (leaning my a**, they ARE hardcore islamists)
2. In post Yanukovich Ukraine when after so many failed attempts to cover
things up they had to publish some articles saying battalions like Aidar,
Azov 'like' to use fascist symbols(it's expected from fascists, isn't it
? )
3. They still haven't admitted that 'moderates' in Syria are not exactly
moderates. I guess they will admit it only if Assad is overthrown.
"Russian money has poured not just into Serbia but into Republika Srpska,
too, together with increased diplomatic influence." Yes, but more investments
are coming from the West (Fiat, Michelin, Mondelez, Microsoft, etc.) with
substantial governments sponsored infrastructure projects coming from UAE
and EU. Why is successful nationhood of Balkan states almost explicitly
linked with complete alignment with either East or West? Why is not normal
to trade freely and be "politically and diplomatically influenced" by both
sides? Or, it could be exclusively reserved right for, for example, Britain
that now looks to China as a post-Brexit alternative. No matter how media
is trying to portrait the Russian influence in the region, the fact is that
Balkan countries are well seated in the heart of Europe, with no intention
to pack and leave.
What is cosmetically used as a divisive material by the local political
parties in the Balkans for their daily use, is usually propelled by the
media as an undeniable proof that "old Balkan ghosts" are back. The ordinary
people are tired of political rhetoric, amplified by sensations hungry media.
By looking for the change, they might be ending with the same result, election
after election, but nations of the region are not interested in yet another
geostrategic trap, full of sacrifices for the sake of big players. They
want peace and a chance to make a dignified living.
This is actually we fear from the neolib hype of their attention to the
young generation =
Meanwhile, young people across the region try to live in a cannabis-softened,
networked dreamworld – where electronic dance music or Pokémon Go replace
the national and political identities formed 20 years ago.
I remember during the various Balkan wars the region was frequently described
as an 'historical fault-line'. There was then something of a revisionist
backlash that disputed that such a thing existed and asserted that the antagonism
between various groups went back no further than the rise of romantic nationalism
in the 1800s.
Actually, there is a fault-line, but not the one that many people imagine
(i.e Christian/Muslim or Occidental/Oriental). The division is between different
Slav groups; one the one hand, those like the Slovenes and Croats who are
traditionally Catholic and consider themselves part of the West, and on
the other the Serbs, Macedonians and Montenegrins who generally see themselves
as part of an Orthodox, 'authentically' Slavic community with Russia at
its head. Much the same division is found further North and is fed by both
Russian historiography that sees the country as the guardian of Slavdom
- the big brother to various smaller nations - and by the instinctive Western
view that the 'other' is fundamentally uncivilised (or at least un-modern).
My own country (the Czech Republic) is a good example of this. Far from
seeing ourselves as part of some great Slav family except in the most abstract
sense, most Czechs take their cues from Berlin, Paris, London and Washington
and see Russians as somewhat backward and uncouth (an impression reinforced
by the presence of the Red Army here for nearly 50 years. Believe me, if
you'd seen the poor bastards up close, you wouldn't fear them so much as
pity them). But go to Minsk or even parts of Eastern Slovakia and you'll
find opinions that are the polar opposite of the above. For various historical
reasons, the same attitudes are amplified in the Balkans so that you have
a situation where peoples who are ethnically almost identical end up hating
each other to the point of violence.
On a different note, it is strange that the legacy of colonialism is
used to excuse almost anything in the developing world but Turkish domination
of the Balkans and the impact that that had on the cultural development
and outlook of the various peoples there - the Serbs in particular - is
virtually never factored in as a reason for people killing each other in
large numbers. It is almost as if some people think that Europeans should
know better...
Globalization is happening with or without NATO. Technology and science
progressed, the world is connected, the differences are melting. Isolation
never ends well. On topic: Croatia is in NATO and there are no refugees
here.
The EU is Balkanising Europe with a helping hand from Merkel. Ethnic and
geopolitical conflict is our future, simply look at the polls in western
European states. "Nationalism" is the modern lefts boogie man. Maybe if
the left (and let's be honest, center right) stopped with their ludicrous
immigration policies there would be less hardline national sentiment. Multiculturalism
is not some sort of human right, it's a political ideology, and it will
come apart.
The EU is doing great things for all the med countries, building strong
economies with good prospects for young people and promoting peace and democracy
on its borders, why the concern?
Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, the Balkans, Ukraine, Turkey, Syria, they are being
imbued with the spirit of European free thought and values, the sort of
liberal tolerance you will only find in great countries like France, why
are you laughing?
It is disturbing that here as in the UK with Farage and Brexit and lePen
in France etc(long list of nasty pieces of work) nationalism is resurgent.It
differs little from the Fascism of the 30s in its glorification of the nation
state and hatred of foreigners. Europe has to face this down in any way
it can or we will repeat the mistakes of last century and get embroiled
in a conflict that only the pedlars of hate would welcome.
On this issue the guardian ,Mason and below the line comment are out of
their depth by a mile, far to complicated/sensitive an issue, which demands
a great deal of historical knowledge and cultural /political /religious/ethnic
awareness .
A lot of points here raised, none of them expanded on.
Croatia is in the title, yet, you mention Bosnia, Republika Srpska, Macedonia...
the Balkans, as you like to call this region, is a complex, many layered
thing... Puting Republika Srpska together with Macedonia or Croatia is something
like comparing Tunisia, Syria and Pakistan (not that these two regions are
of the same relevance, just making the point that garbling these countries
together and explaining each in a few sentences isn't doing any of them
justice).
Some things pointed out are plain wrong. For instance: "...the likely
outcome is a coalition of the same old "centrist" parties – nationalists
and social democrats." Not gonna happen. The so-called nationalists have
never ever formed a coalition with the so called social democrats, nor will
they in the near future.
And last, but not the least: "If Europe wants to make the Balkans work,
it needs to understand the limits of its current approach." What does that
even mean? What Europe? You seem to label Croatia as nationalist, and leaning
in a fascist direction, and yet you name Europe as the one to control us?
Who? Hungary? Poland? Germany with its rise of AFD? I don't think Europe
has the moral high ground to meddle here, and I don't see what would even
be accomplished by it. Unless there are gross human rights violations all
of sudden, of course.
For the time being, I think everyone should concentrate on sorting out
their own countries.
People in Croatia are fed up with the status quo. Same old politicians
for years, with same old policies, and if someone seemingly new pops up
it turns out it was the same old garbage all over again. That is the reason
behind low turnout. And whenever there is a low turnout in Croatia, the
right parties gain ground, because they have a very disciplined electorate.
They tell then to vote for God and country and so they do.
Sadly or more like, quite fortunately, this piece is not about Russia.
It is a piece aimed at asserting the rational over certain ingrained
ethnic rivalries. Good.
We have seen enough of nationalism and inter racial ethnic division.
It bought all those peoples nothing but bad.
Yes. Membership of the EU should not be taken for granted. There should
be certain criteria which the political leaders of applicant states ahould
adhere and adhere they must. There should be no compromise. No compromise!
("No Surrender").
If they want the advantages which membership of the single market can
bestow, then they must accept the civil rights which are bestowed on it's
newly adopted citizens.
If the Croats under rheir nationaliatic and chauvanistic government ignore
this general perspective, rhen they are indeed, unfit. If they can't respect
former adversaries. If they refuse to acknowledge their past, well, don't
let them join (Never, never, never!).
Macedonia's political elite is indeed corrupt to the bone but the country
is certainly not "mired in ethnic conflict" whatever that means Paul. Do
some bloody research.
And your implicit assumption that national chauvinism is somehow a typically
Balkan event says a lot about your thought process. Know that the EU will
not do anything about Croatia's hard right because it's nice to have someone
to do your dirty work on the border zones while you play the honest liberal.
It takes a genuine left! wing government to really upset someone in Brussels.
Well, some of the nasty rethoric like calling Serbs "misery" actually came
from the popular leader on the left this time, who lost. It's too confusing
to put it all in one article.
But, in Macedonia, there were problems, right? Between Macedonians and Albanians,
only last year.
Those who lend the money can smell the global rise in socialism a mile off
- no wonder they are driving the wars the wars in Middle East - which drives
the desperate and displaced into Europe - which starts the rise in hard
right politics... It's so obvious and yet it happens every time.
Well if the US (Clinton) hadn't directed the EU to get involved in Ukraine
and incite a revolution then Putin wouldn't have had to get involved to
protect his naval base and the ethnic Russians in Ukraine. Then the US wouldn't
have had a cause to start trade sanctions and piss of Mr Putin. In which
case Mr Putin wouldn't probably have had the motivation to start cold war
games again.
Anyway I am sure Mrs Clinton has had a very large cheque from the US
defense industry who are the ultimate sponsors of US war games.
What about Ukraine Paul, we've seen open nazism there since the day the
Americans coopted the Maiden coup, oh I forgot that nasty Mr Putin made
them do it ...
Guardian cried nationalism at Scots who just wanted rid of the tories and
Westminster government
its difficult for me to trust any article from guar which includes the
word nationalism
it could well be nationalism which is driving this.... but guar has a
history of demonstrating that it does not even come close to grasping the
basic meaning of the word
The Guardian is 'multiculturalist'. Multiculturalism means absolutely nothing
at all and is a thoroughly discredited idea/l. IMO it is a vehicle for the
alienation of individuals from each other and the destruction of the bond,
i.e. culture, that holds them together and, in most cases, has been constructed
over thousands of years. Destruction of culture and language has always
been the weapon of choice in the imperialists' subjection project. People
will fight back.
Nationalism, as the, increasingly centralised, distant, authoritarian, democratically
deficient EU becomes more and more politically focused and powerful, will
simply grow and grow.
Political and financial elites across the EU live in mortal fear of referenda
for a very good reason.
Supporting the break up of Yugoslavia was the worse mistake the European
powers ever made since 1945. And approving the independence of Kosovo probably
the second. On what grounds do they think now they can oppose the independence
of Republika Srpska? The continued harassment and gratuitous confrontation
of certain EU states against Russia won't help either.
Europe is tending towards break up as countries start to align back to their
historical roots. Look at a map of Europe now compared with 30 years ago.
Don't forget all the regional tensions, the Basques, Catalans, and I hear
20 other similar situations across Europe. Meanwhile Project EU thinks it
can create a single Europe. It's laughable.
We have no influence or control over the EU. It is run by Germany and their
puppets in Brussels. The actual purpose of the euro politicians is to create
a single country called Europe. One currency, one legal system, one army,
open borders, etc. Sovereign control will be gradually stripped from individual
countries and passed to Brussels. But of course it is completely corrupt
and mismanaged and it is only a matter of time before it collapses. At least
we had the balls to brexit.
These things are really serious and they are happening all over the democratic
world. We can end up with Trump on one end and myriad far right or crypto
far right governments in Europe. It is a complete failure of our political
economic and educational system.
I honestly believe that representational democracy as we know it is on its
last breath.
Why do you create a distinction between the left and fascism? Fascism, as
advocated by The National Socialist German Workers Party and Mussolini,
adored statism (state-control).
The left is about ever-increasing state power, the right is about individualism
('far-right', a term used as a pejorative, actually means anarchy, Hitler
was a megalomaniacal control freak). The fascists are on record time and
time again expressing their hatred of laissez-faire capitalism and liberal
individualism.
Mussolini's manifesto - which advocates the minimum wage, pandering to
the unions, progressive taxation, lowering the voting age and abolishing
the upper-chamber - reads like a manifesto for a modern-day progressive
party. Why? Because it was self-proclaimed 'progressives', in the 20s, who
supported it.
The EU has made small regions feel powerless and provoked more nationalism,
just look at the tensions within the UK, Spain, Italy before you even start
with the Balkans. The Balkans have been forced to be the frontline in a
blockade for a mismanaged German refugee crisis. All these eastern european
economies are mostly basket cases that joining the EU won't save. Indeed
with EU free movement of labour they'll find all their young talent gone
looking for opportunities abroad but maybe that's what they want?
Why does the Guardian conflate every expression of nationalism with fascism?
It's a bit like conflating an instance of one white police officer shooting
one black person with systemic racism - it doesn't fit. It's childlike.
We are nationalist. It's not whether we should be, we are. We have a
border, we unite behind symbols, we have a national anthem, a national Parliament,
a national health service and a national language. I don't believe 'Britishness'
is quantifiable, however I also, unlike The Guardian, realise it exists;
much in the same way 'love' can't quantified, but many accept it (it is
our national religion).
'Britishness' is merely the collective will of the British people. While
we can't quantify it per se, it exists. It's the collective moral obligation
held by the citizens of this country towards free healthcare at the point
of delivery; it's a moral obligation which doesn't exist in the majority
of countries the world over. It's a very British moral obligation, and one
which is in danger of being eroded by the left's worst policy: open borders.
I know in Guardian-land criticism of its national religions, ie, diversity,
open borders, globalism, feminism, etc., is tantamount to blasphemy, but
can we please get a handle on reality? There are nearly 200 nation-states
in the world and only a tiny handful of them are in a political union; the
nation-state is now, and will continue to be, the primary actor in international
relations.
That in your arrogance you forget this is what has led to your spectacular
fall from grace all over the western world. The people don't want globalism;
the people are tribal, and they always will be. The people extend trust
to outsiders with a great deal of caution; they don't do so because they
are bad, they do so because of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution.
What's more, it's not just 'British people' who adopt these attitudes;
it's everyone; it's every group. It's why Bangladeshis congregate together
in Tower Hamlets, it's why Pakistanis congregate together in Govanhill;
it's why black people congregate together in Chicago.
You can't just unwind 200,000 years of evolution with 30 years of progressive
politics; you certainly can't achieve that when you determine that the in-group
is the problem.
If you want real progress, be liberal. At this stage, I don't believe
progressives are even opposed to racism; they merely oppose racism against
non-white people. I don't believe progressives favour equality; they merely
favour equality for women (or x group). These aren't liberal attitudes,
these are bigoted attitudes.
They are just reinforcing group-based dynamics (ethnocentrism, tribalism,
gynocentrism, etc.), the very dynamics you criticise in the context of other
groups (ie, white heterosexual males).
Excellent comment. Isn't it strange that repressive ideologies are called
'progressive' by the Marxists and Globalists that spread the word, the fear
and the idiocy.
It's simple: nationalism is neurotic and built on defining oneself by the
virtue of one's difference, to the exclusion of similarities and debasement
of the other. It's the reverse of the Good Samaritan.
All that is very nice indeed, problem is when 'in the name of my nation'
someone ends up laying dead and beaten to pulp on the streets .... and that,
sorry, ain't so nice.
This short article contains several very deep observations. Highly
recommended...
Notable quotes:
"... There is no way to vote against the interests of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen, under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George W. Bush carried out. ..."
"... This has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over. ..."
"... First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country. Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education, public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know, they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form. ..."
"... So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they want us to focus on. ..."
"... I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party -- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into the Clinton campaign. ..."
"... Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70 percent of the original recipients were children. ..."
"... Trump is not the phenomenon. Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile ..."
CHRIS HEDGES : Well, reducing the election to personalities
is kind of infantile at this point. The fact is, we live in a system that Sheldon
Wolin calls inverted totalitarianism. It's a system where corporate power has
seized all of the levers of control. There is no way to vote against the interests
of Goldman Sachs or ExxonMobil or Raytheon. We've lost our privacy. We've seen,
under Obama, an assault against civil liberties that has outstripped what George
W. Bush carried out. We've seen the executive branch misinterpret the 2001 Authorization
to Use Military Force Act as giving itself the right to assassinate American
citizens, including children. I speak of Anwar al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son.
We have bailed out the banks, pushed through programs of austerity. This
has been a bipartisan effort, because they've both been captured by corporate
power. We have undergone what John Ralston Saul correctly calls a corporate
coup d'état in slow motion, and it's over.
I just came back from Poland, which is a kind of case study of how
neoliberal poison destroys a society and creates figures like Trump. Poland
has gone, I think we can argue, into a neofascism.
First, it dislocated the working class, deindustrialized the country.
Then, in the name of austerity, it destroyed public institutions, education,
public broadcasting. And then it poisoned the political system. And we are now
watching, in Poland, they created a 30,000 to 40,000 armed militia. You know,
they have an army. The Parliament, nothing works. And I think that this political
system in the United States has seized up in exactly the same form.
So, is Trump a repugnant personality? Yes. Although I would argue that
in terms of megalomania and narcissism, Hillary Clinton is not far behind. But
the point is, we've got to break away from-which is exactly the narrative they
want us to focus on. We've got to break away from political personalities
and understand and examine and critique the structures of power. And, in fact,
the Democratic Party, especially beginning under Bill Clinton, has carried water
for corporate entities as assiduously as the Republican Party. This is something
that Ralph Nader understood long before the rest of us, and stepped out very
courageously in 2000. And I think we will look back on that period and find
Ralph to be an amazingly prophetic figure. Nobody understands corporate power
better than Ralph. And I think now people have caught up with Ralph.
And this is, of course, why I support Dr. Stein and the Green Party. We have
to remember that 10 years ago, Syriza, which controls the Greek government,
was polling at exactly the same spot that the Green Party is polling now-about
4 percent. We've got to break out of this idea that we can create systematic
change within a particular election cycle. We've got to be willing to step out
into the political wilderness, perhaps, for a decade. But on the issues of climate
change, on the issue of the destruction of civil liberties, including our right
to privacy-and I speak as a former investigative journalist, which doesn't exist
anymore because of wholesale government surveillance-we have no ability, except
for hackers.
I mean, this whole debate over the WikiLeaks is insane. Did Russia? I've
printed classified material that was given to me by the Mossad. But I never
exposed that Mossad gave it to me. Is what was published true or untrue? And
the fact is, you know, in those long emails -- you should read them. They're
appalling, including calling Dr. Cornel West "trash." It is-the whole-it exposes
the way the system was rigged, within-I'm talking about the Democratic Party
-- the denial of independents, the superdelegates, the stealing of the caucus
in Nevada, the huge amounts of corporate money and super PACs that flowed into
the Clinton campaign.
The fact is, Clinton has a track record, and it's one that has abandoned
children. I mean, she and her husband destroyed welfare as we know it, and 70
percent of the original recipients were children.
This debate over -- I don't like Trump, but Trump is not the phenomenon.
Trump is responding to a phenomenon created by neoliberalism. And we may get
rid of Trump, but we will get something even more vile, maybe Ted Cruz.
"... On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries. ..."
"... The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the 'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. ..."
"... In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves. ..."
"... The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above' by the Transnational and national elites. ..."
"... In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. ..."
"... Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization process; ..."
"... Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war demands. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World". ..."
"... by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia, which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media etc.) with this patriotic movement. ..."
"... it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible with national sovereignty. ..."
"... "Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum wage" ..."
"... It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria) ..."
"... The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left ..."
"... the only kind of 'fascism' still possible today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. ..."
"... The neo-nationalist parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. ..."
On the morning following the Austrian presidential election, when it became certain that the
neo-nationalist candidate had not won the Austrian presidency (thanks to a few thousand overseas
votes, mostly belonging to the middle class), there was a great sigh of relief from the Transnational
Elite, (TE), i.e. the network of economic and political elites running the New World Order of Neoliberal
Globalization (NWO), mainly based in the G7 countries.
The huge expansion of the anti-globalization movement over the past few years was under control,
for the time being, and the EU elites would not have to resort to sanctions against a country at
the core of the Union – such as those which may soon be imposed against Poland.
In fact, the only reason they have not as yet been imposed is, presumably, the fear of Brexit,
but as soon as the British people finally submit to the huge campaign of intimidation ("Project Fear")
launched against them by the entire transnational elite, Poland's – and later Hungary's – turn will
come in earnest.
The elites are not used to "no" votes, and whenever the European peoples did not vote the
'correct' way in their plebiscites they were forced to vote again until they did so, or they were
simply smashed – as was the case with the Greek plebiscite a year ago. The interesting thing,
however, is that in the Greek case it was the so-called "NewLeft" represented by SYRIZA, which not
only accepted the worst package of measures imposed on Greece (and perhaps any other country) ever,[ii]
but which is also currently busy conducting a huge propaganda campaign (using the state media, which
it absolutely controls, as its main propaganda tool) to deceive the exhausted Greek people that the
government has even achieved some sort of victory in the negotiations! At the same time, the working
class – the traditional supporters of the Left – are deserting the Left en masse and heading towards
the neo-nationalist parties: from Britain and France to Austria. So how can we explain these seemingly
inexplicable phenomena?
Nationalism vs. neo-nationalism
As I tried to show in the past,[iii] the emergence of the modern nation-state in the 17th-18th
centuries played an important role in the development of the system of the market economy and vice
versa. However, whereas the 'nationalization' of the market was necessary for the development of
the 'market system' out of the markets of the past, once capital was internationalized and therefore
the market system itself was internationalized, the nation state became an impediment to further
'progress' of the market system. This is how the NWO emerged, which involved a radical restructuring
not only of the economy, with the rise of Transnational Corporations, but also of polity, with the
present phasing out of nation-states and national sovereignty.
Inevitably, the phasing out of the nation-state and national sovereignty led to the flourishing
of neo-nationalism, as a movement for self-determination. Yet, this development became inevitable
only because the alternative form of social organization, confederalism, which was alive even up
to the time of the Paris Commune had in the meantime disappeared.
In other words, the peoples' need for self-determination, in the NWO, had no other outlet
but the nation-state, as, up to a few years ago, the world was dominated by nation–states, within
which communities with a common culture, language, customs etc. could express themselves.
The nation-state became again a means of self-determination, as it used to be in the 20th
century for peoples under colonial rule struggling for their national liberation. The national culture
is of course in clear contradiction with a globalist culture like the one imposed now 'from above'
by the Transnational and national elites.
This globalist culture is based on the globalization ideology of multiculturalism, protection
of human rights etc., which in fact is an extension of the classical liberal ideology to the NWO.
In fact, the Transnational Elite launched several criminal wars in the last thirty years or so
to "protect" human rights (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and indirectly Syria) leading to
millions of deaths and dislocations of populations. It is not therefore accidental that globalist
ideologists characterize the present flourishing of what I called neo-nationalism, as the rise of
'illiberalism'.'[iv] It is therefore clear that we have to distinguish between old (or classical)
nationalism and the new phenomenon of neo-nationalism. To my mind, the main differences between them
are as follows:
a) Nationalism developed in the era of nation-states as a movement for uniting
communities with a common history, culture and usually language under the common roof of nation-states
that were emerging at the time but also even in the 20th century when national liberation movements
against colonialist empires were fighting for their own nation states. On the other hand, neo-nationalism
developed in the era of globalization with the aim of protecting the national sovereignty of nations
which was under extinction because of the integration of their states into the NWO;
b) Nationalism's emphasis was on the nation-state (or the aspiration for
one), whereas neo-nationalism's emphasis is not so much on the nation but rather on sovereignty at
the economic but also at the political and cultural levels, which has been phased out in the globalization
process;
c) Unlike old nationalism, neo-nationalism raises also demands that in the
past were an essential part of the Left agenda, such as the demand for greater equality (within the
nation-state and between nation-states), the demand to minimize the power of the elites, even anti-war
demands.
Naturally, given the origin of many neo-nationalist parties and their supporters, elements of
the old nationalist ideology may penetrate them, such as the Islamophobic and anti-immigration trends,
which provide the excuse to the elites to dismiss all these movements as 'far right'. However, such
demands are by no means the main reasons why such movements expand. Particularly so, as it can easily
be shown that the refugee problem is also part and parcel of globalization and the '4 freedoms' (capital,
labor, goods and services) its ideology preaches.
The rise of the neo-nationalist movement
Therefore, neo-nationalism is basically a movement that arose out of the effects of globalization,
particularly as far as the continuous squeezing of employees' real incomes is concerned––as a result
of liberalizing labor markets, so that labor could become more competitive. The present 'job miracle',
for instance, in Britain, (which is characterized as "the job creation capital of the western economies"),
hides the fact that, as an analyst pointed out, "unemployment is low, largely because British workers
have been willing to stomach the biggest real-terms pay cut since the Victorian era".[v]
The neo-nationalist movement had already created strong roots all over the EU, from its Western
part (France, UK) up to its Eastern part (Hungary, Poland) and now Austria. Even in the USA itself
Donald Trump, who has called on Americans to resist "the false song of globalism", expresses to a
significant extent neo-nationalist trends and may be tomorrow the next President of the "Free World".Of course, given the political and economic power that the elites have concentrated against these
neo-nationalist movements, it is possible that neither Brexit nor any of these movements may take
over, but this will not stop of course social dissent against the phasing out of national sovereignty.
The same process is repeated almost everywhere in Europe today, inevitably leading many people
(and particularly working class people) to turn to the rising neo-nationalist Right. This is not
of course because they suddenly became "nationalists" let alone "fascists", as the globalist "NewLeft"
(that is the kind of Left which is fully integrated into the NWO and does not question its institutions,
e.g. the EU) accuses them in order to ostracize them. It is simply because the present globalist
"NewLeft" does not wish to lead the struggle against globalization, while, at the same time, the
popular strata have realized that national and economic sovereignty is incompatible with globalization.
This is a fact fully realized, for example, by the strong informal patriotic movement in Russia,
which encompasses all those opposing the integration of the country into the NWO ––from neo-nationalists
to communists and from orthodox Christians to secularists, while the leadership under Putin is trying
to accommodate the very powerful globalist part of the elite (oligarchs, mass media, social media
etc.) with this patriotic movement.
But, it is mainly Le Pen's National Front party, more than any other neo-nationalist party
in the West, that realized that globalization and membership in the NWΟ's institutions are incompatible
with national sovereignty. As Le Pen stressed, (in a way that the "NewLeft" has abandoned long
ago!):
"Globalization is a barbarity, it is the country which should limit its abuses and regulate
it [globalization]." Today the world is in the hands of multinational corporations and large international
finance" Immigration "weighs down on wages," while the minimum wage is now becoming the maximum
wage".[vi]
In fact, the French National Front is the most important neo-nationalist party in Europe and may
well be in power following the next Presidential elections in 2017, unless of course a united front
of all globalist parties (including the "NewLeft" and the Greens), supported by the entire TE and
particularly the Euro-elites and the mass media controlled by them, prevents it from doing so (exactly
as it happens at present in Britain with respect to Brexit). This is how Florian Philippot the FN's
vice-president and chief strategist aptly put its case in a FT interview:
"The people who always voted for the left, who believed in the left and who thought that it
represented an improvement in salaries and pensions, social and economic progress, industrial
policies . these people have realized that they were misled."[vii]
As the same FT report points out, to some observers of French politics, the FN's economic policies,
which include exiting the euro and throwing up trade barriers to protect industry, read like something
copied from a 1930s political manifesto, while Christian Saint-Étienne, an economist for Le Figaro
newspaper, recently described this vision as "Peronist Marxism".[viii] In fact, in a more recent
FT interview, Marine Le Pen, the FN president went a step further in the same direction and she called,
apart from exiting from the Euro––that she expects to lead to the collapse of the Euro, if not of
the EU itself, (which she-rightly–welcomes)––for the nationalization of banks. At the same time she
championed public services and presented herself as the protector of workers and farmers in the face
of "wild and anarchic globalization which has brought more pain than happiness ".[ix]
For comparison, it never even occurred to SYRIZA (and Varoufakis who now wears his "radical" hat)
to use such slogans before the elections (let alone after them!) Needless to add that her foreign
policy is also very different from that of the French establishment, as she wants a radical overhaul
of French foreign policy in which relations with the regime of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad would
be restored and those with the likes of Qatar and Turkey, which she alleges support terrorism, reviewed.
At the same time, Le Pen sees the US as a purveyor of dangerous policies and Russia as a more suitable
friend.
Furthermore, as it was also stressed in the same FT report, "the FN is not the only supposedly
rightwing European populist party seeking to draw support from disaffected voters on the left. Nigel
Farage, the leader of the UK Independence party has adopted a similar approach and has been discussing
plans "to ring-fence the National Health Service budget and lower taxes for low earners, among a
host of measures geared to economically vulnerable voters who would typically support Labor".[x]
Similar trends are noticed in other European countries like Finland, where the anti-NATO and pro-independence
from the EU parties had effectively won the last elections,[xi] as well as in Hungary, where neo-nationalist
forces are continuously rising,[xii] and Orban's government has done more than any other EU leader
in protecting his country's sovereignty, being as a result, in constant conflict with the Euro-elites.
Finally, the rise of a neo-nationalist party in Poland enraged Martin Schulz, the loudmouthed gatekeeper
of the TE in the European Parliament, who accused the new government as attempting a "dangerous 'Putinization'
of European politics."[xiii]
However, what Eurocrats like Martin Schulz "forget" is that since Poland joined the EU
in 2004, at least two million Poles have emigrated, many of them to the UK. The victory of the Law
and Justice Party (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc, PiS) in October 2015 was due not just to a backlash by
traditional Polish voters to the bulldozing of their values by the ideology of globalization but
also to the fact, as Cédric Gouverneur pointed out, that "the nationalist, pro-religion, protectionist,
xenophobic PiS has attracted these disappointed people with an ambitious welfare programme: a family
allowance of 500 zloty ($130) a month per child, funded through a tax on banks and big business;
a minimum wage; and a return to a retirement age of 60 for women and 65 for men (PO had planned to
raise it to 67 for both).[xiv] In fact, PiS used to be a conservative pro-EU party when they were
in power between 2005 and 2007, following faithfully the neoliberal program, and since then they
have become increasingly populist and Eurosceptic. As a result, in the last elections they won the
parliamentary elections in both the lower house (Sejm) and the Senate, with 37.6% of the vote, against
24.1% for the neoliberals and 8.8% for the populist Kukiz while the "progressive" camp failed to
clear the threshold (5% for parties, 8% for coalitions) and have no parliamentary representation
at all!
The bankruptcy of the Left
It is therefore obvious that the globalization process has already had devastating economic
and social consequences on the majority of the world population. At the same time, the same process
has also resulted in tremendous changes at the political and the cultural levels, in the past three
decades or so. Last, but not least, it has led to a series of major wars by the Transnational Elite
in its attempt to integrate any country resisting integration into the New World Order (NWO) defined
by neoliberal globalization (Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria).
Furthermore, there is little doubt anymore that it was the intellectual failure of the Left to
grasp the real significance of a new systemic phenomenon, (i.e. the rise of the Transnational Corporation
that has led to the emergence of the globalization era) and its consequent political bankruptcy,
which were the ultimate causes of the rise of a neo-nationalist movement in Europe. This movement
is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working class
that used to support the Left, whilst the latter has effectively embraced not just economic globalization
but also political, ideological and cultural globalization and has therefore been fully integrated
into the New World Order. In fact, today, following the successful emasculation of the antisystemic
movement against globalization, thanks mainly to the activities of the globalist Left, it was left
to the neo-nationalist movement to fight against globalization in general and against the EU in particular.
Almost inevitably, in view of the campaigns of the TE against Muslim countries (Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria), worrying Islamophobic trends have developed within several of these neo-nationalist
movements, some of them turning their old anti-Semitism to Islamophobia, supported on this by Zionists
themselves![xv] Even Marine Le Pen did not avoid the temptation to lie about Islamophobia and anti-Semitism,
stressing that "there is no Islamophobia in France but there is a rise in anti-Semitism".
Yet, she is well aware of the fact that Islamophobia was growing in France well before Charlie
Hebdo,[xvi] with racial attacks against Islamic immigrants, (most of whom live under squalid conditions
in virtual ghettos) being very frequent. At the same time, it is well known that the Jewish community
is mostly well off and shares a very disproportionate part of political and economic power in the
country to its actual size, as it happens of course also––and to an even larger extent–– in UK and
USA. This is one more reason why Popular Fronts for National and Social Liberation have to be built
in every country of the world to fight not only Eurofascism and the NWO-which is of course the main
enemy––but also any racist trends developing within these new anti-globalization movements, which
today take the form of neo-nationalism. This would also prevent the elites from using the historically
well-tested 'divide and rule' practice to divide the victims of globalization.
Similarly, the point implicitly raised by the stand of the British "NewLeft" in general on the
issue of Brexit cannot just be discussed in terms of the free trade vs. protectionism debate, as
the liberal (or globalist) "NewLeft" does (see for instance Jean Bricmont[xvii] and Larry Elliott[xviii]
of the Guardian). Yet, the point is whether it is globalization itself, which has led to the present
mass economic violence against the vast majority of the world population and the accompanying it
military violence. In other words, what all these "NewLeft" trends hide is that globalization is
a class issue. But, this is the essence of the bankruptcy of the "NewLeft" , which is reflected in
the fact that, today, it is the neo-nationalist Right which has replaced the Left in its role of
representing the victims of the system in its globalized form , while the Left mainly
represents those in the middle class or the petty bourgeoisie who benefit from globalization. Needless
to add that today's bankrupt "NewLeft" promptly characterized the rising neo-nationalist parties
as racist, if not fascist and neo-Nazis, fully siding with the EU's black propaganda campaign against
the rising movement for national sovereignty.
This is obviously another nail in the coffin of this kind of "NewLeft" , as the millions of European
voters who turn their back towards this degraded "NewLeft" are far from racists or fascists but simply
want to control their way of life rather than letting it to be determined by the free movement of
capital, labor and commodities, as the various Soroses of this world demand!
The neo-nationalist movement is embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over
Europe, particularly the working class that used to support the Left,[xix] whilst the latter
has effectively embraced not just economic globalization but also political, ideological and cultural
globalization and has therefore been fully integrated into the New World Order––a defining moment
in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy. In the Austrian elections, it became once more
clear that the Left expresses now the middle class, while the neo-nationalists the working class.
As the super-globalist BBC presented the results:
Support for Mr Hofer was exceptionally strong among manual workers – nearly 90%. The vote for
Mr Van der Bellen was much stronger among people with a university degree or other higher education
qualifications. In nine out of Austria's 10 main cities Mr Van der Bellen came top, whereas Mr Hofer
dominated the rural areas, the Austrian broadcaster ORF reported (in German).[xx]
The process of the NewLeft's bankruptcy has been further enhanced by the fact that, faced with
political collapse in the May 2014 Euro-parliamentary elections, it allied itself with the elites
in condemning the neo-nationalist parties as fascist and neo-Nazi. However, today, following the
successful emasculation of the antisystemic movement against globalization (mainly through the World
Social Forum, thanks to the activities of the globalist "NewLeft" ),[xxi] it is up to the neo-nationalist
movement to fight globalization in general and the EU in particular. It is therefore clear that the
neo-nationalist parties which are, in fact, all under attack by the TE, constitute cases of movements
that have simply filled the huge gap created by the globalist "NewLeft" . Thus, this "NewLeft" ,
Instead of placing itself in the front line among all those peoples fighting globalization and the
phasing out of their economic and national sovereignty, it has indirectly promoted globalization,
using arguments based on an anachronistic internationalism, supposedly founded on Marxism.
On the other side, as one might expect, most members of the Globalist "NewLeft" have joined the
new 'movement' by Varoufakis to democratize Europe, "forgetting" in the process that 'Democracy'
was also the West's propaganda excuse for destroying Iraq, Libya and now Syria. Today, it seems that
the Soros circus is aiming to use exactly the same excuse to destroy Europe, in the sense of securing
the perpetuation of the EU elites' domination of the European peoples and therefore the continuation
of the consequent economic violence involved. The most prominent members of the globalist "NewLeft"
who have already joined this new DIEM 'movement' range from Noam Chomsky and Julian Assange to Suzan
George and Toni Negri, and from Hillary Wainwright of Red Pepper to CounterPunch and
other globalist "NewLeft" newspapers and journals all over the world. In this context, it is particularly
interesting to refer to Slavoj Žižek's commentary on the 'Manifesto' that was presented at the inaugural
meeting of Varoufakis's new movement in Berlin on February 2016.[xxii]
Neo-nationalism and immigration
So, the unifying element of neo-nationalists is their struggle for national sovereignty, which
they (rightly), see as disappearing in the era of globalization. Even when their main immediate motive
is the fight against immigration, indirectly their fight is against globalization, as they realize
that it is the opening of all markets, including the labor markets, particularly within economic
unions like the EU, which is the direct cause of their own unemployment or low-wage employment, as
well as of the deterioration of the welfare state, given that the elites are not prepared to expand
social expenditure to accommodate the influx of immigrants. Yet, this is not a racist movement but
a purely economic movement, although the TE and the Zionist elites, with the help of the globalist
"NewLeft" , try hard to convert it into an Islamophobic movement––as the Charlie Hebdo case
clearly showed[xxiii]–––so that they could use it in any way they see fit in the support of the NWO.
But, what is the relationship of both neo-nationalists and Euro-fascists to historical fascism
and Nazism? As I tried to show elsewhere,[xxiv] fascism, as well as National Socialism, presuppose
a nation-state, therefore this kind of phenomenon is impossible to develop in any country fully integrated
into the NWO, which, by definition, cannot have any significant degree of national sovereignty. The
only kind of sovereignty available in the NWO of neoliberal globalization is transnational sovereignty,
which, in fact, is exclusively shared by members of the TE. In other words, fascism and Nazism were
historical phenomena of the era of nation-state before the ascent of the NWO of neoliberal globalization,
when states still had a significant degree of national and economic sovereignty.
However, in the globalization era, it is exactly this sovereignty that is being phased out for
any country fully integrated into the NWO. Therefore, the only kind of 'fascism' still possible
today is the one directly or indirectly supported by the TE (what we may call 'Euro-fascism'), which
is therefore a kind of pseudo-fascism––although in terms of the bestial practices it uses, it may
be even more genuine than the 'real thing' of the inter-war period. This is, for instance, the case
of the Ukrainian Euro-fascists who are the closest thing to historical Nazism available today, not
only in terms of their practices but also in terms of their history. However, as there is overwhelming
evidence of the full support they have enjoyed by the Transnational Elite and (paradoxically?) even
by the Zionist elite,[xxv] they should more accurately be called Euro-fascists.
It is therefore clear that the neo-nationalist parties, which are all under attack by the TE,
constitute cases of movements that simply filled the huge gap left by the globalist Left, which,
instead of placing itself in the front line of all those peoples fighting globalization and the phasing
out of their economic and national sovereignty,[xxvi] indirectly promoted globalization, using arguments
based on an anachronistic internationalism, developed a hundred years ago or so. The neo-nationalist
parties are embraced by most of the victims of globalization all over Europe, particularly the working
class which used to support the Left,[xxvii] whilst the latter has effectively embraced all aspects
of globalization (economic, political, ideological and cultural) and has been fully integrated into
the NWO––a defining moment in its present intellectual and political bankruptcy.
National and Social Liberation Fronts everywhere!
So, at this crucial historical juncture that will determine whether we shall all become subservient
to neoliberal globalization and the transnational elite (as the DIEM25 Manifesto implies through
our subordination to the EU) or not, it is imperative that we create a Popular Front in each country
which will include all the victims of globalization among the popular strata, regardless of their
current political affiliations.
In Europe, in particular, where the popular strata are facing economic disaster, what is urgently
needed is not an "antifascist" Front within the EU, as proposed by the 'parliamentary juntas' in
power and the Euro-elites, also supported by the globalist "NewLeft" (such as Diem25, Plan B in Europe,
Die Linke, the Socialist Workers' Party in the UK, SYRIZA in Greece and so on), which would, in fact,
unite aggressors and victims. An 'antifascist' front would simply disorient the masses and make them
incapable of facing the real fascism being imposed on them[xxviii] by the political and economic
elites, which constitute the transnational and local elites. Instead, what is needed is a Popular
Front for National and Social Liberation, which that could attract the vast majority of the people
who would fight for immediate unilateral withdrawal from the EU – which is managed by the European
part of the transnational elite – as well as for economic self- reliance, thus breaking with globalization.
To my mind, it is only the creation of broad Popular Fronts that could effect each country's exit
from the EU, NAFTA and similar economic unions, with the aim of achieving economic self-reliance.
Re-development based on self-reliance is the only way in which peoples breaking away from globalization
and its institutions (like the EU) could rebuild their productive structures, which have been dismantled
by globalization. This could also, objectively, lay the ground for future systemic change, decided
upon democratically by the peoples themselves. Therefore, the fundamental aim of the social struggle
today should be a complete break with the present NWO and the building of a new global democratic
community, in which economic and national sovereignty have been restored, so that peoples could then
fight for the ideal society, as they see it.
Takis Fotopoulos is a political philosopher, editor of Society & Nature/
Democracy and Nature/The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. He has also been a columnist
for the Athens Daily Eleftherotypia since 1990. Between 1969 and 1989 he was Senior Lecturer in Economics
at the University of North London (formerly Polytechnic of North London). He is the author of over
25 books and over 1,500 articles, many of which have been translated into various languages.
This article is based on Ch. 4 of the book to be published next month by Progressive Press,
The New World Order in Action, vol. 1: The NWO, the Left and Neo-Nationalism. This is a major three-volume
project aiming to cover all aspects of the New World Order (NWO) of neoliberal globalization
http://www.progressivepress.com/book-listing/new-world-order-action
Notes:
Bruno Waterfield, "Juncker vows to use new powers to block the far-right", [i]The Times,
24/5/2016
[xviii] see for instance Larry Elliott, "How free trade became the hot topic vexing voters
and politicians in Europe and the US" , The Guardian , 28/3/2016
[xix] Francis Elliott et al. 'Working class prefers Ukip to Labour", The Times , 25/11/2014
Looks like now line in 1920th the global pendulum moves toward nationalism.
So in a way neoliberalism breeds nationalism and transnational elite paves the way
for dictators like Mussolini, Hitler and Stalin in the past. Transnational elites
start to recognize the danger, but they can do nothing about it as Trump has shown
so vividly in the USA.
High unemployment logically lead to nationalism and all
those neoliberal politicians understood that they are destroying the county but
continue to plunder it anyway. Biden already cried uncle about the danger of far
right nationalism on CNN. But reality in the USA is not then different from the
reality in Britain.
Notable quotes:
"... No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully employed. ..."
"... Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored. Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted to exit the EU. ..."
"... Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology. The Brits got it right. Will we? ..."
It's hard to say if that was the wakeup call that led to a sharp reversal and
Thursday's historic vote to leave the EU, but it was nevertheless a stunning
realization that Prime Minister David Cameron had failed to stem the tide of
immigrant workers flooding the UK's job market, as he had promised to do.
Meanwhile, a laundry list of commentators from the
Washington Post and
Esquire to
Vox and the
New York Times chalked it all up to millions of racist xenophobes who are
terrified of immigrants mucking up their pristine white privileged world. If
that sounds at all similar to the anti-Trump rhetoric, you can sort of see where
this is going.
The thing is, there's nothing even remotely irrational or bigoted about the
alarming
transformation of Britain's job market. Since 1997, the number of foreign-born
workers has doubled to one in six. And since 2014, three EU migrants have found
jobs for every Brit, according to official government figures. And, as we'll
see in a minute, there are concerning parallels on this side of the pond, as
well.
I hear from college grads and experienced professionals looking for jobs
all the time, but a recent inquiry from a 27-year-old Edinburgh, Scotland woman
with a BS in microbiology and excellent grades got my attention. She has applied
for more than 400 jobs without managing to secure an interview. Not a single
one.
More concerning is that the workforce itself has continued to shrink over
the same period. Whether that reflects increasing competition, lack of in-demand
skillsets or both doesn't really matter. The net result is that foreigners are
getting more of our jobs, and that's as true of offshore jobs as it is of onshore
jobs.
Think about it. Apple has created well over a million jobs, but 90% of them
are outsourced to China. Google may not make phones and tablets, but the vast
majority of Android-enabled mobile devices are manufactured in Asia. Of course,
that's true of nearly every industry, old or new.
We may not face the identical migrant worker problem that the UK has, but
the net result is the same: By giving up more and more jobs we create to foreign-born
immigrants and offshore contractors, that leaves fewer and fewer jobs and increasing
competition for American citizens.
No wonder Donald Trump's campaign has ignited a growing nationalism
movement. We're creating jobs and giving them away. We've let globalization
get away from us. It's abundantly clear that we don't have the right public
policies in place to incentivize corporations to keep Americans gainfully
employed.
Back in 2010, former Intel chairman Andy Grove penned How America Can Create
Jobs. The front-page Bloomberg BusinessWeek feature clearly outlined the perils
of losing our manufacturing muscle and declared the need for public policy that
puts jobs first, even if it does means constraining free trade with tariffs,
trade war be damned.
Grove's bold piece was embraced by some, panned by others and largely ignored.
Whether he or Trump have exactly the right solution to the globalization and
immigration problems plaguing free-market economies throughout the western world
doesn't matter. What matters is that they've identified a problem that needs
to be solved before it's too late. So did the British people when they voted
to exit the EU.
Economic prosperity and security must trump political correctness and ideology.
The Brits got it right. Will we?
"... Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society, you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ..."
"... The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance. ..."
"... Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience, shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but one that switched into brutality a few moments later. ..."
"... it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany, Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood, and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal to them, recurs in several of the essays. ..."
nderstand the dynamics of far-right extremism without understanding far-right extremists? Probably
not; it seems clear we need to have a much more "micro" understanding of the actors than we currently
have if we are to understand these movements so antithetical to the values of liberal democracy.
And yet there isn't much of a literature on this subject.
An important exception is a 2007 special issue of the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography
, curated by Kathleen Blee (
link ). This volume brings
together several ethnographic studies of extremist groups, and it makes for very interesting reading.
Kathleen Blee is a pioneer in this field and is the author of
Inside Organized Racism: Women in the Hate Movement (2002). She writes in Inside Organized
Racism :
Intense, activist racism typically does not arise on its own; it is learned in racist groups
. These groups promote ideas radically different from the racist attitudes held by many whites.
They teach a complex and contradictory mix of hatred for enemies, belief in conspiracies, and
allegiance to an imaginary unified race of "Aryans." (3)
One of Blee's key contributions has been to highlight the increasingly important and independent
role played by women in right-wing extremist movements in the United States and Europe.
The JCE issue includes valuable studies of right-wing extremist groups in India, France, Germany,
the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. And each of the essays is well worth reading, including especially
Blee's good introduction. Here is the table of contents:
Key questions concerning the mechanisms of mobilization arise in almost all the essays. What are
the mechanisms through which new adherents are recruited? What psychological and emotional mechanisms
are in play that keep loyalists involved in the movement? Contributors to this volume find a highly
heterogeneous set of circumstances leading to extremist activism. Blee argues that an internalist
approach is needed to allow us to have a more nuanced understanding of the social and personal
dynamics of extremist movements. What she means by externalist here is the idea that there
are societal forces and "risk factors" that contribute to the emergence of hate and racism within
a population, and that these factors can be studied in a general way. An internalist approach, by
contrast, aims at discovering the motives and causes of extremist engagement through study of the
actors themselves, within specific social circumstances.
But it is problematic to use data garnered in externalist studies to draw conclusions about micromobilization
since it is not possible to infer the motivations of activists from the external conditions in
which the group emerged. Because people are drawn to far-right movements for a variety of reasons
that have little connection to political ideology (Blee 2002)-including a search for community,
affirmation of masculinity, and personal loyalties- what motivates someone to join an anti-immigrant
group, for example, might-or might not-be animus toward immigrants. (120)
Based on interviews, participant-observation, and life-history methods, contributors find a mix of
factors leading to the choice of extremist involvement: adolescent hyper-masculinity, a desire to
belong, a history of bullying and abuse, as well as social exposure to adult hate activists. But
this work is more difficult than many other kinds of ethnographic research because of the secrecy,
suspiciousness, and danger associated with these kinds of activism:
Close-up or "internalist" studies of far-right movements can provide a better understanding of
the workings of far-right groups and the beliefs and motivations of their activists and supporters,
but such studies are rare because data from interviews with members, observations of group activities,
and internal documents are difficult to obtain.... Few scholars want to invest the considerable
time or to establish the rapport necessary for close-up studies of those they regard as inexplicable
and repugnant, in addition to dangerous and difficult. Yet, as the articles in this volume demonstrate,
internalist studies of the far right can reveal otherwise obscured and important features of extreme
rightist political mobilization. (121-122)
A few snippets will give some flavor of the volume. Here is Michael Kimmel's description
of some of the young men and boys attracted to the neo-Nazi movement in Sweden:
Insecure and lonely at twelve years old, Edward started hanging out with skinheads because he
"moved to a new town, knew nobody, and needed friends." Equally lonely and utterly alienated from
his distant father, Pelle met an older skinhead who took him under his wing and became a sort
of mentor. Pelle was a "street hooligan" hanging out in street gangs, brawling and drinking with
other gangs. "My group actually looked down on the neo-Nazis," he says, because "they weren't
real fighters." "All the guys had an insecure role as a man," says Robert. "They were all asking
'who am I?'" ...
Already feeling marginalized and often targeted, the boys and men described themselves
as "searchers" or "seekers," kids looking for a group with which to identify and where they would
feel they belonged. "When you enter puberty, it's like you have to choose a branch," said one
ex-Nazi. "You have to choose between being a Nazi, anti-Nazi, punk or hip- hopper-in today's society,
you just can't choose to be neutral" (cited in Wahlstrom 2001, 13-14). ...
For others, it was a sense of alienation from family and especially the desire to rebel against
their fathers. "Grown-ups often forget an important component of Swedish racism, the emotional
conviction," says Jonas Hallen (2000). "If you have been beaten, threatened, and stolen from,
you won't listen to facts and numbers."(209-210)
Here is Meera Sehgal's description of far-right Hindu nationalist training camps for
young girls in India:
The overall atmosphere of this camp and the Samiti's camps in general was rigid and authoritarian,
with a strong emphasis on discipline. ... A number of girls fell ill with diarrhea, exhaustion,
and heat stroke. Every day at least five to ten girls could be seen crying, wanting to go home.
They pleaded with their city's local Samiti leaders, camp instructors, and organizers to be allowed
to call their parents, but were not allowed to do so. ... Neither students nor instructors were
allowed to get sufficient rest or decent food.
The training was at a frenetic pace in physically trying conditions. Participants were kept
awake and physically and mentally engaged from dawn to late night. Approximately four hours a
day were devoted to physical training; five hours to ideological indoctrination through lectures,
group discussions, and rote memorization; and two hours to indoctrination through cultural programming
like songs, stories, plays, jokes, and skits. Many girls and women were consequently soon physically
exhausted, and yet were forced to continue. The systematic deprivation of adequate rest and
food may have been a deliberate ploy of the camp organizers to reduce the chances of dissent since
time, energy, initiative, and planning are needed to develop a collective sense of grievance.
Indoctrination, which was the Samiti's first priority, ranged from classroom lectures and small
and large group discussions led by different instructors, to nightly cultural programs where skits,
storytelling, songs, and chants were taught by the instructors and seasoned activists, based on
the lives of various "Hindu" women, both mythical and historical. (170)
And here is Fabian Virchow's description of the emotional power of music and spectacle
at a neo-Nazi rally in Germany:
Festivals are excellent opportunities for far-right groups to spread the word about their
successes to like-minded activists and sympathizers, since visitors come from as far away as Italy
to see White Power music bands. In the festival mentioned above, a folk-dance act in the afternoon
attracted only some hundred spectators, but evening performances by the U.S. band Youngland drew
a large crowd that pushed to the front of the stage, leaving only limited space for burly skinheads
indulging in pogo dancing. The music created a ritual closeness and attachment among the audience,
shaping the emotions and aggression of the like-minded crowd, initially in a playful way, but
one that switched into brutality a few moments later.
The aggression of White Power music is evident in the messages of its songs, which are either
confessing, demonstrating self-assertion against what is perceived as totally hostile surroundings,
or requesting action (Meyer 1995). Using Heavy Metal or Oi Punk as its musical basis, White Power
music not only attracts those who see themselves as part of the same political movement as the
musicians, but also serves as one of the most important tools for recruiting new adherents to
the politics of the far right (Dornbusch and Raabe 2002).
Since the festival I visited takes place only once a year, and because performances of White
Power bands are organized clandestinely in most cases and are often disrupted by the police, the
far-right movement needs additional events to shape and sustain its collective identity. As the
far right and the NPD and neo-Nazi groupuscules in particular regard themselves as a "movement
of action," it is no surprise that rallies play an important role in this effort. (151)
Each of these essays is based on first-hand observation and interaction, and they give some insight
into the psychological forces playing on the participants as well as the mobilizational strategies
used by the leaders of these kinds of movements. The articles published here offer a good cross-section
of the ways in which ethnographic methods can be brought to bear on the phenomenon of extremist right-wing
activism. And because the studies are drawn from five quite different national contexts (Sweden,
Germany, Netherlands, India, France), it is intriguing to see some of the same mechanisms and
dynamics in play in creating and sustaining an extremist movement. The importance of performance
and music in eliciting loyal participation from young adherents comes up in the articles about Germany,
Sweden, and India. Likewise the importance of the emotional needs of boys as they approach manhood,
and the hyper-masculine themes of violence and brutality in the neo-Nazi organizations that appeal
to them, recurs in several of the essays.
Along with KA Kreasap, Kathleen Blee is also the author of a 2010 review article on right-wing
extremist movements in Annual Reviews of Sociology (
link ). These are the kinds of hate-based organizations and activists tracked by the Southern
Poverty Law Center (
link ), and that seem to be more visible than ever before during the current presidential campaign.
The essay pays attention to the question of the motivations and "risk factors" that lead people to
join right-wing movements. Blee and Kreasap argue that the motivations and circumstances of mobilization
into right-wing organizations are substantially more heterogeneous than a simple story leading from
racist attitudes to racist mobilization would suggest. They argue that antecedent racist ideology
is indeed a factor, but that music, culture, social media, and continent social networks also play
significant causal roles.
"... Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous contemporary democracies around the world. ..."
"... Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism, and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational institutions. ..."
"... The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment (and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention. ..."
Several recent posts have commented on the rise of a nationalistic, nativist politics in numerous
contemporary democracies around the world. The implications of this political process are deeply
challenging to the values of liberal democracy. We need to try to understand these developments.
(Peter Merkl's research on European right-wing extremism is very helpful here;
Right-wing Extremism in the Twenty-first Century .)
One plausible approach to trying to understand the dynamics of this turn to the far right is to
consider relevantly similar historical examples. A very interesting study on the history of Austria's
right-wing extremism between the wars was published recently by Janek Wasserman,
Black Vienna: The Radical Right in the Red City, 1918-1938 .
Wasserman emphasizes the importance of ideas and culture within the rise of Austrofascism,
and he makes use of Gramsci's concept of hegemony as a way of understanding the link between philosophy
and politics. The pro-fascist right held a dominant role within major Viennese cultural and educational
institutions. Here is how Wasserman describes the content of ultra-conservative philosophy and
ideology in inter-war Vienna:
The ideas represented within its institutions ran a broad spectrum, yet its discourse centered
on radical anti-Semitism, German nationalism, völkisch authoritarianism, anti-Enlightenment
(and antimodernist) thinking, and corporatism. The potential for collaboration between Catholic
conservatives and German nationalists has only in recent years begun to attract scholarly attention.
(6)
This climate was highly inhospitable towards ideas and values from progressive thinkers. Wasserman
describes the intellectual and cultural climate of Vienna in these terms:
At the turn of the century, Austria was one of the most culturally conservative nations in Europe.
The advocacy of avant-garde scientific theories therefore put the First Vienna Circle- and its
intellectual forbears- under pressure. Ultimately, it left them in marginal positions until several
years after the Great War. In the wake of the Wahrmund affair, discussed in chapter 1, intellectuals
advocating secularist, rationalist, or liberal views faced a hostile academic landscape.
Ernst Mach, for example, was an intellectual outsider at the University of Vienna from 1895
until his death in 1916. Always supportive of socialist causes, he left a portion of his estate
to the Social Democrats in his last will and testament. His theories of sensationalism and radical
empiricism were challenged on all sides, most notably by his successor Ludwig Boltzmann. His students,
among them David Josef Bach and Friedrich Adler, either had to leave the country to find appointments
or give up academics altogether. Unable to find positions in Vienna, Frank moved to Prague and
Neurath to Heidelberg. Hahn did not receive a position until after the war. The First Vienna Circle
disbanded because of a lack of opportunity at home. (110-111)
"... Let us hope. But let us expose the dirty hand of Uncle Sam working over time for the corporate trans border pirates down there. Barry once again has been a conspicuous useful idiot with his visit to Argentina. ..."
"... In the making since long before Smedley Butler realized the marines were serving US banks. ..."
Venezuela fundamental transformation proceeds apace ...
the crowd images are impressive
Venezuelans stage mass protest demanding recall to oust
president
"Venezuela's political opposition says Thursday's mass
demonstration - dubbed the "taking of Caracas" - against
President Nicolas Maduro brought one million people into
the streets demanding political change.
Opposition leaders Jesus Torrealba, of the Democratic
Unity Roundtable said it was the "biggest rally in recent
decades" with "between 950,000 and 1.1 million people"
taking part.
Dozens of city blocks were choked with people angry
about growing food shortages and an inflation rate that is
expected to top 700 percent this year.
Maduro led a comparatively small counter rally of
hard-core supporters, many of them state workers. The
number of participants was estimated at fewer than
30,000."
You have dismissed Doug Henwood for some bizarre reason.
He had a good interview on his radio show about the
left in Latin America which was specifically about the
coup in Brazil but talked about a lot more with a
historian of the left in Latin America.
This historian was hopeful despite what has been
happening. There are ebbs and flows but think of the
spontaneous support for Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn or
Podemos or Syriza.
There is real and popular or "organic" organizing of
the left in Latin America against corporate hegemony,
despite the supposed or real corruptions of official
leftist parties like in Brazil.
The left is much more durable than it appears.
There's more than meets the eye.
Paine -> Peter K....
, -1
Let us hope. But let us expose the dirty hand of Uncle
Sam working over time for the corporate trans border
pirates down there. Barry once again has been a
conspicuous useful idiot with his visit to Argentina.
"... A direct approach to the objective exhausts the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the defenders hold by upsetting his balance." ..."
"... advocated fighting the decisive battle after the opponent has been unbalanced. ..."
...Liddell Hart wrote Strategy: An Indirect Approach , in which he stated: "In strategy
the longest way around is often the shortest way there. A direct approach to the objective exhausts
the attacker and hardens the resistance by compression, where as an indirect approach loosens the
defenders hold by upsetting his balance."
Liddell exhaustively analyzed numerous battles throughout history and advocated fighting the
decisive battle after the opponent has been unbalanced.
... ... ...
Shimon Naveh, the founder and former head of the
Israel Defense Forces
' Operational Theory Research Institute, stated that after World War II Liddell Hart "created"
the idea of Blitzkrieg as a military doctrine: "It was the opposite of a doctrine. Blitzkrieg consisted
of an avalanche of actions that were sorted out less by design and more by success." [28] Naveh stated that,
"by manipulation and contrivance, Liddell Hart distorted the actual circumstances of the Blitzkrieg
formation and obscured its origins. Through his indoctrinated idealization of an ostentatious
concept he reinforced the myth of Blitzkrieg. By imposing, retrospectively, his own perceptions
of mobile warfare upon the shallow concept of Blitzkrieg, he created a theoretical imbroglio that
has taken 40 years to unravel". [29]
The Hungarian billionaire appeared to have a fascination with not just fostering but creating
anti-Putin opposition forces inside of Russia in a bid to destabilize the country.
The recent
DC Leaks document dump of over 2,500 documents from George Soros' Open Society Foundations illustrates
a disturbing trend by the billionaire of using his wealth and influence to sow chaos across the world
in a bid to profit off of global suffering and impose neoliberal ideas on an international scale.
The leaks have already exposed Soros' efforts to destabilize the European Union by promoting
a policy of open borders and mass migration and fracturing Ukraine's government by fomenting an illegal
coup of a democratically elected government using neo-Nazi hardliners. Once dubbed the "puppet
master" by the fanatical Glenn Beck, Soros has also been linked to both corruption in the United
States and, according to some, positive social reform in his funding of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Yet the man who has brought regimes around the world to their knees has long wanted to bring
Putin's government crashing down, but has proven unsuccessful time and again. New memos from the
DC Leaks file dump show that this failure to oust Putin wasn't for lack of trying on the part of
Soros. In a November 2012 document titled "OSF [Open Society Foundation] Russia Strategic Planning
Meeting Notes" a team of anti-Putin international experts sat down to discuss how to "identify joint
priorities for OSF's Russia activities in the coming year. How can we most effectively collaborate,
considering the deteriorating political environment for our partners?"
Whereas that seems benign, the document minutes show that the meeting's participants hoped that
Medvedev's years as president would provide "an opening" for the Open Society Foundations to influence
and rattle the Russian government. A hope that disappeared when Putin returned to office.
"The Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs…
However, pressure has come back very quickly in the short time that Putin has been back in power."
The NGO operation became quickly distrusted in Russia following the botched "Maidan like"
protests which were immediately dismantled before it could threaten the Russian government.
"The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGO's," read the minutes. The meeting explains
that the government had attempted to encourage civil opposition by providing funds, "but by encouraging
self-organization, they had opened up Pandora's Box… the door was opened for self-mobilization."
The document proceeded to provide an extensive bullet point list of "what must be done" in
order to destabilize Russia including working to flood the country with migrants and influencing
the country's media operations.
The memo was followed up with what was called "the Russia Project" which called for identifying
and organizing opponents to Putin, advancing principles of globalism, and undermine Russia's image
in the lead up to the Sochi Winter Olympics.
"... The human rights context has greatly changed from 2006 to 2012: the Medvedev period allowed for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs. ..."
"... The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGOs. The state had been providing money for self-organization, thinking this would defuse the possibility of large-scale opposition. But by encouraging self-organization, they had opened up a Pandora's Box. People became active and began to feel that it was possible to change something; the door was opened for self-mobilization. ..."
"... The document details in an extensive bullet point list, "what must be done" to destabilize Russia, focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn governments… ..."
"... We will mitigate the negative impact of new laws via domestic and international advocacy. Key allies in this regard are the growing numbers of diverse Russian citizens opposing the country's regression, along with the sizeable community of Russian legal experts with an in-depth knowledge of NGO law and a strong motivation to help the sector continue its activities. ..."
"... Engaging with Russian diaspora who oppose the current government, and mobilising the LGBT community through mass media propaganda, are recurrent themes in the Soros document. ..."
"... Our comparative advantage lies in the deep and wide networks that we have fostered these past years. A strategic use of these networks will maximize the long-term impact of the work that LGBT rights organizations are doing. LGBT rights groups in Russia are professional and effective, yet they lack the capacity to reach far beyond their immediate communities and galvanize other civil society players necessary for their long-term success. ..."
"... Destabilisation of a country the size of Russia does not come without a significant price tag, for which George Soros seems more than ready to pony up… ..."
"... Their can be no doubt that the 2014-2017 plan outlined by Soros NGOs, which even envisioned staff growth and Eurasian region restructuring, has hit a major speed bump with the 2015 law that saw these divisive forces operating within Russian finally get booted out of the country. ..."
"... Vlad, smoke this Globalist scum. American people will cheer you! ..."
"... MR. Soros needs to get wacked by someone as he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths in Ukraine alone and I won't even mention the Nazi informer days. ..."
The recent
DC Leaks , of over 2,500 documents from George Soros NGOs, has shed a bright light on how the
billionaire uses his vast wealth to create global chaos in an never ending push to deliver his neo-liberal
euphoria to the peasant classes.
While Soros has managed to thoroughly destabilise the European Union by promoting mass immigration
and open borders, divided the United States by actively funding Black Lives Matters and corrupting
the very corruptible US political class, and destroyed Ukraine by pushing for an illegal coup of
a democratically elected government using neo-nazi strong men… one country that Soros has not bee
able to crack has been The Russian Federation.
Russia's political pragmatism and humanist value system rooted in a traditional, "nation-state"
culture most likely infuriates Soros.
Russia is Soros' white whale... a creature he has been trying to capture and kill-off for nearly
a decade.
Unfortunately for Soros (and fortunately for the entire planet) the Russian government realised
the cancerous nature of Soros backed NGOs, and took the proper preventative measures…which in hindsight,
and after reviewing the DC Leaks memos, proved to be a very wise move.
Russian Prosecutor
General's Office issued a statement in which it recognized George Soros's Open Society Institute
and another affiliated organization as "undesirable groups", banning Russian citizens and organizations
from participation in any of their projects.
–prosecutors said the activities of the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Institute
Assistance Foundation were a threat to the foundations of Russia's Constitutional order and national
security . They added that the Justice Ministry would be duly informed about these conclusions
and would add the two groups to Russia's list of undesirable foreign organizations.
According to RT , prosecutors launched a probe into the activities of the two organizations
– both sponsored by the well-known US financier George Soros – in July this year, after Russian
senators approved the so-called "patriotic stop-list" of 12 groups that required immediate attention
over their supposed anti-Russian activities.
The Law on Undesirable Foreign Organizations came into force in early June this year. It requires
the Prosecutor General's Office and the Foreign Ministry to draw up an official list of undesirable
foreign organizations and outlaw their activities. Once a group is recognized as undesirable,
its assets in Russia must be frozen, its offices closed and the distribution of any of its materials
must be banned. That said, it is doubtful that Soros still has any active assets in Russia – his
foundation, which emerged in Russia in its early post-USSR years in the mid-1990s, wrapped up
active operations in 2003 when Putin cemented his control on power.
The huge document tranche released by DC Leaks
shows how dangerous the Open Society and George Soros were to the well being and preservation
of the Russian Federation and the Russian culture.
In a document from November 2012 entitled, "OSF [Open Society Foundation] Russia Strategic Planning
Meeting Notes" , Participants:
Leonard Benardo, Iva Dobichina, Elizabeth Eagen, Jeff Goldstein, Minna Jarvenpaa, Ralf Jürgens,
Elena Kovalevskaya, Vicki Litvinov, Tanya Margolin, Amy McDonough, Sara Rhodin, Yervand Shirinyan,
Becky Tolson
Discuss how to …
Identify joint priorities for OSF's Russia activities in the coming year. How can we most effectively
collaborate, considering the deteriorating political environment for our partners?
The main revelation of the document minutes comes from the hope that Medvedev's years as president
would provide the NGOs the "opening" they would need to finally break the Russian bear.
That all evaporated in 2012, when Vladimir Putin returned to the President's office.
The OSF, clearly distraught and disappointed, begins to lay down the groundwork for how to challenge
the Putin administration, in light of his very different approach to dealing with NGOs like the Open
Society Foundation.
The human rights context has greatly changed from 2006 to 2012: the Medvedev period allowed
for a number of improvements and significant openings for NGOs. Amendments to the NGO law in 2006
led to campaigning on behalf of NGOs; many of our grantees benefited during this period. Surkov
established ties with many groups that were willing to cooperate with the state and our partners
served as experts in key processes like police reform . A space was created for modernization
and for the inclusion of civil society during Medvedev's term. However, pressure has come back
very quickly in the short time that Putin has been back in power.
A major turning point for NGO operation in Russia came with the botched Russian "Maidan like"
protests, which were promptly dismantled before any damage could be inflicted.
The Russian protests deeply affected the life of NGOs. The state had been providing money for
self-organization, thinking this would defuse the possibility of large-scale opposition. But by
encouraging self-organization, they had opened up a Pandora's Box. People became active and began
to feel that it was possible to change something; the door was opened for self-mobilization.
The state has responded with repression and political prisoners, in order to instill fear in
the population. The state is also working to undermine social support for the protests. Its support
of socially-oriented ("good") NGOs is a way to divide the community, while the foreign agents
law frames the protests as foreign money undermining Russia.
Why the fascination with Russia? Why is it important for OSF to focus on Russia? With Russia comes
immense wealth and tremendous geo-political power.
Key open society themes and issues are highly relevant in Russia
– Transparency and accountability (anticorruption)
– Rights and justice (i.e., criminal justice, policing, rule of law, LGBT, women's rights)
– Migration
– Inclusive education (disability, Roma)
– Media freedom, access to information
– Health (access to medicines, HIV, harm reduction)
Copy-cat problem: Russian tactics are picked up by Central Asia (ie, anti-extremism law in
Kazakhstan)
Russia's influence in UN Human Rights Council – pushing resolution that says human rights should
take into consideration traditional values of country in question – very few HR orgs that are
following the council saw this coming – has large implications beyond Russia
Participation in global international regimes (G20, ICC, WTO) – a more open Russia creates
changes in international governing bodies
European Court litigation
The document details in an extensive bullet point list, "what must be done" to destabilize Russia,
focusing on many recurrent neo-liberal themes that Soros uses to infect host nations and overturn
governments…
– Political prisoners (Bolotnaya, etc.)
– Media censorship and control (pressure in independent media – work w/ NMP)
– Surveillance
– LGBT (push against propaganda laws, which are driven by local officials, not by the federal
gov't)
– Women's rights
– Disability rights and inclusive education
Prisons
– Lots of funding is going to monitoring; where is our money best placed?
– ONKs don't have sufficient $ for travel and legal representation
Policing and police violence (Public Verdict, Man and Law, etc.)
Migrants
Transparency and accountability
– State spending – monitoring, analysis
– Tracking cross-border transactions and business purchases
– Connections between accountability, human rights, and ordinary citizens' interests
Following the 2012 document, and the apparent disappointment expressed by OSF members at Russia's
resistance to the neo-liberal way of life,
DC Leaks provides a follow up memo entitled, "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017".
The document summary…
Russia today faces a regrettable backsliding into authoritarian practice. Confronted with serious
domestic challenges, the regime has become more insular and isolationist, seeking to solidify
its base. The progressively draconian laws promulgated since Putin's return to the presidency
have placed all foreign- funded organizations under threat of isolation and disrepute. Despite
these decidedly challenging conditions, it is essential that we continue to engage Russia, both
to preserve its extant democratic spaces, and to ensure that Russian voices do not go dark on
the broader global stage.
The destabilization of Russia, now aptly named, "the Russia Project" goes on to identify three
cornerstone concepts…
Amid the grim landscape, there nonetheless remain apertures for the Russia Project's intervention.
Exploiting all available opportunities, we will undertake the following three concepts, which
we deem vital in the current climate:
1) We will mitigate the negative impact of new laws via domestic and international advocacy.
Key allies in this regard are the growing numbers of diverse Russian citizens opposing the country's
regression, along with the sizeable community of Russian legal experts with an in-depth knowledge
of NGO law and a strong motivation to help the sector continue its activities.
2) We will integrate Russian voices into the global exchange of ideas. Given that Russian intellectuals,
practitioners and activists are increasingly sidelined domestically, and academics are often isolated
from the international community, we will support venues for inserting diverse, critical Russian
thinking into the global discourse. Such opportunities allow Russian actors to enter into mutually
beneficial collaborations on topics ranging from migration to digital activism, thus maintaining
their relevance and reducing their provincialization.
3) We aim to mainstream the rights and dignity of one of Russia's most marginalized populations:
LGBT individuals. The RP's diverse network of partners provides an opportunity to build a broader
base of civil society allies at a time when the LGBT community is under profound threat. We hope
to see a more balanced discourse on LGBT rights among the Russian public, as well as a strong
cohort of mainstream independent organizations actively incorporating LGBT interests into their
work.
Social mobilisation and the funding of alternative media networks, to promote social discourse
and dissatisfaction, are common tactics that Soros NGOs uses to build up towards a revolution.
Along with these initiatives, we remain committed to supporting three primary fields: (a) access
to justice and legal empowerment of marginalized groups, (b) access to independent information
and alternative media, and (c) platforms for critical debate, discussion, and social mobilization.
The RP plans to provide core support to our trusted partners in each of these fields, investing
in their growth and development, and remaining flexible about the funding arrangements necessary
to allow them to continue their essential work. We also seek to strengthen their legitimacy and
financial sustainability, in order to build a more transparent, effective, and organizationally
efficient third sector.
Russia is currently in a gradual, arbitrary, and haphazard process of becoming more closed.
Amid this background, the RP's cardinal role is to create a dense and wide-ranging field of independent
civil society actors, who can in the best case help set the agenda for a more open and democratic
future in Russia, and in the worst case survive the effects of new draconian legislation.
Engaging with Russian diaspora who oppose the current government, and mobilising the LGBT community
through mass media propaganda, are recurrent themes in the Soros document.
The media focus on LGBT rights in the run up to the Sochi winter Olympics was an opportunity not
to be missed by Soros.
In the short to mid-term, the RP aims to engender broader civil society support for this highly
marginalized group. Even though the "propaganda of homosexuality" law has gained unprecedented
international attention in the lead-up to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, the voices of Russian
activists are barely being heard over larger international LGBT organizations. We want to make
sure that our Russian partners have a leading role in shaping the strategy of the international
movement, that planned campaigns have a domestic rather than just an international focus, and
that the momentum gathering around Sochi does not dissipate immediately after the Olympics end.
Our comparative advantage lies in the deep and wide networks that we have fostered these past
years. A strategic use of these networks will maximize the long-term impact of the work that LGBT
rights organizations are doing. LGBT rights groups in Russia are professional and effective, yet
they lack the capacity to reach far beyond their immediate communities and galvanize other civil
society players necessary for their long-term success.
Destabilisation of a country the size of Russia does not come without a significant price tag,
for which George Soros seems more than ready to pony up…
Given the large number of grants in the RP portfolio, we see a need for additional staffing
in order to implement our strategic priorities and effectively monitor our activities. However,
as a number of programs in the Eurasia region are being restructured, we are awaiting the results
of this transition before making any substantive recommendations.
Their can be no doubt that the 2014-2017 plan outlined by Soros NGOs, which even envisioned staff
growth and Eurasian region restructuring, has hit a major speed bump with the 2015 law that saw these
divisive forces operating within Russian finally get booted out of the country.
They have a warrant out for his arrest if he ever steps foot in Russia (highly unlikely). If I
remember correctly another country does also.
MR. Soros needs to get wacked by someone as he is directly responsible for thousands of deaths
in Ukraine alone and I won't even mention the Nazi informer days.
"... Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University. ..."
Following US geo-strategy in what Brzezinski termed the "global Balkans," the US government has
worked closely with major NGOs to "promote democracy" and "freedom" in former Soviet republics, playing
a role behind the scenes in fomenting what are termed "colour revolutions," which install US and
Western-friendly puppet leaders to advance the interests of the West, both economically and strategically.
Part 2 of this essay on "The Origins of World War III" analyzes the colour revolutions as being
a key stratagem in imposing the US-led New World Order. The "colour revolution" or "soft" revolution
strategy is a covert political tactic of expanding NATO and US influence to the borders of Russia
and even China; following in line with one of the primary aims of US strategy in the New World Order:
to contain China and Russia and prevent the rise of any challenge to US power in the region.
These revolutions are portrayed in the western media as popular democratic revolutions, in which
the people of these respective nations demand democratic accountability and governance from their
despotic leaders and archaic political systems. However, the reality is far from what this utopian
imagery suggests. Western NGOs and media heavily finance and organize opposition groups and protest
movements, and in the midst of an election, create a public perception of vote fraud in order to
mobilize the mass protest movements to demand "their" candidate be put into power. It just so happens
that "their" candidate is always the Western US-favoured candidate, whose campaign is often heavily
financed by Washington; and who proposes US-friendly policies and neoliberal economic conditions.
In the end, it is the people who lose out, as their genuine hope for change and accountability is
denied by the influence the US wields over their political leaders.
The soft revolutions also have the effect of antagonizing China and Russia, specifically, as it
places US protectorates on their borders, and drives many of the former Warsaw Pact nations to seek
closer political, economic and military cooperation. This then exacerbates tensions between the west
and China and Russia; which ultimately leads the world closer to a potential conflict between the
two blocs.
Serbia
Serbia experienced its "colour revolution" in October of 2000, which led to the overthrow of Serbian
leader Slobodan Milosevic. As the Washington Post reported in December of 2000, from 1999 on, the
US undertook a major "electoral strategy" to oust Milosevic, as "U.S.-funded consultants played a
crucial role behind the scenes in virtually every facet of the anti-Milosevic drive, running tracking
polls, training thousands of opposition activists and helping to organize a vitally important parallel
vote count. U.S. taxpayers paid for 5,000 cans of spray paint used by student activists to scrawl
anti-Milosevic graffiti on walls across Serbia, and 2.5 million stickers with the slogan "He's Finished,"
which became the revolution's catchphrase." Further, according to Michael Dobbs,writing in the Washington
Post, some "20 opposition leaders accepted an invitation from the Washington-based National Democratic
Institute (NDI) in October 1999 to a seminar at the Marriott Hotel in Budapest."
Interestingly, "Some Americans involved in the anti-Milosevic effort said they were aware of CIA
activity at the fringes of the campaign, but had trouble finding out what the agency was up to. Whatever
it was, they concluded it was not particularly effective. The lead role was taken by the State Department
and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government's foreign assistance agency, which
channeled the funds through commercial contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican
counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI)."
The NDI (National Democratic Institute), "worked closely with Serbian opposition parties, IRI
focused its attention on Otpor, which served as the revolution's ideological and organizational backbone.
In March, IRI paid for two dozen Otpor leaders to attend a seminar on nonviolent resistance at the
Hilton Hotel in Budapest." At the seminar, "the Serbian students received training in such matters
as how to organize a strike, how to communicate with symbols, how to overcome fear and how to undermine
the authority of a dictatorial regime."[1]
As the New York Times revealed, Otpor, the major student opposition group, had a steady flow of
money coming from the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Congress-funded "democracy promoting"
organization. The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) gave money to Otpor,
as did the International Republican Institute, "another nongovernmental Washington group financed
partly by A.I.D."[2]
Georgia
In 2003, Georgia went through its "Rose Revolution," which led to the overthrow of president Eduard
Shevardnadze, replacing him with Mikhail Saakashvili after the 2004 elections. In a November 2003
article in The Globe and Mail, it was reported that a US based foundation "began laying the brickwork
for the toppling of Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze," as funds from his non-profit organization
"sent a 31-year-old Tbilisi activist named Giga Bokeria to Serbia to meet with members of the Otpor
(Resistance) movement and learn how they used street demonstrations to topple dictator Slobodan Milosevic.
Then, in the summer," the "foundation paid for a return trip to Georgia by Otpor activists, who ran
three-day courses teaching more than 1,000 students how to stage a peaceful revolution."
This US-based foundation "also funded a popular opposition television station that was crucial
in mobilizing support for [the] 'velvet revolution,' and [it] reportedly gave financial support to
a youth group that led the street protests." The owner of the foundation "has a warm relationship
with Mr. Shevardnadze's chief opponent, Mikhail Saakashvili, a New York-educated lawyer who is expected
to win the presidency in an election scheduled for Jan. 4."
During a press conference a week before his resignation, Mr. Shevardnadze said that the US foundation
"is set against the President of Georgia." Moreover, "Mr. Bokeria, whose Liberty Institute received
money from both [the financier's foundation] and the U.S. government-backed Eurasia Institute, says
three other organizations played key roles in Mr. Shevardnadze's downfall: Mr. Saakashvili's National
Movement party, the Rustavi-2 television station and Kmara! (Georgian for Enough!), a youth group
that declared war on Mr. Shevardnadze [in] April and began a poster and graffiti campaign attacking
government corruption." [3]
The day following the publication of the previously quoted article, the author published another
article in the Globe and Mail explaining that the "bloodless revolution" in Georgia "smells more
like another victory for the United States over Russia in the post-Cold War international chess game."
The author, Mark MacKinnon, explained that Eduard Shevardnadze's downfall lied "in the oil under
the Caspian Sea, one of the world's few great remaining, relatively unexploited, sources of oil,"
as "Georgia and neighbouring Azerbaijan, which borders the Caspian, quickly came to be seen not just
as newly independent countries, but as part of an 'energy corridor'." Plans were drawn up for a massive
"pipeline that would run through Georgia to Turkey and the Mediterranean." It is worth quoting MacKinnon
at length:
When these plans were made, Mr. Shevardnadze was seen as an asset by both Western investors and
the U.S. government. His reputation as the man who helped end the Cold War gave investors a sense
of confidence in the country, and his stated intention to move Georgia out of Russia's orbit and
into Western institutions such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the European Union played
well at the U.S. State Department.
The United States quickly moved to embrace Georgia, opening a military base in the country [in
2001] to give Georgian soldiers "anti-terrorist" training. They were the first U.S. troops to set
up in a former Soviet republic.
But somewhere along the line, Mr. Shevardnadze reversed course and decided to once more embrace
Russia. This summer, Georgia signed a secret 25-year deal to make the Russian energy giant Gazprom
its sole supplier of gas. Then it effectively sold the electricity grid to another Russian firm,
cutting out AES, the company that the U.S. administration had backed to win the deal. Mr. Shevardnadze
attacked AES as "liars and cheats." Both deals dramatically increased Russian influence in Tbilisi.
Following the elections in Georgia, the US-backed and educated Mikhail Saakashvili ascended to
the Presidency and "won the day."[4] This is again an example of the intimate relationship between
oil geopolitics and US foreign policy. The colour revolution was vital in pressing US and NATO interests
forward in the region; gaining control over Central Asia's gas reserves and keeping Russia from expanding
its influence. This follows directly in line with the US-NATO imperial strategy for the new world
order, following the collapse of the USSR. [This strategy is outlined in detail in Part 1 of this
essay: An Imperial Strategy for
a New World Order: The Origins of World War III].
Ukraine
In 2004, Ukraine went through its "Orange Revolution," in which opposition and pro-Western leader
Viktor Yushchenko became President, defeating Viktor Yanukovych. As the Guardian revealed in 2004,
that following the disputed elections (as happens in every "colour revolution"), "the democracy guerrillas
of the Ukrainian Pora youth movement have already notched up a famous victory – whatever the outcome
of the dangerous stand-off in Kiev," however, "the campaign is an American creation, a sophisticated
and brilliantly conceived exercise in western branding and mass marketing that, in four countries
in four years, has been used to try to salvage rigged elections and topple unsavoury regimes."
The author, Ian Traynor, explained that, "Funded and organised by the US government, deploying
US consultancies, pollsters, diplomats, the two big American parties and US non-government organisations,
the campaign was first used in Europe in Belgrade in 2000 to beat Slobodan Milosevic at the ballot
box." Further, "The Democratic party's National Democratic Institute, the Republican party's International
Republican Institute, the US state department and USAid are the main agencies involved in these grassroots
campaigns as well as the Freedom House NGO" and the same billionaire financier involved in Georgia's
Rose Revolution. In implementing the regime-change strategy, "The usually fractious oppositions have
to be united behind a single candidate if there is to be any chance of unseating the regime. That
leader is selected on pragmatic and objective grounds, even if he or she is anti-American."
Traynor continues:
Freedom House and the Democratic party's NDI helped fund and organise the "largest civil regional
election monitoring effort" in Ukraine, involving more than 1,000 trained observers. They also organised
exit polls. On Sunday night those polls gave Mr Yushchenko an 11-point lead and set the agenda for
much of what has followed.
The exit polls are seen as critical because they seize the initiative in the propaganda battle
with the regime, invariably appearing first, receiving wide media coverage and putting the onus on
the authorities to respond.
The final stage in the US template concerns how to react when the incumbent tries to steal a lost
election.
[. . . ] In Belgrade, Tbilisi, and now Kiev, where the authorities initially tried to cling to
power, the advice was to stay cool but determined and to organise mass displays of civil disobedience,
which must remain peaceful but risk provoking the regime into violent suppression.[5]
As an article in the Guardian by Jonathan Steele explained, the opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko,
who disputed the election results, "served as prime minister under the outgoing president, Leonid
Kuchma, and some of his backers are also linked to the brutal industrial clans who manipulated Ukraine's
post-Soviet privatization." He further explained that election rigging is mainly irrelevant, as "The
decision to protest appears to depend mainly on realpolitik and whether the challengers or the incumbent
are considered more 'pro-western' or 'pro-market'." In other words, those who support a neoliberal
economic agenda will have the support of the US-NATO, as neoliberalism is their established international
economic order and advances their interests in the region.
Moreover, "In Ukraine, Yushchenko got the western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups
which support him, ranging from the youth organisation, Pora, to various opposition websites. More
provocatively, the US and other western embassies paid for exit polls." This is emblematic of the
strategic importance of the Ukraine to the United States, "which refuses to abandon its cold war
policy of encircling Russia and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic to its side."[6]
One Guardian commentator pointed out the hypocrisy of western media coverage: "Two million
anti-war demonstrators can stream though the streets of London and be politically ignored, but a
few tens of thousands in central Kiev are proclaimed to be 'the people', while the Ukrainian police,
courts and governmental institutions are discounted as instruments of oppression." It was also explained
that, "Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich,
but they are not shown on our TV screens: if their existence is admitted, Yanukovich supporters are
denigrated as having been 'bussed in'. The demonstrations in favour of Viktor Yushchenko have laser
lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities
of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous."[7]
In 2004, the Associated Press reported that, "The Bush administration has spent more than $65
million in the past two years to aid political organizations in Ukraine, paying to bring opposition
leader Viktor Yushchenko to meet U.S. leaders and helping to underwrite an exit poll indicating he
won last month's disputed runoff election." The money, they state, "was funneled through organizations
such as the Eurasia Foundation or through groups aligned with Republicans and Democrats that organized
election training, with human rights forums or with independent news outlets." However, even government
officials "acknowledge that some of the money helped train groups and individuals opposed to the
Russian-backed government candidate."
The report stated that some major international foundations funded the exit polls, which according
to the incumbent leader were "skewed." These foundations included "The National Endowment for Democracy,
which receives its money directly from Congress; the Eurasia Foundation, which receives money from
the State Department, and the Renaissance Foundation," which receives money from the same billionaire
financier as well as the US State Department. Since the State Department is involved, that implies
that this funding is quite directly enmeshed in US foreign policy strategy. "Other countries involved
included Great Britain, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Canada, Norway, Sweden and Denmark." Also involved
in funding certain groups and activities in the Ukraine was the International Republican Institute
and the National Democratic Institute, which was chaired by former Secretary of States Madeline Albright
at the time.[8]
Mark Almond wrote for the Guardian in 2004 of the advent of "People Power," describing it in relation
to the situation that was then breaking in the Ukraine, and stated that, "The upheaval in Ukraine
is presented as a battle between the people and Soviet-era power structures. The role of western
cold war-era agencies is taboo. Poke your nose into the funding of the lavish carnival in Kiev, and
the shrieks of rage show that you have touched a neuralgic point of the New World Order."
Almond elaborated:
"Throughout the 1980s, in the build-up to 1989′s velvet revolutions, a small army of volunteers
– and, let's be frank, spies – co-operated to promote what became People Power. A network of interlocking
foundations and charities mushroomed to organise the logistics of transferring millions of dollars
to dissidents. The money came overwhelmingly from Nato states and covert allies such as "neutral"
Sweden.
[ ...] The hangover from People Power is shock therapy. Each successive crowd is sold a multimedia
vision of Euro-Atlantic prosperity by western-funded "independent" media to get them on the streets.
No one dwells on the mass unemployment, rampant insider dealing, growth of organised crime, prostitution
and soaring death rates in successful People Power states.
As Almond delicately put it, "People Power is, it turns out, more about closing things than creating
an open society. It shuts factories but, worse still, minds. Its advocates demand a free market in
everything – except opinion. The current ideology of New World Order ideologues, many of whom are
renegade communists, is Market-Leninism – that combination of a dogmatic economic model with Machiavellian
methods to grasp the levers of power."[9]
As Mark MacKinnon reported for the Globe and Mail, Canada, too, supported the efforts of the youth
activist group, Pora, in the Ukraine, providing funding for the "people power democracy" movement.
As MacKinnon noted, "The Bush administration was particularly keen to see a pro-Western figure as
president to ensure control over a key pipeline running from Odessa on the Black Sea to Brody on
the Polish border." However, "The outgoing president, Leonid Kuchma, had recently reversed the flow
so the pipeline carried Russian crude south instead of helping U.S. producers in the Caspian Sea
region ship their product to Europe." As MacKinnon analyzes, the initial funding from western nations
came from Canada, although this was eventually far surpassed in amount by the United States.
Andrew Robinson, Canada's ambassador to Ukraine at the time, in 2004, "began to organize secret
monthly meetings of Western ambassadors, presiding over what he called "donor co-ordination" sessions
among 28 countries interested in seeing Mr. Yushchenko succeed. Eventually, he acted as the group's
spokesman and became a prominent critic of the Kuchma government's heavy-handed media control." Canada
further "invested in a controversial exit poll, carried out on election day by Ukraine's Razumkov
Centre and other groups, that contradicted the official results showing Mr. Yanukovich had won."
Once the new, pro-Western government was in, it "announced its intention to reverse the flow of the
Odessa-Brody pipeline."[10]
Again, this follows the example of Georgia, where several US and NATO interests are met through
the success of the "colour revolution"; simultaneously preventing Russian expansion and influence
from spreading in the region as well as advancing US and NATO control and influence over the major
resources and transport corridors of the region.
Daniel Wolf wrote for the Guardian that, "For most of the people gathered in Kiev's Independence
Square, the demonstration felt spontaneous. They had every reason to want to stop the government
candidate, Viktor Yanukovich, from coming to power, and they took the chance that was offered to
them. But walking through the encampment last December, it was hard to ignore the evidence of meticulous
preparation – the soup kitchens and tents for the demonstrators, the slickness of the concert, the
professionalism of the TV coverage, the proliferation of the sickly orange logo wherever you looked."
He elaborated, writing, "the events in the square were the result of careful, secret planning by
Yushchenko's inner circle over a period of years. The true story of the orange revolution is far
more interesting than the fable that has been widely accepted."
Roman Bessmertny, Yushchenko's campaign manager, two years prior to the 2004 elections, "put as
many as 150,000 people through training courses, seminars, practical tuition conducted by legal and
media specialists. Some attending these courses were members of election committees at local, regional
and national level; others were election monitors, who were not only taught what to watch out for
but given camcorders to record it on video. More than 10,000 cameras were distributed, with the aim
of recording events at every third polling station." Ultimately, it was an intricately well-planned
public relations media-savvy campaign, orchestrated through heavy financing. Hardly the sporadic
"people power" notion applied to the "peaceful coup" in the western media.[11]
The "Tulip Revolution" in Kyrgyzstan
In 2005, Kyrgyzstan underwent its "Tulip Revolution" in which the incumbent was replaced by the
pro-Western candidate through another "popular revolution." As the New York Times reported in March
of 2005, shortly before the March elections, "an opposition newspaper ran photographs of a palatial
home under construction for the country's deeply unpopular president, Askar Akayev, helping set off
widespread outrage and a popular revolt." However, this "newspaper was the recipient of United States
government grants and was printed on an American government-financed printing press operated by Freedom
House, an American organization that describes itself as 'a clear voice for democracy and freedom
around the world'."
Moreover, other countries that have "helped underwrite programs to develop democracy and civil
society" in Kyrgyzstan were Britain, the Netherlands and Norway. These countries collectively "played
a crucial role in preparing the ground for the popular uprising that swept opposition politicians
to power." Money mostly flowed from the United States, in particular, through the National Endowment
for Democracy (NED), as well as through "the Freedom House printing press or Kyrgyz-language service
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, a pro-democracy broadcaster." The National Democratic Institute
also played a major financing role, for which one of the chief beneficiaries of their financial aid
said, "It would have been absolutely impossible for this to have happened without that help."
The Times further reported that:
"American money helps finance civil society centers around the country where activists and citizens
can meet, receive training, read independent newspapers and even watch CNN or surf the Internet in
some. The N.D.I. [National Democratic Institute] alone operates 20 centers that provide news summaries
in Russian, Kyrgyz and Uzbek.
The United States sponsors the American University in Kyrgyzstan, whose stated mission is, in
part, to promote the development of civil society, and pays for exchange programs that send students
and non-governmental organization leaders to the United States. Kyrgyzstan's new prime minister,
Kurmanbek Bakiyev, was one.
All of that money and manpower gave the coalescing Kyrgyz opposition financing and moral support
in recent years, as well as the infrastructure that allowed it to communicate its ideas to the Kyrgyz
people."
As for those "who did not read Russian or have access to the newspaper listened to summaries of
its articles on Kyrgyz-language Radio Azattyk, the local United States-government financed franchise
of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty." Other "independent" media was paid for courtesy of the US State
Department.[12]
As the Wall Street Journal revealed prior to the elections, opposition groups, NGOs and "independent"
media in Kyrgyzstan were getting financial assistance from Freedom House in the US, as well as the
US Agency for International Development (USAID). The Journal reported that, "To avoid provoking Russia
and violating diplomatic norms, the U.S. can't directly back opposition political parties. But it
underwrites a web of influential NGOs whose support of press freedom, the rule of law and clean elections
almost inevitably pits them against the entrenched interests of the old autocratic regimes."
As the Journal further reported, Kyrgyzstan "occupies a strategic location. The U.S. and Russia
both have military bases here. The country's five million citizens, mostly Muslim, are sandwiched
in a tumultuous neighborhood among oil-rich Kazakhstan, whose regime tolerates little political dissent;
dictatorial Uzbekistan, which has clamped down on foreign aid groups and destitute Tajikistan."
In the country, a main opposition NGO, the Coalition for Democracy and Civil Rights, gets its
funding "from the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, a Washington-based nonprofit
funded by the U.S. government, and from USAID." Other agencies reported to be involved, either through
funding or ideological-technical promotion (see: propaganda), are the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), the Albert Einstein Institute, Freedom House, and the US State Department.[13]
President Askar Akayev of Kyrgyzstan had referred to a "third force" gaining power in his country.
The term was borrowed from one of the most prominent US think tanks, as "third force" is:
"… which details how western-backed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) can promote regime and
policy change all over the world. The formulaic repetition of a third "people power" revolution in
the former Soviet Union in just over one year – after the similar events in Georgia in November 2003
and in Ukraine last Christmas – means that the post-Soviet space now resembles Central America in
the 1970s and 1980s, when a series of US-backed coups consolidated that country's control over the
western hemisphere."
As the Guardian reported:
"Many of the same US government operatives in Latin America have plied their trade in eastern
Europe under George Bush, most notably Michael Kozak, former US ambassador to Belarus, who boasted
in these pages in 2001 that he was doing in Belarus exactly what he had been doing in Nicaragua:
"supporting democracy".
Further:
"The case of Freedom House is particularly arresting. Chaired by the former CIA director James
Woolsey, Freedom House was a major sponsor of the orange revolution in Ukraine. It set up a printing
press in Bishkek in November 2003, which prints 60 opposition journals. Although it is described
as an "independent" press, the body that officially owns it is chaired by the bellicose Republican
senator John McCain, while the former national security adviser Anthony Lake sits on the board. The
US also supports opposition radio and TV."[14]
So again, the same formula was followed in the Central Asian Republics of the former Soviet Union.
This US foreign-policy strategy of promoting "soft revolution" is managed through a network of American
and international NGOs and think tanks. It advances NATO and, in particular, US interests in the
region.
Conclusion
The soft revolutions or "colour revolutions" are a key stratagem in the New World Order; advancing,
through deceptions and manipulation, the key strategy of containing Russia and controlling key resources.
This strategy is critical to understanding the imperialistic nature of the New World Order, especially
when it comes to identifying when this strategy is repeated; specifically in relation to the Iranian
elections of 2009.
Part 1 of this essay outlined the US-NATO imperial strategy for entering the New World Order,
following the break-up of the Soviet Union in 1991. The primary aim was focused on encircling Russia
and China and preventing the rise of a new superpower. The US was to act as the imperial hegemon,
serving international financial interests in imposing the New World Order. Part 2 outlined the US
imperial strategy of using "colour revolutions" to advance its interests in Central Asia and Eastern
Europe, following along the overall policy outlined in Part 1, of containing Russia and China from
expanding influence and gaining access to key natural resources.
The third and final part to this essay analyzes the nature of the imperial strategy to construct
a New World Order, focusing on the increasing conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Latin America,
Eastern Europe and Africa; and the potential these conflicts have for starting a new world war with
China and Russia. In particular, its focus is within the past few years, and emphasizes the increasing
nature of conflict and war in the New World Order. Part 3 looks at the potential for "A New World
War for a New World Order."
Andrew Gavin Marshall is a Research Associate with the Centre for Research on Globalization
(CRG). He is currently studying Political Economy and History at Simon Fraser University.
The original source of this article is Global Research
Another debt shark is circling this poor country after feeling blood in the water...
Notable quotes:
"... Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of. ..."
"... Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights ..."
"... In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia. ..."
"... "We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society – continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society. ..."
New documents released by hackers who compromised George Soros' Open
Society Foundations raise serious questions about the Hungarian billionaire's role in Ukraine.
A leaked document, from the massive 2,500 file dump by DC Leaks of George Soros' most sensitive Open
Society Foundations communications, show the inordinate amount of power and authority the Hungarian
billionaire wielded over Ukraine in the immediate aftermath of the Maidan government overthrow.
Soros, along with key executives from the Open Society Foundations, held extensive meetings with
nearly every actor involved in the Maidan coup including Ukraine's Ministers of Foreign Affairs,
Justice, Health and Education as well as US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt and the regional director of
USAID. However, the documents do exclude one key official, Victoria Nuland, who was allegedly involved
in steering the opposition to the Yanukovych government.
The records focus on plans to minimize and counter Russian influence and cultural ties to Ukraine
with a focus towards steering Kiev towards social and economic reforms that Soros favored. The Hungarian
billionaire has not been bashful about his acts or intent to influence politics in Ukraine establishing
the NGO, International Renaissance Foundation (IRF) to spearhead the formation of the "New Ukraine."
Most troubling in the document leak appears to be a file titled
"Breakfast with US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt" to discuss Ukraine's future. In the meeting, which
took place on March 31, 2014, just months after the Maidan coup and weeks prior to civil strife following
Ukrainian forces assault on Donbass, US Ambassador Pyatt outlines a PR war against Putin, a position
George Soros viewed favorably in the meeting.
"The short term issue that needs to be addressed will be the problem in getting the message out
from the government through professional PR tools, especially given Putin's own professional smear
campaigns," said the US Ambassador.
George Soros responded, "Agreement on the strategic communications issue – providing professional
PR assistance to the Ukrainian government would be very useful."
Pyatt seemed open to the idea of guiding Ukraine towards a decentralization of power just short
of Lavrov's recommendation for a federalized Ukraine, but George Soros pushed back stating that a
federalization model would result in Russia gaining influence over eastern regions of the country
which the Hungarian billionaire disapproved of.
The Ambassador noted that Secretary of State John Kerry "would be interested to hear George Soros'
views on the situation directly, upon return from his trip" raising the question why one wealthy
foreign individual, neither from Ukraine nor Russia, had such access to influence American policy.
Ambassador Pyatt's position towards decentralization also appeared to shake as the correspondence
continued saying that the "Russian propaganda machine is telling Kharkhiv and Donbass residents that
the government in Western Ukraine is looking to take away their resources and rights through the
decentralization process, feeding into Lavrov's line that the Ukrainian government is dysfunctional
and not successful as a unitary state, making it a necessity to have federalization.
Then, in a full capitulation, the American diplomat point blank asks George Soros, "what should
the US government be doing and what is the US government currently doing."
To which, George Soros responded, "Obama has been too soft on Putin, and there is a need to impose
potent smart sanctions." He then called on the US government to "impose sanctions on Russia for 90
days or until the Russian government recognizes the results of the presidential elections."
In a separate meeting, titled "Civil Society Roundtable Meeting," George Soros directly calls
for the formation of a Ukrainian "fifth column" – a group whose sole purpose is to undermine a larger
group – in order to push Ukraine away from Russia.
"We would rather have people there as fifth column – pivotal thing for future of Ukrainian society
– continue to work with Crimean people" said the document regarding the disputed territory only highlighting
that there was potentially improper interference by Soros in Ukraine's civil society.
High level military commanders are more politicians then commanders. And if they belong to
neocons this is a dangerous and potentially explosive combination. Especially if State
Department is fully aligned with Pentagon, like happened under Secretary Clinton tenure.
Notable quotes:
"... He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kiev. ..."
"... "I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????" Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell. ..."
"... Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev. ..."
"... One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev were asking Karber for help. ..."
"... According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns, and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine." ..."
"... Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance, the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days." ..."
"... In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank munitions to Ukraine." ..."
"... In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email. ..."
"... At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye." ..."
"... Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places." ..."
"... In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee, was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly. ..."
"... He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia. ..."
"... The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear. Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce the number of US troops in Europe. ..."
"... General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a hardliner vis-a-vis Russia. ..."
"... What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate for secretary of state. ..."
"... The now famous and appropriate quote from President Eisenhower: ..."
"... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. ..."
"... The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational. The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment, which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO would have no other cause for existence. ..."
"... The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and especially Jews. ..."
"... After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance, financed by America. ..."
"... These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? ..."
"... Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable. ..."
"... Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. ..."
"... Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE. ..."
"... nato Breedhate? ..."
"... SPON was always parotting him. And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda. ..."
The newly leaked emails reveal a clandestine network of Western agitators around the NATO military
chief, whose presence fueled the conflict in Ukraine. Many allies found in Breedlove's alarmist public
statements about alleged large Russian troop movements cause for concern early on. Earlier this year,
the general was assuring the world that US European Command was "deterring Russia now and preparing
to fight and win if necessary."
The emails document for the first time the questionable sources from whom Breedlove was getting
his information. He had exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of
delivering weapons to Kiev.
The general and his likeminded colleagues perceived US President Barack Obama, the commander-in-chief
of all American forces, as well as German Chancellor Angela Merkel as obstacles. Obama and Merkel
were being "politically naive & counter-productive" in their calls for de-escalation, according to
Phillip Karber, a central figure in Breedlove's network who was feeding information from Ukraine
to the general.
"I think POTUS sees us as a threat that must be minimized,... ie do not get me into a war????"
Breedlove wrote in one email, using the acronym for the president of the United States. How could
Obama be persuaded to be more "engaged" in the conflict in Ukraine -- read: deliver weapons -- Breedlove
had asked former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Breedlove sought counsel from some very prominent people, his emails show. Among them were Wesley
Clark, Breedlove's predecessor at NATO, Victoria Nuland, the assistant secretary of state for European
and Eurasian affairs at the State Department, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Kiev.
One name that kept popping up was Phillip Karber, an adjunct assistant professor at Georgetown
University in Washington DC and president of the Potomac Foundation, a conservative think tank founded
by the former defense contractor BDM. By its own account, the foundation has helped eastern European
countries prepare their accession into NATO. Now the Ukrainian parliament and the government in Kiev
were asking Karber for help.
Surreptitious Channels
On February 16, 2015, when the Ukraine crisis had reached its climax, Karber wrote an email to
Breedlove, Clark, Pyatt and Rose Gottemoeller, the under secretary for arms control and international
security at the State Department, who will be moving to Brussels this fall to take up the post of
deputy secretary general of NATO. Karber was in Warsaw, and he said he had found surreptitious channels
to get weapons to Ukraine -- without the US being directly involved.
According to the email, Pakistan had offered, "under the table," to sell Ukraine 500 portable
TOW-II launchers and 8,000 TOW-II missiles. The deliveries could begin within two weeks. Even the
Poles were willing to start sending "well maintained T-72 tanks, plus several hundred SP 122mm guns,
and SP-122 howitzers (along with copious amounts of artillery ammunition for both)" that they had
leftover from the Soviet era. The sales would likely go unnoticed, Karber said, because Poland's
old weapons were "virtually undistinguishable from those of Ukraine."
AFP
A destroyed airport building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk : Thousands were killed
in fighting during the Ukraine conflict.
Karber noted, however, that Pakistan and Poland would not make any deliveries without informal
US approval. Furthermore, Warsaw would only be willing to help if its deliveries to Kiev were replaced
with new, state-of-the-art weapons from NATO. Karber concluded his letter with a warning: "Time has run out." Without immediate assistance,
the Ukrainian army "could face prospect of collapse within 30 days."
"Stark," Breedlove replied. "I may share some of this but will thoroughly wipe the fingerprints
off."
In March, Karber traveled again to Warsaw in order to, as he told Breedlove, consult with leading
members of the ruling party, on the need to "quietly supply arty ( eds: artillery ) and antitank
munitions to Ukraine."
Much to the irritation of Breedlove, Clark and Karber, nothing happened. Those responsible were
quickly identified. The National Security Council, Obama's circle of advisors, were "slowing things
down," Karber complained. Clark pointed his finger directly at the White House, writing, "Our problem
is higher than State," a reference to the State Department.
... ... ...
'The Front Is Now Everywhere'
Karber's emails constantly made it sound as though the apocalypse was only a few weeks away. "The
front is now everywhere," he told Breedlove in an email at the beginning of 2015, adding that Russian
agents and their proxies "have begun launching a series of terrorist attacks, assassinations, kidnappings
and infrastructure bombings," in an effort to destabilize Kiev and other Ukrainian cities.
In an email to Breedlove, Clark described defense expert Karber as "brilliant." After a first
visit, Breedlove indicated he had also been impressed. "GREAT visit," he wrote. Karber, an extremely
enterprising man, appeared at first glance to be a valuable informant because he often -- at least
a dozen times by his own account -- traveled to the front and spoke with Ukrainian commanders. The
US embassy in Kiev also relied on Karber for information because it lacked its own sources. "We're
largely blind," the embassy's defense attaché wrote in an email.
At times, Karber's missives read like prose. In one, he wrote about the 2014 Christmas celebrations
he had spent together with Dnipro-1, the ultranationalist volunteer battalion. "The toasts and vodka
flow, the women sing the Ukrainian national anthem -- no one has a dry eye."
Karber had only good things to report about the unit, which had already been discredited as a
private oligarch army. He wrote that the staff and volunteers were dominated by middle class people
and that there was a large professional staff that was even "working on the holiday." Breedlove responded
that these insights were "quietly finding their way into the right places."
Highly Controversial Figure
In fact, Karber is a highly controversial figure. During the 1980s, the longtime BDM employee,
was counted among the fiercest Cold War hawks. Back in 1985, he warned of an impending Soviet attack
on the basis of documents he had translated incorrectly.
He also blundered during the Ukraine crisis after sending photos to US Senator James Inhofe, claiming
to show Russian units in Ukraine. Inhofe released the photos publicly, but it quickly emerged that
one had originated from the 2008 war in Georgia.
By November 10, 2014, at the latest, Breedlove must have recognized that his informant was on
thin ice. That's when Karber reported that the separatists were boasting they had a tactical nuclear
warhead for the 2S4 mortar. Karber himself described the news as "weird," but also added that "there
is a lot of 'crazy' things going on" in Ukraine.
The reasons that Breedlove continued to rely on Karber despite such false reports remain unclear.
Was he willing to pay any price for weapons deliveries? Or did he have other motives? The emails
illustrate the degree to which Breedlove and his fellow campaigners feared that Congress might reduce
the number of US troops in Europe.
Karber confirmed the authenticity of the leaked email correspondence. Regarding the questions
about the accuracy of his reports, he told SPIEGEL that, "like any information derived from direct
observation at the front during the 'fog of war,' it is partial, time sensitive, and perceived through
a personal perspective." Looking back with the advantage of hindsight and a more comprehensive perspective,
"I believe that I was right more than wrong," Karber writes, "but certainly not perfect." He adds
that, "in 170 days at the front, I never once met a German military or official directly observing
the conflict."
Great Interest in Berlin
Breedlove's leaked email correspondences were read in Berlin with great interest. A year ago,
word of the NATO commander's "dangerous propaganda" was circulating around Merkel's Chancellery.
In light of the new information, officials felt vindicated in their assessment. Germany's Federal
Foreign Office has expressed similar sentiment, saying that fortunately "influential voices had continuously
advocated against the delivery of 'lethal weapons.'"
Karber says he finds it "obscene that the most effective sanction of this war is not the economic
limits placed on Russia, but the virtual complete embargo of all lethal aid to the victim. I find
this to be the height of sophistry -- if a woman is being attacked by a group of hooligans and yells
out to the crowd or passersby, 'Give me a can of mace,' is it better to not supply it because the
attackers could have a knife and passively watch her get raped?"
General Breedlove's departure from his NATO post in May has done little to placate anyone in the
German government. After all, the man Breedlove regarded as an obstacle, President Obama, is nearing
the end of his second term. His possible successor, the Democrat Hillary Clinton, is considered a
hardliner vis-a-vis Russia.
What's more: Nuland, a diplomat who shares many of the same views as Breedlove, could move into
an even more important role after the November election -- she's considered a potential candidate
for secretary of state.
bubasan 07/28/2016
Upon reading this article, I am reminded of Dwight D Eisenhowers Farewell speech to the American
Public on January 17, 1961. So long as we continue the PC mentality of NOT Teaching History, as
it really was, we are going to repeat past mistake's. The now famous and appropriate quote
from President Eisenhower:
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.
Inglenda2 07/28/2016
The idea of NATO as a defence organisation, following the 2nd World War was quite rational.
The history of this organisation however, has shown, how a well meant intention can be misused
to force through policies, which have nothing to do with the original purpose. Currently it would
appear to have no other role, than to provide high ranking army officers with well paid employment,
which can only be justified by way of international conflicts. In the absence of conflict, NATO
would have no other cause for existence.
PeterCT 07/28/2016
Why is Breedlove so fat? He is setting a bad example to his troops. Show all comments
turnipseed 07/29/2016
The Cold War continues, only the enemy is not the Soviet Union but Russia. Ever since the
war against Napoleon Russia has emerged as a threat to certain European interests, at first liberal
and nationalist interests. After the Bolshevik Revolution the enemy was still Russia, now revitalized
with extreme Bolshevik ideology. Hitler used this effectively to target liberals, leftists and
especially Jews.
After the fall of Communism nothing has really changed. The West is still urged to resist
the Russian threat, a threat invented by Polish, Baltic, and Ukrainian nationalists and perhaps
Fascists. Donald Trump alone seems impervious to this propaganda. Let's at least give him credit
in this case, if not in many others. NATO has become a permanent anti-Russian phony alliance,
financed by America.
90-grad 07/31/2016
Quite detailed article. Not being published in the german website. How to describe these people,
basically just trying to ignite bigger conflicts, or even war. Hardliner, hawks, to me not strong
enough. These are criminals of war, and they should be named accordingly. These are exactly the
kind of persons, who helped Bush to invade Irak, basing on false informations to the public. And
their peace endangering activities help politicians like H.Clinton to keep the peoble in fear,
solely to their own benefit. Disgusting!
huguenot1566 07/31/2016
Extremely disturbing
I don't even know here to begin. Breedlove, Karber, Clark all Americans, seemingly on their
own without Obama's permission, trying to exaggerate or fabricate evidence in order to start a
war with Russia and the danger to the world is profoundly terrifying (Iraq 2003). The US Embassy
in Ukraine saying they were in the dark and therefore relying on information from a college professor,
Karber, who still thinks we're in the Cold War along with Clark who was retired & meddling in
an unofficial capacity as far as the story implies tells me they should be brought up on charges.
And Breedlove is supposed to follow orders not make up his own policy & then try & manufacture
evidence supporting that policy to start war. If the US Embassy in Ukraine says they were in the
dark then clearly they were fishing for info to proactively involve themselves in another nation
& region's personal business. Congress & the U.S. military should investigate as these actions
violate the U.S. Constitution. Thankfully, Germany and NATO is able to say no. It tells Americans
that something isn't right on their end of this.
verbatim128 07/31/2016
Look who was crying wolf!
These people are hell-bent to bring the world to the brink of war, with lies and excuses about
fear of Russian attacks. So Poland was willing to step into the conflict with Ukraine and deliver
lethal armament? All the while afraid of Russia invading it? We, public opinion and most Western
peace-loving folk, are played like a fiddle to step into the fray to "protect" and further some
age-old ethnic and nationalistic rivalries. Time to put an end to this.
gerhard38 08/01/2016
Fucking war monger
Philip Breedlove is a war monger and should be fired from his position. The efforts of the
group around him seeking to secure weapons for the Ukraine to intensify the conflict must have
happened with Breedlove's knowledge and support. If not, then he is not capable to meet the demands
of his job and should be dismissed for incompetence. Either way, this guy is unacceptable.
aegiov 08/01/2016
Ms. Nuland is the same us official recorded by Russian intelligence trying to manipulate events
in Ukraine before the overthrow of the president and all the tragic events that followed. That
she is still working for US state dept. is puzzling to say the least. good reporting. thank you.
titus_norberto 08/02/2016
The Front Is Now Everywhere, indeed...
Quote: 'The Front Is Now Everywhere', yes indeed, we can go back to the Wilson administration,
he invented the League of Nations and his nation did not even joined.
There is a folly in American presidents, they believe they can solve worlds problems, especially
in the Middle East, with two invariable results:
1- utter failure plus CHAOS; and
2- utter disregard for DOMESTIC GOVERNANCE.
Now, the fact that the front is NOW 2016 everywhere is the result of failure one. Donald Trump
is the result of failure two. There is another aspect to consider, what is General Breedlove doing
? Very simple, he is attempting to INVENT a NEW ROLE for NATO, as it is well known in the domain
of sociology: any organization strives for survival, especially when it becomes OBSOLETE.
vsepr1975 08/03/2016
nato
Breedhate?
w.schuler 08/09/2016
Fat Bredlove is a war monger
This is true and it was obvious from the very beginning. But SPON was always parotting him.
And SPON member Benjamin Bidder and many other SPON guys were foaming at the mouth with war rhetoric
all the time in 2014-15. Shame on those fools. Finally, with this contribution you are approaching
your real job. And this is to distribute information instead of propaganda.
"... This research documents that the negative effects of globalization on employment and wages are larger than many people realized. In addition, it recognizes that most of the benefits have accrued to those at the top of the income distribution while the costs -- lost jobs, lower wages and fewer attractive employment opportunities -- have fallen mainly on the working class. ..."
The toughest question about global trade: This year's battle for the
White House has put international trade in the spotlight. Donald Trump has
led the charge against trade agreements, but Hillary Clinton's reversal
of her support for President Obama's Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) also
reflects the evolving view of the benefits of globalization.
The American public has long been suspicious of international trade, but
economists have been much more supportive. However, new evidence in the
economics literature has caused a rethinking of how to evaluate trade agreements.
This research documents that the negative effects of globalization
on employment and wages are larger than many people realized. In addition,
it recognizes that most of the benefits have accrued to those at the top
of the income distribution while the costs -- lost jobs, lower wages and
fewer attractive employment opportunities -- have fallen mainly on the working
class.
One response from many advocates is to point out that international trade
has lifted millions of people around the world out of poverty and that reducing
the pace of globalization would slow the rate of global poverty reduction.
All of which brings up an important and rather difficult question: Just
how should we value international trade? ...
Tom aka Rusty said...
Who decided that US workers would be required to sacrifice to create a middle
class in China (and the Chinese military, oops)? Why didn't the elites join
in the sacrifice? Why no transparency? Or was this pushed with great theories
that didn't work? Just wondering.
Brexit was a vote against London, globalization and multiculturalism as much as a vote against
Europe.
London is the world's single most important center of global finance - though that may be at
risk now. With the surrounding southeast region, it dominates the United Kingdom's economic
growth. It has some of the world's most expensive real estate and richest residents - and
absentee property owners. It is one of the world's most cosmopolitan cities. It is home to about
1 million continental Europeans. And it voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union. The
rest of England did not.
"... John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime it has the least opportunity. ..."
What was really at stake was a closed vision of the future against a cosmopolitan one. The
divide was much less the prosperous versus the poor than it was city versus small towns, the
well-educated versus those without advanced degrees, and, most of all, the young versus the old.
Economic insecurity was, obviously, one of the things that drove the vote, but nostalgic
nationalism drove it more, and what was really striking was that the struggling young took it for
granted that the way toward a better future lay in ever-more European and planetary
consciousness, not in closing it down. The vote was intolerably cruel in particular to the
twentysomethings of Britain, many of whom did not hesitate to protest. They had gone to sleep on
Thursday evening with all the world, or at least with all of Europe, before them, as citizens
with possible futures in twenty-eight nations; they woke on Friday morning to be told that their
future would contract to one nation, and that one possibly shrinking before their eyes, right to
the Scottish border.
... ... ...
At this moment, two irascible émigrés from the past century of European tragedies might come
to mind. John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that
nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the
lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime
it has the least opportunity. (He also draws the distinction between patriotism-the love of
place and tradition and a desire to see its particularities thrive-and true nationalism, which is
a vengeful, irrational certainty that the alien outside or even within a country's borders is
responsible for some humiliation to the true nation.) This pessimistic strain was matched by that
of Karl Popper, the Austrian-Anglo philosopher, who saw that what he named the "open society,"
though essential to the transmission of humane values and the growth of knowledge, can impose
great strains on its citizens-strains of lost identity, certainty, tribal wholeness. The reaction
to this strain is inevitable, and sure. What keeps an open society from being overturned is only
the balm of ever-increased prosperity; when prosperity ends or is endangered, all the bad demons
come out of the forest. In this much broader sense, it may be prosperity that makes pluralism
possible. Economics alone don't drive the ideology of nationalism, but without prosperity it has
more room to bloom. Meanwhile, nationalism won't just go away, and open, liberal societies are
far more fragile than their success can make them seem-and these two sad truths seem to need
perpetual restating, or the lights really will go out across Europe.
Whether it's having any effect will not be known until the vote on Thursday. What is known,
what the debate over the referendum has demonstrated with great clarity, is that there is in
Britain a populist strain of the sort that has brought nationalist governments to Hungary and
Poland, helped right-wing parties make strong showings in France and some other European
countries - and, in America, done much to promote the cause of Donald Trump. In the United States
and Britain, a relatively normal electoral process became seized with populist nationalism and
increasingly immune to normal political discourse.
In Britain, Prime Minister David Cameron announced back in 2013 that he would hold a referendum
on E.U. membership largely to mollify euroskeptics in his Conservative Party, presuming that
Britons would vote to stay in. Before long, a similar demographic gathered on the "Leave" side in
Britain and the Trump side in America - workers who felt alienated by a globalizing and changing
world, who felt politicians had ceased listening to them, who were convinced that tides of
foreigners were threatening their livelihood and identity.
And so the British referendum has become something of a battleground for all Western democracies
where anti-immigrant hostilities are building.
And even if the "Remain" side prevails on Thursday and Mr. Trump is decisively rejected in
November, Western democracies will need to take a long, hard look at the social divide, the
insecurities, the alienation, the nationalism and racism that have invaded so many political
battlegrounds.
"... Britain's vote to exit the European Union reflected a resurgence of far-right nationalism that was adding pressure on countries to shore up their borders, ..."
"... countries facing an increased desire for national identity, and the growing anti-globalization sentiment that was driving them to be more assertive about protecting their markets. ..."
Britain's vote to exit the European Union reflected a resurgence of far-right nationalism
that was adding pressure on countries to shore up their borders, said Singapore's Defence
Minister Ng Eng Hen.
The challenge for Singapore in the face of the Brexit vote, Ng said, will be to stay neutral and
not judge those countries facing an increased desire for national identity, and the growing
anti-globalization sentiment that was driving them to be more assertive about protecting their
markets.
"There is a resurgence of what pundits and political analysts call far-right, a rising
nationalism, which is a reaction hearkened to so-called 'good old days', not remembering that the
good old days also have many, many bad points," Ng told reporters at a media conference ahead of
Singapore Armed Forces day. "We want to be neutral, in terms of not being judgmental because this
is as history goes. But nonetheless, it is a challenge," he said.
As terrorism continues to represent a clear and present threat, Ng, 57, said no country was
immune to the defects of home-grown terrorism, and emphasized the need for international
cooperation to combat the heightened threat of global terrorism.
"You can monitor closely your borders, you can even close off your borders but homegrown
terrorism is something else. It is very hard to protect against lone wolves or wolf-pack attacks
-- somebody who is radicalized, who has really not been contacted physically by somebody outside
their own country," he said.
When the Brexit referendum is done, tens of millions of
Britons will likely have registered a vote against the liberal vision of European unity and
assimilation. In this country, even after the disastrous past few weeks Donald Trump has
had, a
new opinion poll, from Quinnipiac University, indicates that in crucial states like
Ohio and Pennsylvania he remains statistically tied with Hillary Clinton.
Why is this happening? Trump and his counterpart in
Britain, the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) leader Nigel Farage, didn't
emerge from nowhere. Both are wealthy men who affect an affinity with the common people,
and who have skillfully exploited a deep well of resentment among working-class and
middle-class voters, some of whom have traditionally supported left-of-center parties.
Certainly, a parallel factor in both men's rise is racism, or, more specifically, nativism.
Trump has presented a nightmarish vision of America overrun by Mexican felons and Muslim
terrorists. UKIP printed up campaign posters that showed thousands of
dark-colored refugees lining up to enter Slovenia, which is part of the E.U., next to the
words "BREAKING POINT: The EU has failed us all." But racism and nationalism
have both been around for a long time, as have demagogues who try to exploit them. In
healthy democracies, these troublemakers are confined to the fringes.
Historically, transforming radical parties of the right (or
left) into mass movements has required some sort of disaster, such as a major war or an
economic depression. Europe in the early twentieth century witnessed both, with cataclysmic
results. After the First World War, the introduction of social democracy, the socioeconomic
system that most Western countries settled on, delivered steadily rising living standards,
which helped to keep the extremists at bay. If prosperity wasn't shared equally-and it
wasn't-egalitarian social norms and redistributive tax systems blunted some of the
inequities that go along with free-market capitalism.
But in the past few decades Western countries have been
subjected to a triad of forces that, while not as visible or dramatic as wars and
depressions, have proved equally destabilizing: globalization, technical progress, and a
political philosophy that embraces both. In the United States, it is no coincidence that
Trump is doing well in the Rust Belt and other deindustrialized areas. A one-two punch of
automation and offshoring has battered these regions, leaving many of their residents
ill-equipped to prosper in today's economy. Trump is exploiting the same economic anxieties
and resentments that helped Bernie Sanders, another critic of globalization and free trade,
carry the Michigan Democratic primary.
"There is no excuse for supporting a racist, sexist,
xenophobic buffoon like Donald Trump," Dean Baker, an economist and blogger at the liberal
Center for Economic and Policy Research, in Washington,
noted recently. "But we should be clear; the workers who turn to him do have real
grievances. The system has been rigged against them."
Similarly, it is not an accident that UKIP
is popular in the former mill towns of northern England, in the engineering belt of the
West Midlands, and in working-class exurbs of London. "Children emerging from the primary
school next door, almost all from ethnic minorities, are just a visible reminder for anyone
seeking easy answers to genuine grievance," the Guardian's Polly Toynbee wrote,
last week, after a visit to Barking, in Essex, which is close to a big car factory
owned by Ford. "As high-status Ford jobs are swapped for low-paid warehouse work,
indignation is diverted daily against migrants by the Mail, Sun, Sunday Times and the rest.
. . . This is the sound of Britain breaking."
For the past half century, the major political parties,
on both sides of the Atlantic, have promulgated the idea that free trade and globalization
are the keys to prosperity. If you pressed the mainstream economists who advise these
parties, they might concede that trade creates losers as well as winners, and that the
argument for ever more global integration implicitly assumes that the winners will
compensate the losers. But the fact that such a sharing of the gains has been sorely
lacking was regarded as a relatively minor detail, and certainly not as a justification for
calling a halt to the entire process.
If you are reading this post, the likelihood is that you,
like me, are one of the winners. Highly educated, professional people tend to work in
sectors of the economy that have benefitted from the changes in the international division
of labor (e.g., finance, consulting, media, tech) or have been largely spared the rigors of
global competition (e.g., law, medicine, academia). From a secure perch on the economic
ladder, it is easy to celebrate the gains that technology and globalization have brought,
such as a cornucopia of cheap goods in rich countries and rising prosperity in poor ones.
It's also tempting to dismiss the arguments of people who ignore the benefits of this
process, or who can't see that it is irreversible.
But, as Baker points out, "it is a bit hypocritical of
those who have benefited" from this economic transformation to be "mocking the poor
judgment of its victims"-especially now that the forces of global competition and
technological progress are reaching into areas that were previously protected. In a world
of self-driving cars and trucks, what is the future for truck drivers, cab and limo
drivers, and delivery men? Not a very prosperous one, surely. And the creative destruction
that the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter celebrated won't stop there. With software
that can transfer money at zero cost, medical robots that can carry out the most delicate
of operations, and smart algorithms that can diagnose diseases or dispense legal advice,
what is the future for bankers, surgeons, doctors, lawyers, and other professionals?
There is no straightforward answer to this question, just
as there is no easy answer to the question of what can be done to help those who have
already lost out. One option is to strengthen the social safety net and, perhaps, to move
toward some sort of universal basic income, which would guarantee a minimum standard of
living to everybody, regardless of employment prospects. The political enactment of such
solutions, however, is contingent on the existence of social solidarity, which the very
process of economic and technological change, by heightening inequalities and
eroding communal institutions, undermines.
Lacking grounds for optimism, and feeling remote from the
levers of power, the disappointed nurse their grievances-until along come politicians who
tell them that they are right to be angry, that their resentments are justified, and that
they should be mad not just at the winners but at immigrants, too. Trump and Farage are the
latest and most successful of these political opportunists. Sadly, they are unlikely to be
the last.
"... In Bernie Sanders's fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of the radical-leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites. ..."
"... And as "Brexit" swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born white working and middle classes in the primaries. ..."
"... In Britain, all the mainstream parties-Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National-supported "Remain." All lost. ..."
"... In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated in the Republican primaries. ..."
"... As Trump said last week, "We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism-focusing on what's good for America's middle class-to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy." ..."
Some of us have long predicted the breakup of the European Union. The Cousins appear to have just
delivered the
coup de grace
.
While Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain in the
EU, England voted for independence. These people, with their unique history, language, and culture,
want to write their own laws and rule themselves.
The English wish to remain who they are, and they do not want their country to become, in Theodore
Roosevelt's phrase, "a polyglot boarding house" for the world.
From patriots of all nations, congratulations are in order.
It will all begin to unravel now, over there, and soon over here.
Across Europe, tribalism, of all strains, is resurgent. Not only does the EU appear to be breaking
up, countries appear about to break up.
Scotland will seek a second referendum to leave the UK. The French National Front of Marine Le
Pen and the Dutch Party for Freedom both want out of the EU. As Scots seek to secede from the UK,
Catalonia seeks to secede from Spain, Veneto from Italy, and Flemish nationalists from Belgium.
Ethnonationalism seems everywhere ascendant. Yet, looking back in history, is this not the way
the world has been going for some centuries now?
The disintegration of the EU into its component nations would follow, as Vladimir Putin helpfully
points out, the dissolution of the USSR into 15 nations, and the breakup of Yugoslavia into seven.
Czechoslovakia lately split in two. The Donbass seeks to secede from Ukraine. Is that so different
from Transnistria splitting off from Romania, Abkhazia and South Ossetia seceding from Georgia, and
Chechnya seeking separation from Russia?
After World War II came the disintegration of the French and British empires and birth of dozens
of new nations in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. America returned the Philippine islands to their
people.
The previous century saw the collapse of the Spanish Empire and birth of a score of new nations
in our own hemisphere.
In Xi Jinping's China and Putin's Russia, nationalism is rising, even as China seeks to repress
Uighur and Tibetan separatists.
People want to rule themselves, and be themselves, separate from all others. Palestinians want
their own nation. Israelis want "a Jewish state."
On Cyprus, Turks and Greeks seem happier apart.
Kurds are fighting to secede from Turkey and Iraq, and perhaps soon from Syria and Iran. Afghanistan
appears to be splintering into regions dominated by Pashtuns, Hazaras, Uzbeks, and Tajiks.
Eritrea has left Ethiopia. South Sudan has seceded from Khartoum.
Nor is America immune to the populist sentiments surging in Europe.
In Bernie Sanders's fulminations against corporate and financial elites one hears echoes of
the radical-leftist rhetoric in Greece and Italy against EU banking elites.
And as "Brexit" swept the native-born English outside of multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural,
multilingual London, populist-nationalist Donald Trump and antiestablishment Ted Cruz swept the native-born
white working and middle classes in the primaries.
In Britain, all the mainstream parties-Labor, Tory, Liberal Democrat, Scottish National-supported
"Remain." All lost.
Nigel Farage's UK Independence Party alone won.
In the past six months, millions of Democrats voted for a 74-year-old socialist against the
establishment choice, Hillary Clinton, as Bush-Romney-Ryan Republicanism was massively repudiated
in the Republican primaries.
As Trump said last week, "We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism-focusing
on what's good for America's middle class-to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money
for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment
of the American worker and the American economy."
Yesterday, news arrived that in May alone, the U.S. had run a trade deficit in goods of $60 billion.
This translates into an annual deficit of $720 billion in goods, or near 4 percent of our GDP wiped
out by purchases of foreign-made rather than U.S.-made goods.
In 40 years, we have not run a trade surplus. The most self-sufficient republic in all of history
now relies for its necessities upon other nations.
What might a Trumpian policy of Americanism over globalism entail?
A 10 to 20 percent tariff on manufactured goods to wipe out the trade deficit in goods, with the
hundreds of billions in revenue used to slash or eliminate corporate taxes in the USA.
Every U.S. business would benefit. Every global company would have an incentive not only to move
production here, but its headquarters here.
An "America first" immigration policy would secure the border, cut legal immigration to tighten
U.S. labor markets, strictly enforce U.S. laws against those breaking into our country, and get tough
with businesses that make a practice of hiring people here illegally.
In Europe and America, corporate, financial, and political elites are increasingly disrespected
and transnationalism is receding. An anti-establishment, nationalist, populist wave is surging across
Europe and the USA.
It is an anti-insider, anti-Clinton wave, and Trump could ride it to victory.
Jeremy Corbyn today launched a review into
the Labour party's supposed "anti-semitism crisis" – in fact, a crisis entirely
confected by a toxic mix of the right, Israel supporters and the media. I have
repeatedly pointed out that misleading claims of anti-semitism (along with much else)
are being thrown at Corbyn to discredit him. You can read my criticisms of this
campaign and Labour's response
here
,
here
and
here
.
In his speech, Corbyn made an entirely fair point that Jews should not be blamed
for the behaviour of Israel any more than Muslims should be for the behaviour of
states that are Islamic. He said:
Our Jewish friends are no more responsible for the actions of Israel or the
Netanyahu government than our Muslim friends are for those of various self-styled
Islamic states or organisations.
But no matter what he said, the usual suspects are now accusing him of comparing
Israel with Islamic State, even though that is clearly not what he said – not even
close.
First, even if he had said "Islamic State", which he didn't, that would not have
meant he made a comparison with Israel. He was comparing the assumptions some people
make that Jews and Muslims have tribal allegiances based on their religious or ethnic
background. He was saying it was unfair to make such assumptions of either Jews or
Muslims.
In fact, such an assumption (which Corbyn does not share) would be more unfair to
Muslims than to Jews. It would suggest that some Muslims easily feel an affinity
with a terror organisation, while some Jews feel an affinity with a recognised state
(which may or may not include their support for the occupation). That assumption is
far uglier towards Muslims than it is towards Jews.
But, of course, all of this is irrelevant because Corbyn did not make any
such comparison. He clearly referred to "various self-styled Islamic states or
organisations". A spokesman later clarified that he meant "Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
Iran or Hamas in Gaza". In other words, "various self-styled Islamic states and
organisations" – just as he said in the speech.
Surprise, surprise, the supposedly liberal
Guardian
's coverage of this
incident is as appalling as
that
found in the right wing
Telegraph
. The
Guardian
has an
article
, quoting rabbis and others, pointing out the irony that Corbyn made an
anti-semitic comment at the launch of an anti-semitism review – except, of course,
that he didn't.
In fact, contrary to all normal journalism, you have to read the
Guardian
story from bottom-up. The last paragraph states:
This story was amended on 30 June to correct the quotation in the second
paragraph. An earlier version quoted Corbyn as saying: "Our Jewish friends are no
more responsible for the actions for the actions of Israel or the Netanyahu
government than our Islamic friends are responsible for Islamic State."
Or in other words, the
Guardian
reporter did not even bother to listen to
the video of the speech posted alongside her report on the
Guardian
's own
website. Instead she and her editors jumped on the same bandwagon as everyone else,
spreading the same malicious rumours and misinformation.
When it later emerged that the story was a complete fabrication – one they could
have proved for themselves had they listened to what Corbyn really said – they simply
appended at the bottom a one-par mea culpa that almost no one will read. The
Guardian
has continued to publish the same defamatory article, one based on a
deception from start to finish.
This is the very definition of gutter journalism. And it comes as the
Guardian
editor, Kath Viner, asks (begs?) readers to dig deep in their pockets to support the
Guardian
. She
writes
:
The Guardian's role in producing fast, well-sourced, calm, accessible and
intelligent journalism is more important than ever.
Well, it would be if that is what they were doing. Instead, this story
confirms that the paper is producing the same shop-soiled disinformation as everyone
else.
Save your money and invest it in supporting real independent journalism.
At this moment, two irascible émigrés from the past century of European tragedies might come
to mind. John Lukacs, the Hungarian-American historian, has spent a lifetime arguing that
nationalism-not socialism, or even liberalism-is the core ideology of modernity, and that the
lesson of history is that nationalism will assert itself, like an unquenchable microbe, anytime
it has the least opportunity. (He also draws the distinction between patriotism-the love of place
and tradition and a desire to see its particularities thrive-and true nationalism, which is a
vengeful, irrational certainty that the alien outside or even within a country's borders is
responsible for some humiliation to the true nation.) This pessimistic strain was matched by that
of Karl Popper, the Austrian-Anglo philosopher, who saw that what he named the "open society,"
though essential to the transmission of humane values and the growth of knowledge, can impose
great strains on its citizens-strains of lost identity, certainty, tribal wholeness. The reaction
to this strain is inevitable, and sure. What keeps an open society from being overturned is only
the balm of ever-increased prosperity; when prosperity ends or is endangered, all the bad demons
come out of the forest. In this much broader sense, it may be prosperity that makes pluralism
possible. Economics alone don't drive the ideology of nationalism, but without prosperity it has
more room to bloom. Meanwhile, nationalism won't just go away, and open, liberal societies are
far more fragile than their success can make them seem-and these two sad truths seem to need
perpetual restating, or the lights really will go out across Europe.
За последний месяц на Украине появилось новое
правительство во главе с Владимиром Гройсманом, была переформатирована
коалиция в Верховной Раде и назначен новый генпрокурор. Бывший депутат Рады,
а потом спикер парламента Новороссии Олег Царев рассказал "Ленте.ру" о том,
чего ждать от обновленной украинской власти.
"Порошенко дожал американцев и олигархов"
"Лента.ру": Что изменится на Украине с назначением
нового правительства Владимира Гройсмана? Можно ли ожидать улучшения
социально-экономической ситуации?
Царев:
Главным итогом последнего политического кризиса я считаю
то, что Петру Порошенко удалось сосредоточить в своих руках всю полноту
власти. На пути к этому он смог дожать американцев, олигархов, продавить
оппонентов внутри страны. Финальным аккордом стало избрание 12 мая
генпрокурором Украины кума президента Юрия Луценко. Порошенко получил полный
карт-бланш, установил контроль и над кабинетом министров, и над Верховной
Радой, и над силовыми структурами. Оппоненты Порошенко - [Игорь] Коломойский
и [Арсений] Яценюк - пытались ему противостоять. В частности, с их
противодействием я связываю активную раскрутку на Украине скандала с
панамскими офшорами президента. Вся эта кампания неслучайно началась в тот
момент, когда глава государства поехал на переговоры в США. Целью было его
ослабление, чтобы он не смог договориться с американцами. Тем не менее он
американцев дожал и своего добился. Основным аргументом для расширения его
полномочий было устранение угрозы сползания страны к анархии. Да, это
движение в сторону диктатуры, но американцы никогда не возражали против
диктатуры, если она действует в их интересах.
А что этот личный успех Порошенко значит для украинского
народа?
К интересам украинского народа вся эта политическая борьба не имеет
никакого отношения. Речь идет о контроле финансовых потоков, в частности
крупные игроки готовятся к намечающейся последней приватизации. Одно из
последствий украинского переворота и, как следствие, гражданской войны в
Донбассе и разрыва экономических связей с Россией - обесценивание активов у
олигархов. На сегодняшний день их активы, заложенные под взятые в зарубежных
банках кредиты, меньше самих кредитов. Фактически они банкроты. Спасти
олигархов может только срочная покупка по заниженным ценам новых активов,
чтобы получить за рубежом под них новые кредиты и за их счет перекрыть
старые. В продажу должны пойти порты, железная дорога, АЭС,
сельскохозяйственные угодья. Как вы понимаете, мировая банковская система
устроена так, что в конечном итоге вся украинская собственность должна
поменять владельцев с украинских на зарубежных.
Этот процесс уже начался?
Первоначально договоренности у олигархов имелись с уже бывшим премьером
Яценюком. Активы были распределены. Например, Коломойский должен был забрать
Одесский припортовый завод, еще ряд предприятий. Яценюк их устраивал, его
аппетиты были поменьше, чем у президента, поэтому олигархи поддерживали
главу правительства в борьбе против Порошенко. Все СМИ Коломойского активно
раздували панамский скандал, работа велась по всему миру, оплачивалась
международная пиар-кампания. Но Порошенко выдержал, договорился с
американцами, а у тех есть рычаги давления на украинских олигархов, хранящих
свои средства в странах Запада. Теперь все олигархи пришли договариваться к
Порошенко. Коломойский и другие контролируют своих депутатов, дают им
указания. Благодаря этому президенту удалось сделать премьер-министром лично
преданного ему Гройсмана и назначить генпрокурором Луценко.
"У каждого украинского политика есть куратор в США"
Какие перспективы у такой конфигурации власти?
На сегодняшний момент американцы против резких изменений. Такова логика
президентских выборов в США - уходящий президент не должен оставлять
проблемы следующему главе государства. Поэтому сейчас Россию будут
похлопывать по плечу, говорить о возможной отмене санкций, может быть, даже
откатится цена на нефть. Но это временная ситуация! У администрации нового
американского президента будет свой план по Украине. Москва получила
временную передышку, важно использовать это короткое время для решения
внутренних проблем, наведения порядка в экономике.
На Украине по-прежнему периодически заявляют о себе
радикальные националисты, экстремисты. Почему Запад не выступает против
этого?
Тут ситуация двойственная. С одной стороны, Порошенко для того и дали
возможность сосредоточить власть в своих руках, чтобы он укрепил
государство. Он от нацистов потихоньку уже избавляется, но полностью убирать
их со сцены не будет. Отморозков под рукой иметь удобно. Надо разобраться с
"Оппозиционным блоком" или Васей Волгой (лидер партии "Союз левых сил" -
"прим. "Ленты.ру"
), другими какими-то оппонентами? И типа возмущенная
общественность делает это. Президент разводит руками: "Что я могу? Это не я,
это другие люди". Радикалы полностью не исчезнут, но будут работать по
команде, в строго очерченных границах выполняя ту роль, которую выполняли
батальоны смерти в Латинской Америке.
Отношение к России будет меняться?
Никаких надежд на это питать не стоит - Украина останется русофобской по
духу. Просто русофобия будет не самодеятельной, а санкционированной,
управляемой государством. России и украинцам с отличной от официальной
точкой зрения лучше не станет.
Активно проявляет себя в украинском политическом
пространстве Михаил Саакашвили. Понятно, что у него огромные амбиции,
ограничиваться Одесской областью он не желает. Каковы его перспективы?
У него хорошие шансы войти в высшие эшелоны украинской власти. У
Саакашвили второй личный рейтинг после Юлии Тимошенко. Надо понимать, что у
каждого более-менее серьезного украинского политика сейчас есть свой
американский куратор. Кто-то работает с демократами, кто-то - с
консерваторами, кто-то связан с Госдепартаментом, другие взаимодействуют с
конкретным чиновником, у кого-то "крыша" ЦРУ, как, например, у Наливайченко
(бывший глава СБУ -
прим. "Ленты.ру"
). При этом между самими
кураторами идет серьезная борьба. Из-за этого возникают различные казусы.
Так, куратор бывшего министра финансов Украины Натальи Яресько сообщила ей,
что ее кандидатура утверждена на должность главы правительства. Та стала уже
делать какие-то высокомерные заявления, но в итоге в правительстве Гройсмана
не сохранила даже должность главы Минфина. Проблема Саакашвили связана с
тем, что его кураторы в США сегодня не на вершине власти. Вторая трудность -
отсутствие у него своей политической силы. Ему надо свой рейтинг как-то
конвертировать в движение, чтобы закрепиться внутри Украины.
Юлия Тимошенко сможет вернуться во власть?
У нее не только высокий рейтинг, но есть и собственная политическая сила
- партия "Батькивщина". Да, в Раде это всего 25 депутатов, поэтому она и не
претендует на какие-то серьезные посты. Я знаю, что ей при формировании
правительства Гройсмана предлагали войти в кабмин. Но она посчитала, что ей
лучше еще нарастить рейтинг, находясь в оппозиции.
"Боевые действия в Донбассе продолжатся"
Что в ближайшее время ждет Донбасс? И какова судьба
минских соглашений?
По сути, жители Донбасса - заложники неопределенности, вызванной минскими
соглашениями. Меня совсем не удивило отсутствие результатов на последней
встрече министров иностранных дел нормандской четверки. Для украинской
власти вопросом жизни и смерти в полном смысле этого слова является
непризнание вооруженного конфликта на востоке страны гражданской войной.
Если война в Донбассе - не война с Россией, а внутренний гражданский
конфликт, то начало АТО, привлечение армии, насильная мобилизация, обстрелы
городов Донбасса - это не только грубое нарушение Конституции Украины, но и
преступление, по которому нет сроков давности. Руководители страны - военные
преступники. Все погибшие в результате конфликта, как военные так и мирные
жители, на их совести. Представители киевской власти как попугаи будут
говорить об агрессии России на востоке Украины. То, что они сами себе
противоречат, их не сильно волнует. Если Россия агрессор, то надо разрывать
дипломатические отношения и объявлять войну России. Причем логичнее всего
начинать "освобождение от России" с Крыма. Ведь то, что в Крыму, в отличие
от Донбасса, находится российская армия, ни для кого не секрет. Но дураков
нет. Одно дело воевать в Донбассе с выдуманными российскими войсками, а
совсем другое - столкнуться с настоящей кадровой российской армией в Крыму.
С соглашениями тупиковая ситуация?
То, что подписи под минскими соглашениями поставили представители
самопровозглашенных народных республик, и так поставило Киев в сложное
положение. Если договоренности будут выполнены, то дело Киеву придется иметь
уже с легитимными представителями Донбасса. (Лично я считаю, что у глав ДНР
Александра Захарченко и ЛНР Игоря Плотницкого легитимности больше, чем у
Порошенко). Это значит, что в случае конфликта он попадает под определение
"гражданская война", а действия киевского руководства можно трактовать как
военное преступление. Таким образом, при выполнении минских соглашений Киев
окажется в шпагате.
Фашистские режимы держатся на страхе, они устойчивы, если существует
только одна точка зрения. А не разделяющих ее государство или батальоны
смерти устраняют. Неподконтрольный центральной власти анклав на востоке
нельзя физически раздавить, и это делает режим очень неустойчивым. С другой
стороны, минский комплекс мер продавливают европейцы и публично отказываться
от него нельзя. Но и выполнить невозможно. Все это прекрасно понимают как в
Киеве, так и в Вашингтоне. Если бы американцы действительно хотели
выполнения соглашений, то Виктория Нуланд сегодня бы сидела в Киеве и
разговаривала с депутатами, руководителями фракций и олигархами в жесткой
форме. Аргументов много: угроза запрета въезда в ЕС, закрытие кредитования в
зарубежных банках, конфискация собственности и арест счетов за границей
Государственные СМИ и СМИ, подчиняющиеся олигархам, с утра и до вечера, в
случае если бы действительно ставилась такая задача, говорили о том что,
минские договоренности надо выполнять. Но мы этого не наблюдаем.
Мое резюме такое: Украина и США как минимум до президентских выборов в
Америке сохранят риторику о том, что минские соглашения следует выполнять.
Но в то же время выполнять их, голосуя в Верховной Раде за амнистию,
специальный статус отдельных районов, изменения в Конституцию, закон о
выборах в Донбассе, не будут. Организовывать крупномасштабное наступление
тоже не будут, дабы не нарваться на контрнаступление. Но боевые действия в
ограниченном режиме на границе с Донбассом, очевидно, продолжатся по той
причине, что первый пункт соглашений - прекращение огня. Невыполнение
первого пункта дает возможность затягивать и с другими.
Какие-то поводы для оптимизма вы все-таки видите?
Медленно, шаг за шагом, но в Донбассе все-таки становится спокойнее, а
уровень жизни немного растет. Я как один из тех, кто стоял в начале этого
процесса, хотел бы большего. Поэтому я, возможно, слишком резко оцениваю
ситуацию, хотя сделано, конечно, очень много.
"Я не общаюсь с Януковичем"
Есть регионы Украины, которые готовы пойти по пути ДНР и
ЛНР?
За время правления Порошенко украинские силовики провели точечную, но
системную работу по выявлению недовольных киевской властью. Одни попали в
тюрьму, другие покинули Украину. Движение сопротивления во многом подавлено.
Общее недовольство теми, кто пришел к власти после госпереворота в 2014 году,
есть, уровень жизни падает, тарифы растут, социально-экономическая ситуация
ухудшается. Но отсутствуют лидеры, способные повести за собой людей.
Вы общаетесь с кем-то из прежнего руководства Украины?
Может быть, обсуждаете что-то с беглым президентом Виктором Януковичем?
Я с глубоким уважением отношусь к бывшему главе правительства Николаю
Азарову. С ним мы обсуждаем много вопросов. С Януковичем не общаюсь. Знаете,
после госпереворота в Киеве погибло громадное количество людей, Донбасс стал
зоной боевых действий. Через возглавляемый мной парламент Новороссии шла
первая российская гуманитарная помощь, другой структуры для такой работы
просто не было. Я по пять-шесть раз в день посещал пострадавшие семьи в
Луганске, Донецке. Мне важно было показать людям, что их не бросили. Я
приезжал в семьи, где погибли дети, старики, где разрушены дома. Я видел это
горе, которое принесла, в том числе, политика Януковича. Это очень тяжело.
Вы считаете, что лично Янукович виноват в происходящем
на Украине сейчас?
У него были все рычаги власти. Он мог бороться как Каддафи, как сирийский
лидер Башар Асад, он мог погибнуть, как Альенде (Сальвадор Альенде,
президент Чили, погиб в 1973 году в ходе военного переворота -
прим. "Ленты.ру"
),
и остаться символом сопротивления в веках, но он этого не сделал. Политик не
имеет права думать о себе.
И что же, не было тогда людей, близких к "телу", которые
могли оказать на него какое-то влияние, чтобы он принял другое решение? Или
он никого не слушал?
Украина - олигархическая страна, причем классическая олигархическая
страна. Можно много говорить про демократические выборы, но в итоге
украинский народ выбирает того кандидата, которого выбрали олигархи. Ну, как
минимум из перечня тех, на кого они сделали ставку. Поэтому его
обязательства перед ними были важнее, чем перед простыми людьми.
А олигархам, выходит, невыгодно было сохранить страну?
В какой-то момент олигархов взяли за самое дорогое, что у них есть, - за
деньги и за собственность. Вариантов не было.
"... This is an extract from 'Chaos and Caliphate: Jihadis and the West in the Struggle for the Middle East' by Patrick Cockburn, published by OR Books, price Ł18. The discount code readers can use for 15% off 'Chaos and Caliphate' is: INDEPENDENT ..."
I was sceptical from an early stage about the Arab Spring uprisings leading to
the replacement of authoritarian regimes by secular democracies. Optimistic forecasts
I was hearing in the first heady months of 2011 sounded suspiciously similar to
what I had heard in Kabul after the fall of the Taliban in 2001 and in Baghdad
after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003. In each of the three cases, there
was the same dangerous conviction on the part of the domestic opposition, outside
powers and the international media that all ills could be attributed to the demonic
old regime and a brave new world was being born.
This seemed very simple-minded:
I was very conscious that these police states – be they in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia,
Syria, Yemen or Bahrain – were the product as well as the exploiters of threats
to their country's independence from abroad as well as social, sectarian and ethnic
divisions at home. Journalists, who earn their bread by expressing themselves freely,
were particularly prone to believe that free expression and honest elections were
all that was needed to put things right.
Explanations of what one thought was happening in these countries were often
misinterpreted as justification for odious and discredited regimes. In Libya, where
the uprising started on 15 February 2011, I wrote about how the opposition was
wholly dependent on Nato military support and would have been rapidly defeated
by pro-Gaddafi forces without it. It followed from this that the opposition would
not have the strength to fill the inevitable political vacuum if Gaddafi was to
fall. I noted gloomily that Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies,
who were pressing for foreign intervention against Gaddafi, themselves held power
by methods no less repressive than the Libyan leader. It was his radicalism – muted
though this was in his later years – not his authoritarianism that made the kings
and emirs hate him.
This was an unpopular stance to take on Libya during the high tide of the Arab
Spring, when foreign governments and media alike were uncritically lauding the
opposition. The two sides in what was a genuine civil war were portrayed as white
hats and black hats; rebel claims about government atrocities were credulously
broadcast, though they frequently turned out to be concocted, while government
denials were contemptuously dismissed. Human rights organisations such as Amnesty
International and Human Rights Watch were much more thorough than the media in
checking these stories, although their detailed reports appeared long after the
news agenda had moved on.
Whatever their other failings, the rebels ran a slick and highly professional
press campaign from their headquarters in Benghazi. Spokesmen efficiently fended
off embarrassing questions and crowds waved placards bearing well-thought-out slogans
in grammatical English in front of the television cameras.
My doubts about many aspects of the Libyan uprising, as it was presented to
the world, are open to misinterpretation. There was nothing phony about people's
anger against a man and a regime that had monopolised power over them for 43 years.
As in other Arab military regimes turned police states, Gaddafi had once justified
his rule as necessary to defend Libyan national interests against foreign states
and oil companies. But as the decades passed, these justifications became excuses
for a Gaddafi family dictatorship that stifled all dissent.
Just how claustrophobic it was to be a Libyan at this time was brought home
to me by Ahmed Abdullah al-Ghadamsi, an intelligent, able and well-educated man
whom I met by accident after the fall of Tripoli and who worked for me as a guide
and assistant. He came from a family and a district in Tripoli that was always
anti-Gaddafi, and he had been on the edge of the resistance movement before we
met. He was good at talking his way through checkpoints and winning the confidence
of the suspicious militiamen who were manning them.
We shared a feeling of exhilaration now that the old regime was gone. I remember
Ahmed saying to me with amused exasperation that "books used to be more difficult
to bring into the country than weapons". Seven weeks later, he was dead. He had
felt he must play some active role in the revolution rather than just making money,
had volunteered as a fighter and was shot through the head in the last days of
the civil war.
In the early months of the uprising, a good place to judge the rebel movement
was close to the front line in the largely deserted town of Ajdabiya, two hours'
drive south of Benghazi. Here the military stalemate of sudden advances and retreats
was very visible: in the restaurant of the local hotel waiters started to ask journalists
to pay their bills before they ate. The urgency on the part of the hotel management
reflected their bitter experience of seeing journalists – their only customers
– abandon meals half-eaten and leave, bills unpaid, because of a sudden and unexpected
advance by the pro-Gaddafi forces.
On the outskirts of Ajdabiya, rebel pick-ups and trucks, with heavy machine
guns welded to the back, rushed backwards and forwards, the speed of their retreats
so swift as to endanger any camera crews or reporters standing nearby. I had an
ominous feeling, as I drove about Ajdabiya, Benghazi and the hinterland of Cyrenaica,
that all would not turn out well. "It would take a long time to reduce Libya to
the level of Somalia," I wrote on 13 April 2011, "but civil conflicts and the hatreds
they induce build up their own momentum once the shooting has begun. One of the
good things about Libya is that so many young men – unlike Afghans and Iraqis of
a similar age – do not know how to use a gun. This will not last."
Nor did it. But it was not the militarisation of Libyans that broke the stalemate
but the intervention of Nato air forces. The shape of things to come was already
becoming clear: on 22 May I described how flames were billowing up "from the hulks
of eight Libyan Navy vessels destroyed by Nato air attacks as they lay in ports
along the Libyan coast. Their destruction shows how Muammar Gaddafi is being squeezed
militarily, but also the degree to which the US, France and Britain, and not the
Libyan rebels, are now the main players in the struggle for power in Libya. Probably
Gaddafi will go down because he is too weak to withstand the forces arrayed against
him. Failure to end his regime would be too humiliating and politically damaging
for Nato after 2,700 air strikes. Once he goes, there will be a political vacuum
that the opposition will scarcely be able to fill. The fall of the regime may usher
in a new round of a long-running Libyan crisis that continues for years to come."
By August, Gaddafi had fled and I was in Tripoli touring the abandoned palaces,
villas and prisons of the ruling family that had so recently abandoned them. I
tried not to be a professional pessimist, pointing out hopefully that, unlike Iraqis
and Afghans, Libyans had a high standard of living, were well educated and were
not split by age-old ethnic and sectarian divisions. But even this upbeat summary
concluded plaintively as I added: "All the same, I wish the shooting outside my
window would stop."
It never really did stop. Tripoli was full of checkpoints that reminded me of
Lebanon during the civil war of 1975 to 1990. The arrival of the new transitional
government from Benghazi did not fill me with confidence since one of its first
measures was to announce the end of the ban on polygamy introduced by Gaddafi.
I had periodically visited Tripoli in the 1980s and 1990s and had noticed that,
as in the oil states of the Gulf, most of the work was done by migrants from poor
countries that were Libya's African neighbours. To find out what was happening
in Libya at that time, I would go for a walk in the marketplace and fall into conversation
with bored Ghanaians or Chadians, all migrants on their day off, who would tell
me more about the real state of the country than any Libyan official or Western
diplomat.
But with the fall of Gaddafi, all black faces were regarded with suspicion by
the new rulers as likely supporters of the fallen leader. They were often accused
of being "pro-Gaddafi mercenaries", interrogated, jailed and occasionally murdered.
Life for the migrant and indigenous black population was to get steadily worse
in the coming years as Libya disintegrated, and by 2015 Ethiopian and Egyptian
Christians were being executed by Islamic State's Libyan clone. Meanwhile, the
West Europeans were reaping what they had sown by destroying the Libyan state:
migrant labourers, who had once found jobs in Libyan markets and building sites,
were now risking their lives as they sailed in over-crowded and unseaworthy boats
across the Mediterranean in a desperate attempt to reach Europe.
My fears about the "Somalianisation" of Libya, first expressed in March 2011,
had turned out to be all too true. Four years later, Libya was ruled, in so far
as it was ruled at all, by two governments, one based in Tripoli and the other
in Tobruk, while real authority lay in the hands of militias that fought each other
for power and money. Demonstrators in the streets of Tripoli were shot down by
anti-aircraft machine guns whose large calibre bullets tore apart the bodies of
protesters; Tripoli International Airport was destroyed in fighting between rival
militias; torture was ubiquitous; and the country split between east and west.
For all his quirky personality cult and monopoly of power, life in Libya under
Gaddafi had not been as bad as this. The demonisation of Gaddafi had an unfortunate
effect in ensuring the opposition had no real programme other than his replacement
by themselves.
Libyans were relieved at the end of 2011 to find that they no longer had to
study the puerile nostrums of Gaddafi's Green Book – in the knowledge that if you
failed the exam devoted to this work, you had to retake the entire course. But
Libyans also found to their horror that they had lost a haphazard but functioning
state, and with it personal security in the sense of being able to walk the streets
in safety. They were now at the mercy of predatory militiamen who were paid out
of Libya's diminished oil revenues. I remember a fellow journalist upbraiding me
politely in 2011 for stressing the failings of the Libyan rebels, saying: "Let's
remember who are the good guys." A few months later, as the revolution turned sour,
good and bad in Libya were ever more difficult to tell apart.
This was a common experience in the six countries most affected by the Arab Spring.
By 2015, three of these – Libya, Syria and Yemen – were being ravaged by warfare
and two others – Egypt and Bahrain – were ruled by authoritarian governments more
brutal and dictatorial than anything that had gone before. Only in Tunisia, where
it had all started, did an elected civilian government cling on, though increasingly
destabilised by massacres of foreign tourists by Isis training camps in Libya.
The Arab Spring had turned into the age of jihad.
"... The following is a preview of a chapter by Claudia von Werlhof in "The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century." (2009) ..."
"... To read more, order the book online. Help us spread the word: "like" the book on Facebook and share with your friends -- ..."
No one asks these questions because they seem absurd. Yet, no one can escape
them either. Until the onslaught of the global economic crisis, the motto of
so-called "neoliberalism" was TINA: "There Is No Alternative!"
No alternative to "neoliberal globalization"?
No alternative to the unfettered "free market" economy?
What Is "Neoliberal Globalization"?
Let us first clarify what globalization and neoliberalism are, where they
come from, who they are directed by, what they claim, what they do, why their
effects are so fatal, why they will fail and why people nonetheless cling to
them. Then, let us look at the responses of those who are not – or will not
– be able to live with the consequences they cause.
This is where the difficulties begin. For a good twenty years now we have
been told that there is no alternative to neoliberal globalization, and that,
in fact, no such alternative is needed either. Over and over again, we have
been confronted with the TINA-concept: "There Is No Alternative!" The "iron
lady", Margaret Thatcher, was one of those who reiterated this belief without
end.
The TINA-concept prohibits all thought. It follows the rationale that there
is no point in analyzing and discussing neoliberalism and so-called globalization
because they are inevitable. Whether we condone what is happening or not does
not matter, it is happening anyway. There is no point in trying to understand.
Hence: Go with it! Kill or be killed!
Some go as far as suggesting that globalization – meaning, an economic system
which developed under specific social and historical conditions – is nothing
less but a law of nature. In turn, "human nature" is supposedly reflected by
the character of the system's economic subjects: egotistical, ruthless, greedy
and cold. This, we are told, works towards everyone's benefit.
The question remains: why has Adam Smith's "invisible hand" become a "visible
fist"? While a tiny minority reaps enormous benefits from today's neoliberalism
(none of which will remain, of course), the vast majority of the earth's population
suffers hardship to the extent that their very survival is at stake. The damage
done seems irreversible.
All over the world media outlets – especially television stations – avoid
addressing the problem. A common excuse is that it cannot be explained.[1] The
true reason is, of course, the media's corporate control.
What Is Neoliberalism?
Neoliberalism as an economic policy agenda which began in Chile in 1973.
Its inauguration consisted of a U.S.-organized coup against a democratically
elected socialist president and the installment of a bloody military dictatorship
notorious for systematic torture. This was the only way to turn the neoliberal
model of the so-called "Chicago Boys" under the leadership of Milton Friedman
– a student of Friedrich von Hayek – into reality.
The predecessor of the neoliberal model is the economic liberalism of the
18th and 19th centuries and its notion of "free trade". Goethe's assessment
at the time was: "Free trade, piracy, war – an inseparable three!"[2]
At the center of both old and new economic liberalism lies:
Self-interest and individualism; segregation of ethical principles and economic
affairs, in other words: a process of 'de-bedding' economy from society; economic
rationality as a mere cost-benefit calculation and profit maximization; competition
as the essential driving force for growth and progress; specialization and the
replacement of a subsistence economy with profit-oriented foreign trade ('comparative
cost advantage'); and the proscription of public (state) interference with market
forces.[3]
Where the new economic liberalism outdoes the old is in its global claim.
Today's economic liberalism functions as a model for each and everyone: all
parts of the economy, all sectors of society, of life/nature itself. As a consequence,
the once "de-bedded" economy now claims to "im-bed" everything, including political
power. Furthermore, a new twisted "economic ethics" (and with it a certain idea
of "human nature") emerges that mocks everything from so-called do-gooders to
altruism to selfless help to care for others to a notion of responsibility.[4]
This goes as far as claiming that the common good depends entirely on the
uncontrolled egoism of the individual and, especially, on the prosperity of
transnational corporations. The allegedly necessary "freedom" of the economy
– which, paradoxically, only means the freedom of corporations – hence consists
of a freedom from responsibility and commitment to society.
The maximization of profit itself must occur within the shortest possible
time; this means, preferably, through speculation and "shareholder value". It
must meet as few obstacles as possible. Today, global economic interests outweigh
not only extra-economic concerns but also national economic considerations since
corporations today see themselves beyond both community and nation.[5] A "level
playing field" is created that offers the global players the best possible conditions.
This playing field knows of no legal, social, ecological, cultural or national
"barriers".[6] As a result, economic competition plays out on a market that
is free of all non-market, extra-economic or protectionist influences – unless
they serve the interests of the big players (the corporations), of course. The
corporations' interests – their maximal growth and progress – take on complete
priority. This is rationalized by alleging that their well-being means the well-being
of small enterprises and workshops as well.
The difference between the new and the old economic liberalism can first
be articulated in quantitative terms: after capitalism went through a series
of ruptures and challenges – caused by the "competing economic system", the
crisis of capitalism, post-war "Keynesianism" with its social and welfare state
tendencies, internal mass consumer demand (so-called Fordism), and the objective
of full employment in the North. The liberal economic goals of the past are
now not only euphorically resurrected but they are also "globalized". The main
reason is indeed that the competition between alternative economic systems is
gone. However, to conclude that this confirms the victory of capitalism and
the "golden West" over "dark socialism" is only one possible interpretation.
Another – opposing – interpretation is to see the "modern world system" (which
contains both capitalism and socialism) as having hit a general crisis which
causes total and merciless competition over global resources while leveling
the way for investment opportunities, i.e. the valorization of capital.[7]
The ongoing globalization of neoliberalism demonstrates which interpretation
is right. Not least, because the differences between the old and the new economic
liberalism can not only be articulated in quantitative terms but in qualitative
ones too. What we are witnessing are completely new phenomena: instead of a
democratic "complete competition" between many small enterprises enjoying the
freedom of the market, only the big corporations win. In turn, they create new
market oligopolies and monopolies of previously unknown dimensions. The market
hence only remains free for them, while it is rendered unfree for all others
who are condemned to an existence of dependency (as enforced producers, workers
and consumers) or excluded from the market altogether (if they have neither
anything to sell or buy). About fifty percent of the world's population fall
into this group today, and the percentage is rising.[8]
Anti-trust laws have lost all power since the transnational corporations
set the norms. It is the corporations – not "the market" as an anonymous mechanism
or "invisible hand" – that determine today's rules of trade, for example prices
and legal regulations. This happens outside any political control. Speculation
with an average twenty percent profit margin edges out honest producers who
become "unprofitable".[9] Money becomes too precious for comparatively non-profitable,
long-term projects,
or projects that only – how audacious! – serve a good life. Money instead
"travels upwards" and disappears. Financial capital determines more and more
what the markets are and do.[10] By delinking the dollar from the price of gold,
money creation no longer bears a direct relationship to production".[11] Moreover,
these days most of us are – exactly like all governments – in debt. It is financial
capital that has all the money – we have none.[12]
Small, medium, even some bigger enterprises are pushed out of the market,
forced to fold or swallowed by transnational corporations because their performances
are below average in comparison to speculation – rather: spookulation – wins.
The public sector, which has historically been defined as a sector of not-for-profit
economy and administration, is "slimmed" and its "profitable" parts ("gems")
handed to corporations (privatized). As a consequence, social services that
are necessary for our existence disappear. Small and medium private businesses
– which, until recently, employed eighty percent of the workforce and provided
normal working conditions – are affected by these developments as well. The
alleged correlation between economic growth and secure employment is false.
When economic growth is accompanied by the mergers of businesses, jobs are lost.[13]
If there are any new jobs, most are precarious, meaning that they are only
available temporarily and badly paid. One job is usually not enough to make
a living.[14] This means that the working conditions in the North become akin
to those in the South, and the working conditions of men akin to those of women
– a trend diametrically opposed to what we have always been told. Corporations
now leave for the South (or East) to use cheap – and particularly female – labor
without union affiliation. This has already been happening since the 1970s in
the "Export Processing Zones" (EPZs, "world market factories" or "maquiladoras"),
where most of the world's computer chips, sneakers, clothes and electronic goods
are produced.[15] The EPZs lie in areas where century-old colonial-capitalist
and authoritarian-patriarchal conditions guarantee the availability of cheap
labor.[16] The recent shift of business opportunities from consumer goods to
armaments is a particularly troubling development.[17]
It is not only commodity production that is "outsourced" and located in the
EPZs, but service industries as well. This is a result of the so-called Third
Industrial Revolution, meaning the development of new information and communication
technologies. Many jobs have disappeared entirely due to computerization, also
in administrative fields.[18] The combination of the principles of "high tech"
and "low wage"/"no wage" (always denied by "progress" enthusiasts) guarantees
a "comparative cost advantage" in foreign trade. This will eventually lead to
"Chinese wages" in the West. A potential loss of Western consumers is not seen
as a threat. A corporate economy does not care whether consumers are European,
Chinese or Indian.
The means of production become concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, especially
since finance capital – rendered precarious itself – controls asset values ever
more aggressively. New forms of private property are created, not least through
the "clearance" of public property and the transformation of formerly public
and small-scale private services and industries to a corporate business sector.
This concerns primarily fields that have long been (at least partly) excluded
from the logic of profit – e.g. education, health, energy or water supply/disposal.
New forms of so-called enclosures emerge from today's total commercialization
of formerly small-scale private or public industries and services, of the "commons",
and of natural resources like oceans, rain forests, regions of genetic diversity
or geopolitical interest (e.g. potential pipeline routes), etc.[19] As far as
the new virtual spaces and communication networks go, we are witnessing frantic
efforts to bring these under private control as well.[20]
All these new forms of private property are essentially created by (more
or less) predatory forms of appropriation. In this sense, they are a continuation
of the history of so-called original accumulation which has expanded globally,
in accordance with to the motto: "Growth through expropriation!"[21]
Most people have less and less access to the means of production, and so
the dependence on scarce and underpaid work increases. The destruction of the
welfare state also destroys the notion that individuals can rely on the community
to provide for them in times of need. Our existence relies exclusively on private,
i.e. expensive, services that are often of much worse quality and much less
reliable than public services. (It is a myth that the private always outdoes
the public.) What we are experiencing is undersupply formerly only known by
the colonial South. The old claim that the South will eventually develop into
the North is proven wrong. It is the North that increasingly develops into the
South. We are witnessing the latest form of "development", namely, a world system
of underdevelopment.[22] Development and underdevelopment go hand in hand.[23]
This might even dawn on "development aid" workers soon.
It is usually women who are called upon to counterbalance underdevelopment
through increased work ("service provisions") in the household. As a result,
the workload and underpay of women takes on horrendous dimensions: they do unpaid
work inside their homes and poorly paid "housewifized" work outside.[24] Yet,
commercialization does not stop in front of the home's doors either. Even housework
becomes commercially co-opted ("new maid question"), with hardly any financial
benefits for the women who do the work.[25]
Not least because of this, women are increasingly coerced into prostitution,
one of today's biggest global industries.[26] This illustrates two things: a)
how little the "emancipation" of women actually leads to "equal terms" with
men; and b) that "capitalist development" does not imply increased "freedom"
in wage labor relations, as the Left has claimed for a long time.[27] If the
latter were the case, then neoliberalism would mean the voluntary end of capitalism
once it reaches its furthest extension. This, however, does not appear likely.
Today, hundreds of millions of quasi-slaves, more than ever before, exist
in the "world system."[28] The authoritarian model of the "Export Processing
Zones" is conquering the East and threatening the North. The redistribution
of wealth runs ever more – and with ever accelerated speed – from the bottom
to the top. The gap between the rich and the poor has never been wider. The
middle classes disappear. This is the situation we are facing.
It becomes obvious that neoliberalism marks not the end of colonialism but,
to the contrary, the colonization of the North. This new "colonization of the
world"[29] points back to the beginnings of the "modern world system" in the
"long 16th century", when the conquering of the Americas, their exploitation
and colonial transformation allowed for the rise and "development" of Europe.[30]
The so-called "children's diseases" of modernity keep on haunting it, even in
old age. They are, in fact, the main feature of modernity's latest stage. They
are expanding instead of disappearing.
Where there is no South, there is no North; where there is no periphery,
there is no center; where there is no colony, there is no – in any case no "Western"
– civilization.[31]
Austria is part of the world system too. It is increasingly becoming a corporate
colony (particularly of German corporations). This, however, does not keep it
from being an active colonizer itself, especially in the East.[32]
Social, cultural, traditional and ecological considerations are abandoned
and give way to a mentality of plundering. All global resources that we still
have – natural resources, forests, water, genetic pools – have turned into objects
of utilization. Rapid ecological destruction through depletion is the consequence.
If one makes more profit by cutting down trees than by planting them, then there
is no reason not to cut them.[33] Neither the public nor the state interferes,
despite global warming and the obvious fact that the clearing of the few remaining
rain forests will irreversibly destroy the earth's climate – not to mention
the many other negative effects of such actions.[34] Climate, animal, plants,
human and general ecological rights are worth nothing compared to the interests
of the corporations – no matter that the rain forest is not a renewable resource
and that the entire earth's ecosystem depends on it. If greed, and the rationalism
with which it is economically enforced, really was an inherent anthropological
trait, we would have never even reached this day.
The commander of the Space Shuttle that circled the earth in 2005 remarked
that "the center of Africa was burning". She meant the Congo, in which the last
great rain forest of the continent is located. Without it there will be no more
rain clouds above the sources of the Nile. However, it needs to disappear in
order for corporations to gain free access to the Congo's natural resources
that are the reason for the wars that plague the region today. After all, one
needs diamonds and coltan for mobile phones.
Today, everything on earth is turned into commodities, i.e. everything becomes
an object of "trade" and commercialization (which truly means liquidation, the
transformation of all into liquid money). In its neoliberal stage it is not
enough for capitalism to globally pursue less cost-intensive and preferably
"wageless" commodity production. The objective is to transform everyone and
everything into commodities, including life itself.[35] We are racing blindly
towards the violent and absolute conclusion of this "mode of production", namely
total capitalization/liquidation by "monetarization".[36]
We are not only witnessing perpetual praise of the market – we are witnessing
what can be described as "market fundamentalism". People believe in the market
as if it was a god. There seems to be a sense that nothing could ever happen
without it. Total global maximized accumulation of money/capital as abstract
wealth becomes the sole purpose of economic activity. A "free" world market
for everything has to be established – a world market that functions according
to the interests of the corporations and capitalist money. The installment of
such a market proceeds with dazzling speed. It creates new profit possibilities
where they have not existed before, e.g. in Iraq, Eastern Europe or China.
One thing remains generally overlooked: the abstract wealth created for accumulation
implies the destruction of nature as concrete wealth. The result is a "hole
in the ground" and next to it a garbage dump with used commodities, outdated
machinery and money without value.[37] However, once all concrete wealth (which
today consists mainly of the last natural resources) will be gone, abstract
wealth will disappear as well. It will, in Marx's words, "evaporate". The fact
that abstract wealth is not real wealth will become obvious, and so will the
answer to the question of which wealth modern economic activity has really created.
In the end it is nothing but monetary wealth (and even this mainly exists virtually
or on accounts) that constitutes a monoculture controlled by a tiny minority.
Diversity is suffocated and millions of people are left wondering how to survive.
And really: how do you survive with neither resources nor means of production
nor money?
The nihilism of our economic system is evident. The whole world will be transformed
into money – and then it will disappear. After all, money cannot be eaten. What
no one seems to consider is the fact that it is impossible to re-transform commodities,
money, capital and machinery into nature or concrete wealth. It seems that underlying
all "economic development" is the assumption that "resources", the "sources
of wealth",[38] are renewable and everlasting – just like the "growth" they
create.[39]
The notion that capitalism and democracy are one is proven a myth by neoliberalism
and its "monetary totalitarianism".[40]
The primacy of politics over economy has been lost. Politicians of all parties
have abandoned it. It is the corporations that dictate politics. Where corporate
interests are concerned, there is no place for democratic convention or community
control. Public space disappears. The res publica turns into a res privata,
or – as we could say today – a res privata transnationale (in its original Latin
meaning, privare means "to deprive"). Only those in power still have rights.
They give themselves the licenses they need, from the "license to plunder" to
the "license to kill".[41] Those who get in their way or challenge their "rights"
are vilified, criminalized and to an increasing degree defined as "terrorists"
or, in the case of defiant governments, as "rogue states" – a label that usually
implies threatened or actual military attack, as we can see in the cases of
Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and maybe Syria and Iran in the near future.
U.S. President Bush had even spoken of the possibility of "preemptive" nuclear
strikes should the U.S. feel endangered by weapons of mass destruction.[42]
The European Union did not object.[43]
Neoliberalism and war are two sides of the same coin.[44] Free trade, piracy
and war are still "an inseparable three" – today maybe more so than ever. War
is not only "good for the economy" but is indeed its driving force and can be
understood as the "continuation of economy with other means".[45] War and economy
have become almost indistinguishable.[46] Wars about resources – especially
oil and water – have already begun.[47] The Gulf Wars are the most obvious examples.
Militarism once again appears as the "executor of capital accumulation" – potentially
everywhere and enduringly.[48]
Human rights and rights of sovereignty have been transferred from people,
communities and governments to corporations.[49] The notion of the people as
a sovereign body has practically been abolished. We have witnessed a coup of
sorts. The political systems of the West and the nation state as guarantees
for and expression of the international division of labor in the modern world
system are increasingly dissolving.[50] Nation states are developing into "periphery
states" according to the inferior role they play in the proto-despotic "New
World Order".[51] Democracy appears outdated. After all, it "hinders business".[52]
The "New World Order" implies a new division of labor that does no longer
distinguish between North and South, East and West – today, everywhere is South.
An according International Law is established which effectively functions from
top to bottom ("top-down") and eliminates all local and regional communal rights.
And not only that: many such rights are rendered invalid both retroactively
and for the future.[53]
The logic of neoliberalism as a sort of totalitarian neo-mercantilism is
that all resources, all markets, all money, all profits, all means of production,
all "investment opportunities", all rights and all power belong to the corporations
only. To paraphrase Richard Sennett: "Everything to the Corporations!"[54] One
might add: "Now!"
The corporations are free to do whatever they please with what they get.
Nobody is allowed to interfere. Ironically, we are expected to rely on them
to find a way out of the crisis we are in. This puts the entire globe at risk
since responsibility is something the corporations do not have or know. The
times of social contracts are gone.[55] In fact, pointing out the crisis alone
has become a crime and all critique will soon be defined as "terror" and persecuted
as such.[56]
IMF Economic Medicine
Since the 1980s, it is mainly the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of
the World Bank and the IMF that act as the enforcers of neoliberalism. These
programs are levied against the countries of the South which can be extorted
due to their debts. Meanwhile, numerous military interventions and wars help
to take possession of the assets that still remain, secure resources, install
neoliberalism as the global economic politics, crush resistance movements (which
are cynically labeled as "IMF uprisings"), and facilitate the lucrative business
of reconstruction.[57]
In the 1980s, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher introduced neoliberalism
in Anglo-America. In 1989, the so-called "Washington Consensus" was formulated.
It claimed to lead to global freedom, prosperity and economic growth through
"deregulation, liberalization and privatization". This has become the credo
and promise of all neoliberals. Today we know that the promise has come true
for the corporations only – not for anybody else.
In the Middle East, the Western support for Saddam Hussein in the war between
Iraq and Iran in the 1980s, and the Gulf War of the early 1990s, announced the
permanent U.S. presence in the world's most contested oil region.
In continental Europe, neoliberalism began with the crisis in Yugoslavia
caused by the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) of the World Bank and the
IMF. The country was heavily exploited, fell apart and finally beset by a civil
war over its last remaining resources.[58] Since the NATO war in 1999, the Balkans
are fragmented, occupied and geopolitically under neoliberal control.[59] The
region is of main strategic interest for future oil and gas transport from the
Caucasus to the West (for example the "Nabucco" gas pipeline that is supposed
to start operating from the Caspian Sea through Turkey and the Balkans by 2011.[60]
The reconstruction of the Balkans is exclusively in the hands of Western corporations.
All governments, whether left, right, liberal or green, accept this. There
is no analysis of the connection between the politics of neoliberalism, its
history, its background and its effects on Europe and other parts of the world.
Likewise, there is no analysis of its connection to the new militarism.
NOTES
[1] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 23, 36.
[2] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Faust: Part Two, New York, Oxford University
Press, 1999.
[3] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen. Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005, p. 34.
[4] Arno Gruen, Der Verlust des Mitgefühls. Über die Politik der Gleichgültigkeit,
München, 1997, dtv.
[5] Sassen Saskia, "Wohin führt die Globalisierung?," Machtbeben, 2000, Stuttgart-München,
DVA.
[6] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 24.
[7] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, 1979, Suhrkamp;
Immanuel Wallerstein (Hg), The Modern World-System in the Longue Durée, Boulder/
London; Paradigm Publishers, 2004.
[8] Susan George, im Vortrag, Treffen von Gegnern und Befürwortern der Globalisierung
im Rahmen der Tagung des WEF (World Economic Forum), Salzburg, 2001.
[9] Elmar Altvater, Das Ende des Kapitalismus, wie wir ihn kennen, Münster,
Westfälisches Dampfboot, 2005.
[10] Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Grenzen der Globalisierung. Ökonomie,
Ökologie und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft, Münster, Westfälisches Dampfboot,
1996.
[11] Bernard Lietaer, Jenseits von Gier und Knappheit, Interview mit Sarah
van Gelder, 2006,
www.transaction.net/press/interviews/Lietaer 0497.html; Margrit Kennedy,
Geld ohne Zinsen und Inflation, Steyerberg, Permakultur, 1990.
[12] Helmut Creutz, Das Geldsyndrom. Wege zur krisenfreien Marktwirtschaft,
Frankfurt, Ullstein, 1995.
[13] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7.
[14] Barbara Ehrenreich, Arbeit poor. Unterwegs in der Dienstleistungsgesellschaft,
München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[15] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[16] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
The Last Colony, London/ New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[17] Michel Chossudovsky, War and Globalization. The Truth Behind September
11th, Oro, Ontario, Global Outlook, 2003.
[18] Folker Fröbel, Jürgen Heinrichs, and Otto Kreye, Die neue internationale
Arbeitsteilung. Strukturelle Arbeitslosigkeit in den Industrieländern und die
Industrialisierung der Entwicklungsländer, Reinbek, Rowohlt, 1977.
[19] Ana Isla, The Tragedy of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective
on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology
Dpt., St. Catherines, Ontario, Canada, 2005.
[20] John Hepburn, Die Rückeroberung von Allmenden – von alten und von neuen,
übers. Vortrag bei, Other Worlds Conference; Univ. of Pennsylvania; 28./29.4,
2005.
[21] Claudia von Werlhof, Was haben die Hühner mit dem Dollar zu tun? Frauen
und Ökonomie, München, Frauenoffensive, 1991; Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly:
Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 148-192.
[22] Andre Gunder Frank, Die Entwicklung der Unterentwicklung, in ders. u.a.,
Kritik des bürgerlichen Antiimperialismus, Berlin, Wagenbach, 1969.
[23] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[24] Veronika Bennholdt-Thomsen, Maria Mies, and Claudia von Werlhof, Women,
the Last Colony, London/New Delhi, Zed Books, 1988.
[25] Claudia von Werlhof, Frauen und Ökonomie. Reden, Vorträge 2002-2004,
Themen GATS, Globalisierung, Mechernich, Gerda-Weiler-Stiftung, 2004.
[26] Ana Isla, "Women and Biodiversity as Capital Accumulation: An Eco-Feminist
View," Socialist Bulletin, Vol. 69, Winter, 2003, p. 21-34; Ana Isla, The Tragedy
of the Enclosures: An Eco-Feminist Perspective on Selling Oxygen and Prostitution
in Costa Rica, Man., Brock Univ., Sociology Department, St. Catherines, Ontario,
Canada, 2005.
[27] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[28] Kevin Bales, Die neue Sklaverei, München, Kunstmann, 2001.
[29] Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln,
PapyRossa, 2005.
[30] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979;
Andre Gunder Frank, Orientierung im Weltsystem, Von der Neuen Welt zum Reich
der Mitte, Wien, Promedia, 2005; Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on
a World Scale, Women in the International Division of Labour, London, Zed Books,
1986.
[31] Claudia von Werlhof, "Questions to Ramona," in Corinne Kumar (Ed.),
Asking, We Walk. The South as New Political Imaginary, Vol. 2, Bangalore, Streelekha,
2007, p. 214-268
[32] Hannes Hofbauer, Osterweiterung. Vom Drang nach Osten zur peripheren
EU-Integration, Wien, Promedia, 2003; Andrea Salzburger, Zurück in die Zukunft
des Kapitalismus, Kommerz und Verelendung in Polen, Frankfurt – New York, Peter
Lang Verlag, 2006.
[34] August Raggam, Klimawandel, Biomasse als Chance gegen Klimakollaps und
globale Erwärmung, Graz, Gerhard Erker, 2004.
[35] Immanuel Wallerstein, Aufstieg und künftiger Niedergang des kapitalistischen
Weltsystems, in Senghaas, Dieter: Kapitalistische Weltökonomie. Kontroversen
über ihren Ursprung und ihre Entwicklungsdynamik, Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1979.
[36] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[37] Johan Galtung, Eurotopia, Die Zukunft eines Kontinents, Wien, Promedia,
1993.
[38] Karl Marx, Capital, New York, Vintage, 1976.
[39] Claudia von Werlhof, Loosing Faith in Progress: Capitalist Patriarchy
as an "Alchemical System," in Bennholdt-Thomsen et.al.(Eds.), There is an Alternative,
2001, p. 15-40.
[40] Renate Genth, Die Bedrohung der Demokratie durch die Ökonomisierung
der Politik, feature für den Saarländischen Rundfunk am 4.3., 2006.
[41] Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003 (1998), p. 7; Maria Mies, Krieg
ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[42] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[43] Michel Chossudovsky, "Nuclear War Against Iran," Global Research, Center
for Research on Globalization, Ottawa 13.1, 2006.
[44] Altvater, Chossudovsky, Roy, Serfati, Globalisierung und Krieg, Sand
im Getriebe 17, Internationaler deutschsprachiger Rundbrief der ATTAC – Bewegung,
Sonderausgabe zu den Anti-Kriegs-Demonstrationen am 15.2., 2003; Maria Mies,
Krieg ohne Grenzen, Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005.
[45] Hazel Hendersen, Building a Win-Win World. Life Beyond Global Economic
Warfare, San Francisco, 1996.
[46] Claudia von Werlhof, Vom Wirtschaftskrieg zur Kriegswirtschaft. Die
Waffen der, Neuen-Welt-Ordnung, in Mies 2005, p. 40-48.
[47] Michael T. Klare, Resource Wars. The New Landscape of Global Conflict,
New York, Henry Holt and Company, 2001.
[48] Rosa Luxemburg, Die Akkumulation des Kapitals, Frankfurt, 1970.
[49] Tony Clarke, Der Angriff auf demokratische Rechte und Freiheiten, in
Mies/Werlhof, 2003, p. 80-94.
[50] Sassen Saskia, Machtbeben. Wohin führt die Globalisierung?, Stuttgart-München,
DVA, 2000.
[51] Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire, Cambridge, Harvard Univ. Press,
2001; Noam Chomsky, Hybris. Die endgültige Sicherstellung der globalen –Vormachtstellung
der USA, Hamburg-Wien, Europaverlag, 2003.
[52] Claudia von Werlhof, Speed Kills!, in Dimmel/Schmee, 2005, p. 284-292
[53] See the "roll back" and "stand still" clauses in the WTO agreements
in Maria Mies and Claudia von Werlhof (Hg), Lizenz zum Plündern. Das Multilaterale
Abkommen über Investitionen MAI. Globalisierung der Konzernherrschaft – und
was wir dagegen tun können, Hamburg, EVA, 2003.
[54] Richard Sennett, zit. "In Einladung zu den Wiener Vorlesungen," 21.11.2005:
Alternativen zur neoliberalen Globalisierung, 2005.
[55] Claudia von Werlhof, MAInopoly: Aus Spiel wird Ernst, in Mies/Werlhof,
2003, p. 148-192.
[56] Michel Chossudovsky, America's "War on Terrorism," Montreal, Global
Research, 2005.
[57] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002; Maria Mies, Krieg ohne Grenzen.
Die neue Kolonisierung der Welt, Köln, PapyRossa, 2005; Bennholdt-Thomsen/Faraclas/Werlhof
2001.
[58] Michel Chossudovsky, Global Brutal. Der entfesselte Welthandel, die
Armut, der Krieg, Frankfurt, Zweitausendeins, 2002.
[59] Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die Wahrheit
über den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer Buchverlag,
2000; Wolfgang Richter, Elmar Schmähling, and Eckart Spoo (Hg), Die deutsche
Verantwortung für den NATO-Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, Schkeuditz, Schkeuditzer
Buchverlag, 2000.
The article reviews briefly the theory of nationalism, and introduces (yet another)
definition of nations and nationalism. Starting from this definition of nationalism as a world
order with specific characteristics, oppositions such as core and periphery,
globalism/nationalism, and realism/idealism are formally rejected. Nationalism is considered
as a purely global structure. Within this, it is suggested, the number of states tends to fall
to an equilibrium number which is itself falling, this number of states being the current best
approximation to a single world state. Within nationalism variants are associated with
different equilibrium numbers: these variants compete. Together, as the nationalist structure,
they formally exclude other world orders. Such a structure appears to have the function of
blocking change, and it is tentatively suggested that it derives directly from an innate human
conservatism. The article attempts to show how characteristics of classic nationalism, and
more recent identity politics, are part of nationalist structures. They involve either the
exclusion of other forms of state, or of other orders of states, or the intensification of
identity as it exists.
If a world order of states is so arranged that similarity within each state is maximized,
and the number of states is minimized, then that world order is a nationalist world order, and
its components are nation states. This definition does not start from the characteristics of a
nation, as many definitions of nationalism do. It starts instead from the world order,
considering the nation only in a very abstract sense. Implicitly this definition is also a
functionalist theory of nationalism, and this is expanded later in this article. The article
closes with a more speculative section on how identity politics could replace nationalism, but
continue its function.
When our founders boldly declared America's independence to the world and our purposes to
the Almighty, they knew that America, to endure, would have to change. Not change for
change's sake, but change to preserve America's ideals - life, liberty, the pursuit of
happiness. Though we march to the music of our time, our mission is timeless.
A world of nation states is a world of states built to maintain past ideals, where change
is limited to that necessary for their survival, a world structured against 'change for the
sake of change'. Structuralism, functionalism, and voluntarism are currently taboo in the
social sciences. Yet, I think it strange to reject the clear explanations of the purpose of
nationalism, so often given by nationalists and national leaders. In practice it is often an
abdication of moral judgment on the actions of nationalists.
Before considering the relation of structure and function of nations, a brief indication
of the range of theories of nationalism. Any comprehensive review of theories of nationalism
could only be of book length (for instance
Smith, 1983). The Oxford
Reader on Nationalism (Hutchinson
and Smith, 1994) collects examples of the main theories.
It is not surprising that authors in one discipline are unfamiliar with theory in another,
or that there is overlap and duplication.
Peter Alter (1985: p. 169)
remarks that the literature can scarcely be overseen. In this fragmentation among disciplines,
a plurality of theories is at least possible. In turn, plurality of theories should give more
space for innovative theories - more than in a single recent paradigmatic discipline. (This
reverses the standard assumption, that periods of revolution in science are the periods of
innovation in science. Given fragmentation of disciplines, there might be more innovation in
'normal science' than through paradigm change.) However, in this respect nationalism theory is
a disappointment. Plurality of disciplines has not produced an equivalent plurality of theory.
Some common approaches recur across disciplines. Examples of such common features are the
tendency, to approach nationalism on a country-by-country basis, and to date it as a
phenomenon of modernity.
In any case, it is possible to give some simple (non-inclusive) categorization of theories
of nationalism:
normative theory of nationalism in political philosophy, for instance in
Walzer (1983).
theories of nationalism as political extremism. These use a definition of nationalism
common in the media: as equivalent to jingoism, ethnic hatred, expansionism, militarism, or
aggressive separatism, contrasted with constitutionalism, liberalism or patriotism (see
Connor, 1994: pp. 196 - 209).
This approach is related to 'shopping list' definitions of the extreme right (Mudde,
1996: pp. 228 - 9).
modernization theories of nationalism: these form the bulk of social science theory of
nationalism
primordialist theories, disputing the modern origin of nations
civilization theories of nationalism, often implying an ultimate global community.
Freud's (1932) comparison of
peoples with primitive organisms is a core version of such a theory of nations.
historicist theories, which take the existence of nations as given, and consider their
development (or obstacles to that development).
social-integrative theories, especially 'substitute religion' theories
state formation theories, residually explaining nationalism, usually as a product of
centralizing policy to uniformity
global system or global order theories, which do not usually consider internal
characteristics of nation states. Theory of state formation through war combines this with
the last category (for instance,
Rasler and Thompson, 1989).
This is only one categorization, and indicative only.
James Goodman (1996), for
instance, categorizes theories of nationalism into five approaches: ethno-national,
modernization, state-centred, class-centred, and 'uneven development' theories.
The first three are in the category modernization theories, A. D. Smith is the main 'primordialist'.
Gellner's academic field was the philosophy of sociology, Anderson taught international
relations, Hobsbawm is a social historian, and Smith a sociologist (notes in
Hutchinson and Smith, 1994).
Gellner's work is the most consistently theoretical: it proposes a model of the
transformation to nation states derived from economic factors:
So the economy needs both the new type of central culture and the central state; the
culture needs the state; and the state probably needs the homogeneous branding of its flock
... (Gellner, 1983: p. 140)
Anderson does not propose a derivation of this kind, but his central thesis is that
communication and media did facilitate the emergence of nations as imagined communities. For
Anderson, only face- to-face contact can sustain community: nations are in some sense an
illusion. Both of these views date nationalism as definitively modern. A. D. Smith's central
thesis is that pre-modern equivalents of nations existed - indirectly invalidating the
modernization theories. Hobsbawm's article on invented tradition appeared earlier, but can be
read as a refutation of the pre-modern origin of national tradition. Hobsbawm gives examples
of how such tradition, even the sustaining myth of nations, can be borrowed, added to, or
simply invented. (A similar work by
Bernard Lewis (1977), did not apparently have the same impact.)
The so-called resurgence of nationalism in Eastern Europe after 1989 brought these works
to media attention, as well as academic status. (At one time I could chose between six
different courses on them, at one university.) All of them are also very readable, with much
interesting illustration from the history of nations. No more recent work has made the same
impact, and the fixation on the themes of these authors may have limited theoretical
perspectives.
Any attempt to compress these works into one paragraph is inadequate. However, one thing
is clear: the authors have not engaged in any wide speculation about hypothetical worlds of
entirely non-national states. Nations are explained in these theories, not the absence of
non-nations. Insofar as possible alternatives are considered, these are possible continuations
of the mediaeval European order.
Most nationalism theory pays little attention to nationalism as a world order. This is
surprising, since nationalists themselves so often treat it as such. Some definitions of
nationalism are entirely particularistic:
Elwert (1989: p. 37) says that
nationalists only want a nation for themselves, not others. This is untrue: nationalists have
often wanted other nations. The classic example is Mazzini, who founded or inspired not only
Young Italy, but Young Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Bohemia and Argentina among others (Mack
Smith, 1994: pp. 11-12). Mazzini's vision was global: he saw the peoples as nothing less
then the units of humanity's army:
L'Umanitŕ č un grande esercito che move alla conquista di terre incognite, contro nemici
potenti e avveduti. I Popoli sono i diversi corpi, le divisioni di quello esercito. (Mazzini
(1860) [1953]: p. 89)
This is a metaphor, but it should emphasize the extreme universalism of nationalism.
Armies are not known for maximizing autonomy or individual will. Any listing of the ethical
claims of nationalism (the subject of a separate article) will show that nationalism can not
de derived, from Enlightenment ideas of self-determination. That was the basic thesis of
Elie Kedourie's influential
Nationalism (1960, revised 1992).
Peter Taylor (1989: p. 175)
summarizes the world as seen by nationalists, at three levels (approximately the global,
national and individual).
The world is, for them, a mosaic of nations which find harmony when all are free nation
states.
Nations themselves are natural units with a cultural homogeneity based on common
ancestry or history, each requiring its own sovereign state on its own inalienable
territory.
Individuals all belong to a nation, which requires their first loyalty, and in which
they find freedom.
This standard nationalist thought says more about nationalism than the immediate goals of
any one nationalist group. For both of these things - world view and activism - the word
'nationalism' is used. This may be confusing, but it is also misleading to split nationalism
into 'international relations' and 'internal politics', and then include secessionism in the
second category. Basque separatists in Northern Spain and South-western France want a nation
state, and are labelled nationalists: the governments of France and Spain, who have already
got a nation state, are not. There is undeniably a secessionist nationalism, with claims
against a larger state, such as those of the ETA. However, the definition at the start of this
article is intended to emphasize the global effect of such movements, and their historical
equivalence to the founders of the states they oppose. The term nationalism is used here,
deliberately, to describe both aspects of the phenomenon.
Nationalism is not a particularism. It is a universalism, a consistent vision or ideology.
Autonomy, secession, war and conquest can be compatible with a universal shared goal.
Apparently amending his earlier view of nationalism,
Peter Taylor (1995: p. 10)
described one world as 'the nemesis of interterritoriality'. However, a world of nations can
still be one world, if it is one nationalist world. The definition of nationalism used here is
intended to emphasize this universal, 'world order', aspect of nationalism. Since nations,
united nations.
The definition implies that nationalism is a substitute for a world state. If cultural
homogeneity cannot be achieved, because co-ordination over distance is not perfect, then a
strategy of co-operating local similarities is the best option. The number of cultures on
earth will be the outcome of this strategy. Later, as states form on the basis of pre-existing
ethnic or cultural groups, the number of states will also derive from this strategy. If there
are too few states, and each too large, they may become internally diverse. If there are too
many, they will differ too much among themselves. It is therefore not possible to project the
long term fall in the number of states to the point at which only one is left, as
Robert Carneiro did (1976;
see Chase- Dunn, 1990). The
trend to fewer political units seemed clear enough to Carneiro, to project a date for world
government: 2300 AD. If however, the nationalist world order is considered as a global
structure, and not seen as competing states, then there is no certainty of reaching a single
world state. If there is already such a global order, globalization does not imply the
reduction of its components to one. Instead, there is an optimum number of nation states at
any one time, within such a nationalist world order. That optimum is determined by limits of
communications, transport, and the degree of political and social organization. This number is
falling, but constraints of distance may never be eroded enough to reduce it to one. The
optimum number may in fact exceed the number of states that now exist. The many separatist
movements, the success of small states, and the fact that there are many more languages than
states, all indicate a world with many more than 185 states: perhaps closer to 1000.
That implies a change in the nature of the component states. The classic 19th century
European nation state, the basis of most definitions of nationalism, would best fit a world of
between 200 and 500 states. It is a universalism: but there are competing universalisms,
variants within nationalism. This is very clear in Europe, where these variants are used as
programmes for the whole continent. Most are serious, some are what might be called
geopolitical kitsch (Heineken,
1992; Pedersen, 1992).
Classic nationalists speak of Europe des patries, ethno-nationalists of Europe des ethnies (Heraud,
1993), regionalists of Europe of the regions (Borrп╠s-Alomar,
1994). Only in Europe are the alternatives formulated so explicitly, but these
universalist structures are implicitly global. They are ways of dividing the world:
alternatives to classic nationalism. In other words, use of similar terms at a global scale
can be expected: a world of the regions, a world of the peoples, and so on.
There is what might be called world- nationalism, associated with a single global state.
Its explicit form is world federalism, and plans to the UN into a sort of world government.
This centuries-old tradition (see
ter Meulen, 1917; van der
Linden, 1987) is represented by the work of
Richard Falk (1987; 1992) and
many others (Marien, 1995: pp. 297
- 301). It is paralleled by the philosophical tradition of cosmopolitanism (see
Toulmin, 1990), and by a
belief in globalization. (Marien's 1995 article covers a very wide range of global visions,
from New Age to neo-liberal.) Then there is inter-culturalism - the division of the world into
5 to 50 cultures or civilizations, once used in organicist versions by historians (Demandt,
1978: pp. 96 - 101), and recently revived by
Samuel Huntington (1993).
At the same scale are the pan- nationalist movements, all of them failures until now (Snyder,
1984: p. 254). Then there is classic (inter-) nationalism, the basis of the existing world
order. Next to that is ethno-nationalism (Connor,
1994; Heraud, 1993;
Tiryakian, 1985;
Watson, 1990). Although there
is no clear distinction between some 'nations' and 'peoples', the scale of the inter-ethnic
world is very different, with up to 10,000 'peoples'. It is this variant which has the
clearest demands at present, classically stated in the International Covenant on the Rights of
Indigenous Nations (CWIS, 1994).
At a similar scale is a historic-cultural-linguistic regionalism, well organized in Europe
(see Kohr, 1986;
Labasse, 1991). These regions
are often seen as units of a future federal Europe, combining regionalism with a weak
pan-nationalism. Finally although it rarely generates separatism, there is an inter-localism:
it sees the small community, the village or neighbourhood, as the only authentic unit of
social organization.
In all these variants, the possible states share four functional characteristics
(described later), and there is a global order of such states. I would emphasize that this
article is not intended to explain all aspects of nationalism, but to consider why states do
not deviate from this model.
In universal structures (functional or not) there is logically no core or periphery - at
least, not in the sense of most world system models. However, competition between
universalisms can create this appearance. Some separatist movements, for instance, defy the
expected logic of core and periphery: the Lega Nord, or Catalonian separatism.
Mansvelt Beck (1991) explains
this as an 'inverted core- periphery relationship'. This kind of explanation can be avoided on
the assumption that there is no real separatism at all. Catalonian regionalism is regionalism,
a model for the whole world, not just Spain: Basque nationalism is a manifestation of global
ethno- nationalism, and so on. The variants of nationalism are superimposed universalisms. An
ETA attack on a Spanish army barracks is, seen in this way, a clash of universalisms.
To this extent, nationalist movements cannot logically be analyzed in terms of social
movement theories. (This is an example of the formal consequences of adopting the universalist
definition used in this article). Nor can electoral support for 'nationalist parties' be
analyzed. In Britain, the Scottish National Party supports a nation state, but then so do the
Labour Party and the Conservative Party. Support for nationalism in UK elections is
consistently around 99 percent. Again, separatist sentiment is labelled nationalist, but
unionist sentiment is not. In this way, SNP support enters a different category for electoral
analysis: but this is a purely taxonomic effect.
In a similar way, a rise in the number of states may generate the illusion of power,
struggle and resistance. This may be the case, even if there is no difference of scale. All
units (potential states) might be comparable, as with Czechoslovakia, Czechia, and Slovakia.
These are all classic European nation states. However, seen from Slovakia, Czechoslovakia
stands for hegemonic culture, an imposed universalism, oppression and 'power'. Earlier, the
Slavic nationalists who inspired the Czechoslovak state, had opposed the dominance of
German-language culture in Central Europe. Earlier still, German romantic nationalists had
opposed the dominance of French Enlightenment rationalist culture. All secessionist movements
are anti-hegemonic and anti-universalist, until independence day. After that they become
another's hegemonic universalism, another's 'state'. And, indeed, Slovakia has been
criticized, for its treatment of the Hungarian minority.
Logically, in a perfect order of nations, there is no dominance or 'power': everyone
co-operates a nationalist in sustaining the structure. This may however involve changing the
number of states, creating the illusion of conflict. People volunteer for military service:
that is said to prove they are willing to die for their country. It is equally logical to say
they die for the functioning of the world order. That, emphasized, in a perfect order of
nations.
This is an abstraction, true. Nevertheless, it is not such an abstraction that is has no
real effect. Conflicts do involve common reinforcement, including reinforcement of national
structure. Secession, especially, forces both sides further into their own identity. Identity
makes counter- identity (see Barth,
1969), as with Slovak and Czech. It is probably true that Czecho-Slovakia is more
nationalist since it split: it is certainly true of Yugoslavia. In this way the action of
individuals in one nation can intensify global identity, affecting the number of nations in
the process. So it is logically possible that there is no national oppression, nor national
liberation. The 'struggle' is to intensify nationalism, the world order. Inside it, to oppress
or be oppressed as a nation serves the same function. In practice, an oppressed group will say
it is a nation fighting a state: the state will say it is a nation fighting terrorists.
Another opposition recurrent in theory on nations is that between the national and the
global (see Arnason, 1990).
The nation state and national culture are being eroded by global communication - it is often
said. It is said that Internet will dissolve nations. Much the same thing was said about
satellite television, air travel, radio, the telegraph, and railways. Nation states are still
here. Yet few people are sceptical about 'globalization' (Cox,
1992; Smith, 1990), and in
a sense there is no reason to be. There is no erosion of the national by the global, but only
because there is nothing to erode. Nationalism is 100% global: a world order cannot logically
be further globalized.
The components of an order do not stand in opposition to it: certainly not in the sense
implied by the term 'globalization'. The implicit assumption is that nations are particular
entities, necessarily at a sub-global level. In other worlds, the whole idea starts from the
assumption that there is no universal nationalism. If I claim the people on the pitch at a
football match walked there by chance, and I see them playing football, then I could say they
are being 'football- ized'. In fact they went there as a group, for that purpose.
The question is why there is such enthusiasm for the concept of globalization. First, it
is in the nature of nationalism itself. The world of nations is an imperfect substitute for a
homogenous world state: it is logical for nationalists to hope it is approaching. Secondly,
the enthusiasm is in any case matched by the anti-universalist ideas mentioned above. There
are books and conferences on the coming global state, but equally on the rise of regions. It
seems possible to combine two scales of thought, for instance in cultural pan-syncretism (see
Nederveen Pieterse, 1993) or
sub-state federation (Bengoetxea,
1993). Thirdly, this is only one example of a pattern: for each of the level of scale of
nationalism, there are possible upward and downward transitions. Shifts from the
ethno-regional to the global, for instance, or from pan-nationalism to linguistic regionalism.
Only three of these possibilities are active at present:
globalism, more normative than descriptive
anti-hegemonic criticism of existing national states and their cultures, without any
territorial effect as yet. In reaction there is some new defence of the nation state,
especially in response to multiculturalism and identity politics. This applies most in
high-immigration western industrialized countries, where it is a major issue. (The U.S.A.
especially: see
Schlesinger, 1992.) In any case, more recent interest in fusion, hybridity, and
'crossing boundaries' favours pan- nationalism. Separatist identity politics seems on the
way out.
ethno-nationalism, and in Europe regionalism at the same subnational scale - which
enjoys some support within the EU (van
der Knaap, 1994).
This last is by far the most active shift. The next ten years are unlikely to see a world
government, and the US is unlikely to break up (and does not need Arthur Schlesinger to save
it): but it might see an independent Vlaanderen or Catalunya, or the definitive break-up of
Afghanistan.
The world order of nations is therefore characterized by both secession and fusion, but it
is not being 'torn apart'. It is a structure being rebuilt to function better. All these
shifts in scale merely substitute one universalism for another, all variants of one world
order. There is no dramatic fragmentation, and no paradigmatic shift to one world community.
No shift is needed.
It also follows, from the definitions used here, that a world of nation states cannot be
chaotic or anarchic. The academic discipline of international relations is influenced by the
idea of a slow progress toward the imposition of some kind of order on warring, aggressive
states, the tradition of, for instance,
Hedley Bull (1977, 1984). This
tradition concedes some 'order in the system'. However, logically there cannot be anything
else but order. A world order is by definition not disorder: international relations are by
definition 'idealist' in International Relations terms, and a national state cannot be a
Machtsstaat. So called realism models a world of aggressively competitive states - sometimes
identified with mediaeval Europe. From this a recognition of commonalities may emerge, and
states may co-operate, bringing order and peace. Those who consider this inherent or
inevitable are usually classified as idealist.
But war is not disorder: Carneiro's model, the simplest possible, demonstrates that states
disappear through 'competitive exclusion' until there is one left: there are many wars, but it
is an ordered, linear process (see
Cioffi-Revilla, 1991). The realist/idealist dispute ignores the type of state involved.
The question is not why there are so many wars between nations, but why there are so few wars
between non-nations. Not why there is ethnic cleansing, but why there is so little non-ethnic
cleansing. Not what is international relations, but why there are only inter-national
relations. Any attempt to imagine a fundamentally non-national world, should make clear how
stable the world of nations is. Nation states can apparently fight each other, without risk of
emergence of new state forms in the alleged 'chaos'.
It may seem that all this imposes a simplistic order on a complex world. However it is
nationalists who want to impose a simple structure, and they have been remarkably successful.
Of course the world order is not perfect, and states do have autonomous interests. These may
be of the kind graphically attributed to them in pre-war Geopolitik (Schmidt,
1929), or less obsessively in recent geopolitical atlases. Nations do sometimes act as
entities 'seeking access to the sea', or 'control of river basins', or resources, or
historical territories. The Schmidt-Haack Atlas maps tens of different types of claim, and
some were later used by Germany. However, if all nation states consistently acted like this,
there would be constant all-state war.
There is also the possibility that a state will turn against the world order, a real
renegade state. Usually this term merely indicates a state disliked by western policy makers:
see Dror (1971) on 'crazy
states'. A real renegade state would have to stop being a nation state: no-one speaks of
'crazy nations'. More probable is that nationalism as a universal order conflicts with other
universalisms; other world orders of one or more states, or perhaps a stateless world. The
definition of nationalism used here, defines it as a monolith with great historical
continuity. It should then react to competing monoliths, as a unit. The Greek polis is often
cited as the prototype of nations, indeed of all political community. It was also a unit
within an order of similar states. That Hellenic order may have had a proto-national identity
itself. However, as an order of city states, it was in intermittent conflict with Asian
empires. The present order of nation states covers the globe, however, so that any competing
world will be found within it.
There is at present one clear example of a competing world order: theocratic religious
universalism, of the kind promoted (in Britain) by the Muslim Unity Organization. It advocates
a world caliphate, khilafa. It is not accidental that this group operates from Britain: the
existing Islamic nation states would be the first to disappear on the road to the caliphate.
However small such groups are, they have a coherent and radical alternative not just to 'the
West', but to the whole existing world:
...there is a long and still vibrant tradition of Muslim agitation against nationalism and
the nation state. The most recent manifestation of this agitation has had Shi'i
inspiration, but there are no significant differences between Sunni and Shi'a on this
question, or between Arab and non-Arab Muslims. Feeling that Islam's decline is due chiefly
to the adoption of Western ideas and culture, all express pessimism and suggest a radical
restructuring of the world order. (Piscatori,
1986: p. 145)
A complete alternative world order is unlikely to control any territory within the world
order it rejects. It is however not adequate to consider such universalist Islamic movements
as 'social movements' within existing nation states. They cannot be accommodated within the
'public domain' of these states, as suggested by
John Rex (1996) in a
previous article in Sociological
Research Online. This has nothing to do with their immigrant or ethnic status: a Catholic
theocracy would not fit into a liberal democratic nation state either.
As long as there are nations, there will be no caliphate; it is neither a people, nor a
region, nor a nation, nor a culture. Structurally, nationalism excludes other entities from
state status. Nationalism is a blocking world order: it excludes other worlds. It is difficult
to imagine all these possible worlds from inside the world of nations, and that is part of its
success. Any attempt to imagine them will lead to apparent absurdity.
What nationalism blocks, above all, is change. The definition of nationalism as tending to
total homogeneity implies stability also. The order blocks, but not without direction. It may
well be, in itself, empty: it does not define, for instance, what language will be spoken in
the third nation east of the Rhine. That does not stop it having a purpose. If the world order
of nations (as defined here) is superimposed on a world, it will block change in time, and
exclude the alternative worlds that are possible at any point in time. That is an ethical
choice, and the ethics of nations are outside the scope of this article, as noted.
If nationalism is chosen, someone chose it. No one person invented nationalism: the most
logical 'someone' is, exactly as Mazzini suggested, humanity. There is some theory which links
the nation to the psyche: the most obvious areas of interest are self-determination (Ronen,
1979) and personal identity, sense of self (Bloom,
1990). I suggest the structure of nationalism derives from an innate human conservatism.
This is no more absurd than saying that structures of reservoirs and water supply derive from
an innate human need for water. It does not imply that all persons at all times are absolutely
conservative. (Nor does it contradict biology: change causes stress.)
How can the world order of nations answer such an innate aversion to change? First, in
that it gives a monopoly of state formation - and so of sovereignty - to nations. Not that all
states correspond exactly to one nation: again, the point is how few states correspond to
non-national entities. They do exist as historical curiosities: the Vatican, and the
autonomous Agio Oros (Athos) in Greece. Some nationalists have a horror of a state without a
nation: see Heraud's comment on the Vatican as a product of History, 'qui est violence' (1993:
p. 11). If national divisions were not dominant, there should be more of these
counter-examples. Secondly, the nation itself is past-based. Trans-generationality is a key
characteristic of nations, and found in many definitions of nation. Writing on the subjective
experience of cultural identity,
A. D. Smith (1990: p. 179) names three components of shared experience: a sense of
transgenerational continuity, shared memories, and a sense of common destiny. Collapsing the
three into one gives the purpose of a nation: it exists to project the past (as collectively
remembered) into the future, as little changed as possible. Nationalists almost do not ignore
the future:
Nations are thus projects for the future and have the right to self-determination in order
to organise their future. (Bengoetxea,
1993: p.95)
However in a national world order, nations are the only entities with self-determination
and territory, and they are past- constituted. Just as with the world order, the nation is
empty but not directionless: superimpose a nation on a heritage, and it will preserve it. In
fact it will make the past into a 'heritage', one of the metaphors of possession common in
nationalism. It is logical in nations, that the past should increase its share of economy,
society and culture (see Horne, 1984;
Lowenthal, 1985), that
territory undergoes 'heritage-ization' (Walsh,
1992: pp. 138 - 147), that memory is cultural (see
Assman, 1988) and that its
preservation is a task of the state. Despite Lowenthal's title, the past is not treated as an
apart entity, but rather divided up to correspond to existing nations. The world is thus
occupied by states projecting parallel pasts into the future: there is no non-memory space, no
space which is not of the past.
Thirdly, the nations are in principle eternal, and so the nation state, and so the world
order. (Dependent territories and mandates can have a formal time limit, but this relates to a
transfer of power. Mandate territories become independent nation states, or join an existing
neighbour.) The idea of setting up a state for a limited time for a specific purpose is alien
to nationalism. The exceptions which show it is possible - for example extraterritorial mining
concessions - are curiosities in a world of nations. The projection of the past will continue.
Fourth, and most specifically, no state has ever been established for the primary purpose
of change. This logical possibility is not limited by available technology or culture - it
could have been done 1000 years ago.
Returning to the definition: there logically exists a general class of orders of states
where the boundaries are not drawn so as to maximise change. In other words, a class of
change-limiting orders, in effect change-minimizing orders. The order of nations is probably
the most effective of these. Formally, it is an order of coterminous states covering the
entire land surface, formed by transgenerational identity communities, claiming a monopoly of
state formation, and eternal legitimacy. All the scale variants of nationalism conform to this
definition.
These four functional characteristics of the nationalist world order emphasize how
different it is from other possible orders, and how it has excluded them for a long time. In
effect it has become superimposed on the world, by choice. It would be inaccurate to say it
arrived at one instant. No-one can give a definitive date for when nationalism began:
Marcu (1976: pp. 3 - 15) quotes
41 different views on the issue. Instead, a structure has been elaborated and intensified, and
the beginnings of other structures have been abandoned. Compare the five possible futures of
thirteenth century Europe suggested by
Tilly (1975: p. 26), or the
different routes to the national identity suggested by
Armstrong (1982: pp. 283 - 300).
The intensification has increased in the last 200 years, as nations become more national.
It is a property of nationalism that intensifying the national identity intensifies the
world order. Most theory of nationalism attributes this process to the state, at most to the
interaction of state and civil society:
Aprčs avoir ajusté ŕ leur échelle propre l'armée, la justice, la religion et
l'administration, ils en viennent ŕ nationaliser le marché (impôts, douanes, lois et
rčglements, poids et mesures, etc.) ŕ nationaliser l'école (langue officielle, programmes,
examens, etc.) et, de proche en proche, ŕ nationaliser encore la conscription, les services
publics, certaines entreprieses au moins (chemins de fer, postes, ports etc.) ... l'Etat
tend ŕ façonner toute la societé civile, laquelle tend, en retour, a soumettre l'Etat ŕ ses
finalités propres... (Fossaert,
1994: p. 195)
After having adjusted the army, the courts, religion and
administration to national scale, they start to national-ise the market (taxes, customs,
laws and regulations, weights and measures), to national-ise the schools (official
language, educational programmes, exams), and then to nationalise in turn, conscription,
public service, some business enterprises (railways, post, ports) ... The State forms civil
society, which in turn begins to use the State for its own goals... (Fossaert,
1994: p. 195)
The logic of nationalism however, is that this is a process of convergence driven from
below, that the national identity is exactly what
A. D. Smith (1990: p. 179)
says it is not: an average. The state is merely an instrument. Too large a state and the
convergence will be ineffective, too small and the averages will differ too much - and so back
to the starting definition. Neither secession nor conquest disturb this process in the long
run: the new nations will have their own 'nationalization', their own convergence. In other
words, even at the level of the individual state, attitudes to change can determine the degree
of national uniformity. Secession, in effect, punishes the state for allowing too much
difference in the population. This is not an abstraction: many nationalists explicitly value
homogeneous communities.
In any case, daily reality in most nations is not secession, but less spectacular
processes of emancipation. Nations are not perfect: they include minorities (or majorities)
which do not conform to the national ideal, but have no other national identity. Repeatedly,
such groups chose to integrate into the nation, rather than allow non-national secession. They
pressure the state for inclusion, and often try to adjust the national identity, through
cultural politics. Once again, there is no political-geographic inevitability in this: if
people can secede as a nation they can secede as something else. They chose not to, with some
historical exceptions. Again, the remarkable feature of the world order of nations is not the
number of secessionist movements, but the fact that all of them represent a people, or a
nation.
A good example of the intensity of this choice is the campaign of gay and lesbian groups -
especially in the U.S.A. - against the military ban on service, for 'the right to die for my
country'. It seems absurd to demand to be killed in an army which discriminates against you.
The emotions here can only be nationalist, U.S.A. nationalist: a sort of desperate desire to
be part of an identity, to conform, to belong, not to be different. This is an example of
genuine anger directed against the state, for failing to homogenize the nation. The logically
possible alternatives do not occur. Despite the influence of religion in the U.S.A., there is
no comparable demand for the 'right to die for my church', let alone any other organization.
There is also no serious secessionist movement of gays and/or lesbians despite decades of
social organization. When Cardinal Archbishop Quarracino of Buenos Aires proposed (in August
1994) a 'separate country for homosexuals', he had to publicly apologise, saying it was a
joke. He did not know, probably, of Queer Nation (Bérubé,
1991; Chee, 1991), nor that
it makes no territorial demands, despite its name.
Many processes, then, which may seem separate or contradictory, can be described in a
structure of nationalism, starting from its formal definition as a specific world order.
Integration through formalism is a characteristic of conspiracy theories: does all this imply
a vast conspiracy involving almost all humans over centuries? Not necessarily: it is possible
to generate complex structures from simple rules. The most general rule for a nationalist
world as a blocking world order would be approximately: 'if there is change, intensify
identity'. A second rule might be to intensify identity preferably by fusion or accretion, and
only if that failed, by secession. However, it is not necessary to imply a hidden formal
grammar of nationalism. People do not need one: they can reflect on what is happening, and
produce open doctrines of complex action - as did Mazzini, and other nationalist ideologists.
National identity links the individual to the world order. It has also been a central
theme in universities over the last 15 - 20 years. Especially so, in English-speaking
countries where a liberal political tradition is confronted by ethnic diversity (Rex,
1996). Some of that academic activity has an obvious link to nationalism, ethnic studies
for example. More generally, there is an interest in what might be called structures of
cultural identity, which may have a spatial or territorial counterpart.
In the US the work of bell hooks, for instance, shows a transition from marginality as a
'site of deprivation' to a 'site of resistance' to a 'site one stays in' (hooks,
1990: p. 341), which is almost a summary of secessionist nationalism. In this way
nationalist models, even of classic Mazzinian nationalism, may be adopted for identity
politics. (That is, without necessarily breaking up existing nation states.) This continuity
from 19th century nationalism to recent identity politics has yet to be researched. Even
before the First World War, the Austro-Marxist
Bauer (1907) anticipated the
model of a multicultural state, now common in political speech in western Europe. Already in
1944, Louis Adamic described
the United States as 'A Nation of Nations', and President Kennedy echoed the idea in the
sixties (Kennedy, 1964). In
contrast to Benedict Anderson's
view (1992) that multiculturalism is transitional, there is no reason why a nation state
can not be a Vielvölkerstaat, with diversity as a national value. The ultimate logic would be
to make each nation itself a microcosm of the world order: united nations of united nations.
It seems possible that use of identity can be further intensified, possibly to the point
that a non-territorial structure of transgenerational identity replaces classic nationalism.
For an example of the new politics, see the post-structuralist critique of Transgender Nation
by Newitz (1993), and other
texts at the same site. The new world order could be 'syncretic', a term from the study of
religion (see Colpe, 1987). It
could be a world order of gender pluralism, trans- diaspora cultures, trans-trans hybrids, and
other new combinations of the existing - suppressing change by the volume of diversity.
More probable is, that the parallels between the new politics and the old, will reinforce
classic nationalism. Take this (random) example: a comment on bell hooks from a recent paper
on spaces of citizenship:
In hooks's case these 'homes' entailed her grandparent's house and then the black
neighbourhoods containing this house and also her own, and the implication is that these
houses and neighbourhoods were rather more to her than 'just' sites of belonging, they were
also sites where black people could escape from the antagonism, anger and attacks which
arose when they trespassed on white space (however legitimate in legal terms their presence
in this white space would actually be). In other words, hooks indicates something of how
black people can never be citizens confidently occupying the spaces of white society, but
hints too at how they may find ways of trying to foster alternative locales in which some
sense of being a citizen - this time of a distinctively black world - is made possible. (Painter
& Philo, 1995: pp. 116 - 7)
Change some names and this becomes much less friendly:
In Tudjman's case these 'homes' entailed his grandparent's house and then the Croat
neighbourhoods containing this house and also his own, and the implication is that these
houses and neighbourhoods were rather more to him than 'just' sites of belonging, they were
also sites where Croat people could escape from the antagonism, anger and attacks which
arose when they trespassed on Yugoslav space (however legitimate in legal terms their
presence in this Yugoslav space would actually be). In other words, Tudjman indicates
something of how Croat people can never be citizens confidently occupying the spaces of
Yugoslav society, but hints too at how they may find ways of trying to foster alternative
locales in which some sense of being a citizen - this time of a distinctively Croat world -
is made possible.
There is no need to reinvent nationalism, for nations have not disappeared, but some
people seem determined to reinvent it anyway. The structure of nationalism is being altered,
but its singularity and purpose are not. It remains one structure, one world order excluding
other worlds. The man who more than anyone, was the founding father of modern nationalism,
Johann Gottlieb Herder, wrote
in 1774:
Ist nicht das Gute auf der Erde ausgestreut? Weil eine Gestalt der Menschheit und ein
Erdstrich es nicht fassen konnte, wards geteilt in tausend Gestalten, wandelt - ein ewiger
Proteus! - durch alle Weltteile und Jahrhunderte hin...(Herder,
1990/1774: p. 36)
Nationalism is a Proteus, but it changes only to prevent change. Rewriting Herder in the
negative gives the judgment of nationalism: Only that which is already strewn about the Earth,
is good.
References
ADAMIC, L. (1944) A Nation of Nations. New York: Harper.
ALTER, P. (1985) Nationalismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
(Translation: Nationalism (1989) London: Edward Arnold.)
ANDERSON, B. (1983) Imagined Communities: Reflections on the
Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
ANDERSON, B. (1992) Long Distance Nationalism: World Capitalism
and the Rise of Identity Politics. Amsterdam: Centre for Asian Studies Amsterdam.
ARMSTRONG, J. A. (1982) Nations Before Nationalism. Chapel
Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
ARNASON, J. (1990) 'Nationalism, Globalization and Modernity',
Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 7, pp. 207 - 236.
ASSMANN, J (1988) 'Kollektives Geduchtnis und kulturelle Identitut'
in J. Assmann & T. Hilscher (editors) Kultur und Geduchtnis. Frankfurt am Main:
Suhrkamp.
BARTH, F. (1969) Introduction to Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The
Social Organization of Culture Difference. Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
BAUER, O. (1907) Die Nationalitutenfrage und die Sozialdemokratie.
Wien: Verlag der Wiener Volksbuchhandlung Ignaz Brand
BENGOETXEA, J. (1993) 'L'etat c'est Fini?' in Mikael M. Karlsson,
Olafur Pall Jonsson, Eyja Margret & Brynjarsdottir Recht (editors) Recht, Gerechtigkeit und
der Staat. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
BERUBE, A. & ESCOFFIER, J. (1991) 'Queer/Nation', Out/look,
Winter, pp. 12 - 14.
BLOOM, W. (1990) Personal Identity, National Identity and
International Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
BORRп╠s-ALOMAR, S. (1994) 'Towards a "Europe of the regions"? Visions
and Reality from a Critical Perspective', Regional Politics and Policy, vol. 2, pp. 1 -
27.
BULL, H. & WATSON, A. (1984) The Expansion of International Society.
Oxford: Clarendon Press.
BULL, H. (1977) The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. London:
Macmillan.
CARNEIRO, R. (1976) 'Political Expansion as an Expression of the
principle of competitive Exclusion' in R. Cohen & E. Service (editors) Origins of the
State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of
Human Issues.
CHASE-DUNN, C. (1990) World State Formation: Historical Processes and
Emergent Necessity', Political Geography Quarterly, vol. 9, pp. 108 - 130.
CHEE, A. (1991) 'Queer Nationalism', Out/look, Winter, pp. 15-19.
CIOFFI-REVILLA, C. (1991) 'The Long-Range Analysis of War', Journal
of Interdisciplinary History, vol. 21, pp. 603 - 629.
COLPE, C. (1987) 'Syncretism' in M. Eliade (editor) Encyclopedia of
Religion. New York: Macmillan.
CONNOR, W. (1994) Ethnonationalism: The Quest for Understanding.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
COX, K. (1992) 'The Politics of Globalization: A Sceptic's View',
Political Geography, vol. 11, pp. 427 - 429.
DEMANDT, A. (1978) Metaphern fur Geschichte: Sprachbilder und
Gleichnisse in historisch-politischen Denken. Munchen: Beck.
DROR, Y. (1971) Crazy States: A Counterconventional Strategic
Problem. Lexington, MA: Heath Lexington.
ELWERT, G. (1989) 'Nationalismus, Ethnizitet und Nativismus - ober die
Bildung von Wir-Gruppen' in P. Waldmann & G. Elwert (editors) Ethnizitet im Wandel.
Saarbrucken: Breitenbach.
FALK, R. (1987) The Promise of world Order: Essays in normative
International Relations. Brighton: Wheatsheaf.
FALK, R. (1992) Explorations at the Edge of Time: The Prospects for World Order.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
FOSSAERT, R. (1994) 'La Question Nationale, et Apres?', Herodote,
nos. 72 - 73, pp. 193 - 200.
FREUD, S. (1932) [1972]Warum Krieg? Gesammelte Werke XVI.
Frankfurt am Main: Fischer.
GELLNER, E. (1983) Nations and Nationalism. Blackwell: Oxford.
GOODMAN, J. (1996) Nationalism and Transnationalism: The National
Conflict in Ireland and European Union Integration. Aldershot: Avebury.
HEINEKEN, A. H. (1992) The United States of Europe: A Eurotopia?
Amsterdam: Amsterdamsche Stichting voor de Historische Wetenschap.
HERAUD, G. (1993) L'Europe des Ethnies (3rd edition). Bruxelles:
Bruylant.
HERDER, J. G. (1990) [1774] Auch eine Philosophie der Geschichte
zur Bildung der Menschheit. Stuttgart: Reclam.
HOBSBAWM, E & RANGER, T. (editors) (1983) The invention of
Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
HOOKS, bell (1990) 'Marginality as a Site of Resistance' in Russell
Ferguson, Martha Gever, Trinh Minh-ha & Cornel West (editors) Out There: Marginalization
and Contemporary Cultures. New York: New Museum of Contemporary Art.
HORNE, D. (1984) The Great Museum: The Re- Presentation of History.
London: Pluto.
HUNTINGTON, S. (1993) 'The Clash of Civilizations', Foreign
Affairs, vol. 72, no. 3, pp. 22 - 49.
HUTCHINSON, J. & SMITH, A. D. (editors) (1994) Nationalism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KEDOURIE, E. (1994) (Fourth, revised edition) Nationalism.
Oxford: Blackwell.
KENNEDY, J. F. (1964) [1958] A Nation of Immigrants. New York:
Harper.
KNAAP, P. van der (1994) 'The Committee of the Regions: The Onset of a
"Europe of the Regions"?', Regional Politics and Policy, vol. 4, no. 20, pp. 86 - 100.
KOHR, L. (1957) [1986] The Breakdown of Nations. London:
Routledge.
LABASSE, J. (1991) 'Geopolitique et Regions d'Europe',
L'information Geographique, vol. 1, pp. 89 - 98.
LEWIS, B. (1977) History: Remembered, Recovered, Invented (2nd
printing, with corrections). Princeton: Princeton University Press.
LINDEN, W. H. van der (1987) The International Peace Movement
1815-1874. Amsterdam: Tilleul.
LOWENTHAL, D. (1985) The Past is a Foreign Country.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MACK SMITH, D. (1994) Mazzini. New Haven: Yale University Press.
MANSVELT BECK, J. (1991) 'Catalaanse zelfbeschikking versus
Madrileens centralisme: een "omgekeerde centrum-periferie benadering" nader belicht',
Geografisch Tijdschrift, vol. 23, pp. 135 - 147.
MARCU, E. D. (1976) Sixteenth Century Nationalism. New York:
Abaris.
MARIEN, M. (1995) 'World Futures and the United Nations: A Guide to
recent Literature', Futures, vol. 27, pp. 287 - 310.
MAZZINI, G. (1860) [1953] I Doveri dell'Uomo. Firenze: La
Nuova Italia.
MEULEN, J. ter. (1917) Der Gedanke der internationalen Organization
in seiner Entwicklung 1300-1800. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
MUDDE, C. (1996) 'Defining the Extreme Right Party Family', West
European Politics, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 225 - 248.
NEDERVEEN PIETERSE, J. (1992) Globalization as Hybridization.
The Hague: Institute of Social Studies. ISS working papers, no. 152.
PAINTER, J. & PHILO, C. (1995) 'Spaces of Citizenship: An
Introduction', Political Geography, vol. 14, pp. 107 - 120.
PEDERSEN, R. N. (1992) One Europe - 100 Nations. Clevedon:
Channel View.
PISCATORI, J. P. (1986) Islam in a World of Nation- States.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
RASLER, K. A. & THOMPSON, W. R. (1989) War and State Making: The
Shaping of the Global Powers (Studies in International Conflict, Volume II). Boston: Unwin
Hyman.
RONEN, D. (1979) The Quest for Self-Determination. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
SCHLESINGER, A. (1992) The Disuniting of America: Reflections
on a Multicultural Society. New York: Norton.
SCHMIDT, M. (1929) Schmidt-Haack geopolitischer Typen-Atlas zur
Einfuhring in die Grundbegriffe der Geopolitik: 176 Kartenskizze zur Veranschaulichung
geopolitischer Erscheinungsformen. Gotha: Justus Perthes.
SMITH, A. D. (1983) (2nd edition) Theories of Nationalism. New
York: Holmes and Meier.
SMITH, A. D. (1986) The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford:
Basil Blackwell.
SMITH, A. D. (1990) 'Towards a Global Culture?', Theory, Culture,
and Society, vol. 7, pp. 171 - 191.
SNYDER, L. (1984) Macronationalisms: A History of the
Pan-Movements. Westport: Greenwood.
TAYLOR, P. (1989) Political Geography: World Economy, Nation State
and Locality. Harlow: Longman.
TAYLOR, P. (1995) 'Beyond Containers: Internationality,
Interstateness, Interterritoriality', Progress in Human Geography, vol. 19, pp. 1-15.
TILLY, C. (1975) The Formation of National States in Western Europe.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
TIRYAKIAN, E. & ROGOWSKI, R. (editors) (1985) New Nationalisms
of the Developed West. London: Allen & Unwin.
TOULMIN, S. (1990) Cosmopolis: The Hidden Agenda of Modernity.
New York: Free Press.
WALSH, K. (1992) The Representation of the Past: Museums and
Heritage in the Post-Modern World. London: Routledge.
WALZER, M. (1983) Spheres of justice. New York: Basic Books.
The US government always subscribed to Al Capone maxim "You can get much farther with a kind word
and a gun than you can with a kind word alone. ". Bu now this allegiance took slightly more sophisticated
form.
Notable quotes:
"... We all need to do what we can to try to make your take on the NY Times into a more mainstream understanding of that capitalist/imperialist propaganda rag. ..."
"... The NYT is only good for the periodic correct quote buried deeply within it's bombastic verbiage. ..."
"... Granted, the NYT does provide a view into the mindset of the Empire, but is otherwise nothing more than a propaganda rag. I find it fascinating that anyone gives it any credence as 'information' ... ..."
"... more light needs to be shone on this topic of 'ngos', 'non profits' and any other sacrimonious name tag the money wants to give to 'regime change'... democracy my ass. ..."
"... U.S. embassies are primarily and above all else organs of espionage and subversion. With modern communications abilities allowing online performance of many traditional ambassadorial functions. If I were Putin, I would clip the wings of hostile powers' embassies by eliminating most attaches and other mischief makers and placing restrictions on the total numbers of staff. ..."
"... Beware of Yanks bringing democracy Have caution of NGO's in general, they may not always be what they appear ..."
"... institutions like the New York Times are essentially organs of authoritarian government, with the clandestine mission of "manufacturing consent" for the government's policies and programs. ..."
"... by Douglas Jehl and David E. Sanger - July 17, 2005 ..."
"... Despite the denials by some Bush administration officials, others who took part in or were briefed on the discussion said they could not rule out the possibility that the United States and its allies might have provided secret aid to augment the broad overt support provided to Iraqi candidates and parties by the State Department, through organizations like the (Inter)national Democratic Institute . ..."
"... IRI was founded in 1983 as the result of a Reagan administration initative to fight Communism by providing government funding to private groups -- most notably the National Endowment for Democracy -- that would promote U.S. policies in ways the government could not undertake directly. In 1991, one of the creators of the NED would be quoted as saying, "a lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" This initiative led to the creation of two organizations, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute, associated with the two political parties. ..."
"... The CIA used to handle all the subversive activities of the US Government abroad until the Church and Pike commissions opened up that can of worms post-Watergate. The Reagan regime eventually repackaged the US Government's efforts at subversion of foreign governments at the State Department ..."
"... The NYTimes and WaPo are now funny papers, bald propaganda sites posing as newspapers, and have been since the younger, neo-con Sulzberger took over from his 'liberal' dad at the one, and since the Amazonian CIA contractor, Bezos, took over the other. ..."
"... US 'democracy loving' spies out! ..."
"... GNGOs - Government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations - are in every way a contradiction in terms, and those exporting Government-funded Non-Governmental product ought to be turned around at the border of any and every other supposedly independent state to which they are sent, as an obvious infringement of national sovereignty. ..."
"... Next to the NED and the IRI, The Open Society of George Soros must be added to the forefront of Pro Democracy nonprofit group used by The CIA and The deep state and the oligarchs linked to them. ..."
"... Syrian rebels claim to have downed a Syrian air force MiG-21 fighter jet that crashed in Hama Province while bombing militant positions. At least one pilot died, for which conflicting reports blame either fire from the ground or a jet malfunction. "The pilot was ejected and brought to safety in al-Mughayr," a military source told the Syrian Al Masdar News outlet. The same source insisted that the plane was not taken down by militants, but crashed due to a technical failure. ..."
"... Biden Jr's resume is unsurprisingly sprinkled with Ivy-league dust - he is on the Chairman's Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute , a director for the Center for National Policy and the US Global Leadership Coalition comprising 400 American businesses, NGOs, senior national security and foreign policy experts. ..."
"... Former US President Bill Clinton appointed him an Executive Director of E-Commerce Policy and he was honorary co-chair of the 2008 Obama-Biden Inaugural Committee. ..."
"... perpetuum mobile ..."
"... How any nation could trust American based NGOs in this day and age ..."
"... Yeah the WaPo was trash before Bezos ... they played it straight though, tryied to carry on as a newspaper with a poker face. Now the joker is unmasked. Bezos doesn't even care what people think. He's laughing ... in print ... at the people who read his rag. \ ..."
MOSCOW - A nonprofit group that promotes democracy has become the latest American-linked group
to be banned in Russia under restrictions on "undesirable" organizations signed into law by President
Vladimir V. Putin in May.
The office of Russia's prosecutor general on Thursday outlawed the group, the National Democratic
Institute, claiming in a statement that the it posed "a threat to the foundations of Russia's
constitutional order and national security."
The above quoted NYT piece studiously avoids to describe what the "pro-democracy nonprofit" really
is. There is no mention at all of its sources of money or its relations to non-Russian governments.
The National Democratic Institute, a group promoting democracy and civil society, had operated
in Russia directly since the late 1980s, but it decided to close its offices there in 2012, according
to its website. It has continued to establish programs in Russia through partner organizations,
however. Madeleine K. Albright, an former United States secretary of state, is its chairwoman.
When asked about U.S. sanctions against Iraq Madeleine Albright once
said (vid) that 500,000
killed Iraqi children were "worth it". Any organization led by here must surely be a morally good.
But who pays it? And what for?
To know what exactly this "nonprofit" is, is certainly relevant to understand the Russian position.
But the NYT writer hides from the readers the fact that the NDI is a U.S. government financed organization.
It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are a "nonprofit organization".
The NDI has been involved throughout the years
in dozens of right-wing "regime change" coups . Its direct parent organization
is the U.S. National Endowment of Democracy:
The private, congressionally funded NED has been a controversial tool in U.S. foreign policy because
of its support of efforts to overthrow foreign governments. As the writers Jonah Gindin and Kirsten
Weld remarked in the January/February 2007 NACLA Report on the Americas: "Since [1983], the NED
and other democracy-promoting governmental and nongovernmental institutions have intervened successfully
on behalf of 'democracy'-actually a very particular form of low-intensity democracy chained to
pro-market economics-in countries from Nicaragua to the Philippines, Ukraine to Haiti, overturning
unfriendly 'authoritarian' governments (many of which the United States had previously supported)
and replacing them with handpicked pro-market allies."[2]
NED works principally through four core institutes: the National Democratic Institute for International
Affairs (NDIIA or NDI), the International Republican Institute (IRI), the American Center for
International Labor Solidarity (ACILS), and the Center for International Private Enterprise-representing,
respectively, the country's two major political parties, organized labor, and the business community.
To call the NDI and its brothers and sisters non-government organization is obviously wrong. To
call them "pro-democracy" is only right when one has some fondness for the peculiar kind of "democracy"
in foreign countries that sets U.S. business interests above the interest of its own people.
What the Russian prosecutor general kicked out of Russia is obviously a U.S. government organization.
The NDI was acting clandestinely by secretly financing local groups in Russia which work against
the duly elected Russian government and against the interest of the Russian people.
But the petty-minded NYT, with its slavishly U.S. centric view, can not allow its readers to learn
such facts.
We all need to do what we can to try to make your take on the NY Times into a more mainstream
understanding of that capitalist/imperialist propaganda rag.
The NYT is only good for the periodic correct quote buried deeply within it's bombastic verbiage.
It is often quoted by authors such as this one, PCRoberts, Vltchek, the Saker, etc., to make a
point ... but is otherwise useless as information. Granted, the NYT does provide a view into
the mindset of the Empire, but is otherwise nothing more than a propaganda rag. I find it fascinating
that anyone gives it any credence as 'information' ...
thanks b.. more light needs to be shone on this topic of 'ngos', 'non profits' and any other
sacrimonious name tag the money wants to give to 'regime change'... democracy my ass... we
don't have it here in canada..
plutocracy is encouraged instead.. the russians are smart to not allow this kind of bs to enter
the pic.. take george soros and tie him up.. that would be a better example of democracy in action..
"Nest of spies" is the correct term for all such organizations.
Russia, and any other country interested in preserving its autonomy, would be crazy to permit
any outside funded organization whose raison d'etre is subversion.
In fact the members of such organizations when operating clandestinely through front organizations
should be subject to arrest and prosecution.
Another thing: U.S. embassies are primarily and above all else organs of espionage and
subversion. With modern communications abilities allowing online performance of many traditional
ambassadorial functions. If I were Putin, I would clip the wings of hostile powers' embassies
by eliminating most attaches and other mischief makers and placing restrictions on the total numbers
of staff.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts (especially if you live in Troy) Beware of Yanks bringing democracy
Have caution of NGO's in general, they may not always be what they appear
Good catch, but I'm not sure I agree with your characterization of the NYT as "petty-minded".
It's a semantic cavil, perhaps. I think that an argument can be made that any pejorative
term applied to the NYT poobahs... er, fits.
But I refer you to the Gospel of Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, who masterfully demonstrated
that institutions like the New York Times are essentially organs of authoritarian government,
with the clandestine mission of "manufacturing consent" for the government's policies and programs.
"Petty-minded" implies that the NYT publisher/editors choose to withhold or distort the truth
out of a sort of personal-- perhaps aristocratic-- pique. It's way worse than that; it's a calculated
"business" decision to further their above-cited consent-manufacturing function.
All that said, you could've gone with "evil-minded".
Despite the denials by some Bush administration officials, others who took part in or were
briefed on the discussion said they could not rule out the possibility that the United States
and its allies might have provided secret aid to augment the broad overt support provided to
Iraqi candidates and parties by the State Department, through organizations like the
(Inter)national Democratic Institute
.
In December 2004, IRI contracted with Tony Marsh and Lance Copsey of the media consulting
firm Marsh, Copsey & Scott to set up a Baghdad Media Center on behalf of the U.S. State
Department. Its stated purpose was to assist Iraqi political parties and candidates in the
upcoming January elections.
Earlier that year, in January 2004, Marsh Copsey & Scott (now Marsh Copsey & Associates)
had registered the domain name crushkerry.com , which was used throughout the 2004 election
for an anti-Kerry blog run by their senior account executive,
Patrick Hynes
. The site was heavily involved in promoting both the SwiftBoat Veterans and
CBS Memos stories . It also encouraged readers to suggest other ways of discrediting John
Kerry, and claimed to have inside sources of information on the Kerry campaign.
Outsourcing regime change
IRI was founded in 1983 as the result of a Reagan administration initative to fight
Communism by providing government funding to private groups -- most notably the National Endowment
for Democracy -- that would promote U.S. policies in ways the government could not undertake
directly. In 1991, one of the creators of the NED would be quoted as saying, "a lot of what
we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA" This initiative led to the creation
of two organizations, the International Republican Institute and the National Democratic Institute,
associated with the two political parties.
Native speakers of English would not say that the New York Propaganda Crimes is not "petty minded"
in the sense of being vindictive but "small minded" in the bland way it makes its report and leaves
it there, in the manner of bureaucrats or those who fulfill the minimum work tasks required of
them and then do no more.
The fact that former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright is a chair of this National Democratic
Institute probably tells most people with a triple-digit IQ all they need to know and then they
can go away and do their own research.
Incidentally that NYT report was filed by Ivan Nechepurenko who writes for The Moscow Times
(a pro-US newspaper) and who has worked with the Carnegie Moscow Center, another NGO that the
Kremlin should be fixing its sights on.
Comment on previous Obama Doctrine Whitewash thread Geoff # 106 Mar 11, 2016 1:56:01 2016 1:56:01
PM
"The only thing good about the political class perhaps, is that on the whole they keep the
rest of us moving, while simultaneously holding back a better future. Without their class, however,
perhaps we would propegate unimpeded and run out of food supplies."
Geoff,
This is the type of dystopian logic that is utilized at West Point and other War Colleges that
allows them to Manchurian Candidate drone pilots so they can mass murder brown people without
blinking an eye.
For many, if they didn't read about it in the NYT or saw it on Fox news then it never happened.
Combine enough of those missing ITS together and one can see what flavor of reality is being fed
to those that believe the myth of the last sentence.
Its the old Faith thingy, it works until it doesn't. Faith in America is not on the upswing
and is quite close to the tipping point on numerous fronts, ME politics, private finance (Fed,
IMF & World Bank), US Manifest Destiny, etc.
I am encouraged to recently hear David Draiman's (Disturbed) cover of 'Sound of Silence'. I
don't care about his background. I just want to note that, IMO, he upped the in your face aspect
of the message.... ".....People bowed and prayed, to the neon Gods THEY made...."
Just like what happened in Chicago yesterday with shutting down the Trump rally, the energy
level of the complacent is rising.
" ...the energy level of the complacent is rising" is an assumption that cuts both directions.
While it certainly is possible that Americans in general want change, I suspect that what many
want is really a return to the 1950's when the assumption was that we were the winners of a recent
war ... despite the fact that only a few hundred thousand Americans lost their lives defeating
the Japanese and Germany while China lost about 15 million, and the Russians lost around 25 Million.
WWII was simply a war between fascists and not a war against fascism.
The carpet bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, or the threat of being "Hiroshima'd" or "Nagasaki'd"
was the only real post WWII threats we had, and there was really no question we would use them
again.
It is really too bad that the best we Americans stand for is to be oblivious to the real issues
faced by the rest of the world so long as our plutocrats and oligarchs allow us to have some of
the benefits of world domination. /a>
The CIA used to handle all the subversive activities of the US Government abroad until the
Church and Pike commissions opened up that can of worms post-Watergate. The Reagan regime eventually
repackaged the US Government's efforts at subversion of foreign governments at the State Department:
These were apparently modeled on the CIA's efforts, organizations it had founded or subverted
in Germany, during the US' administration of West Germany after WW II:
It amazes me that any nation allows such blatant, political organizations, sponsored from abroad,
to operate within its borders, but ... money talks.
The NYTimes and WaPo are now funny papers, bald propaganda sites posing as newspapers,
and have been since the younger, neo-con Sulzberger took over from his 'liberal' dad at the one,
and since the Amazonian CIA contractor, Bezos, took over the other.
But the NYT writer hides from the readers the fact that the NDI is a U.S. government financed
organization. It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are
a "nonprofit organization".
Posted by b on March 12, 2016 at 12:03 PM
Nailed it, b!
The United States Of AmeriKKKa's raison d'ętre in two short sentences. Pure genius & effing
brilliant!
@22 pc ' I know that RLS are pretty social democratic, but do they actually take US state dept
money? '
I don't know. I imagine that by now all the German GNGOs are German-government-funded. Just
as are the German and other NATO contingents. Still 'centrally coordinated' though, aren't they?
RLS was among the German political exporters at wikipedia, so I included it as well. Wikipedia
doesn't list the source of their funding, but I imagine they're government funded? A budget of
€44,391,120 in 2012, according to wp.
GNGOs - Government-funded Non-Governmental Organizations - are in every way a contradiction
in terms, and those exporting Government-funded Non-Governmental product ought to be turned around
at the border of any and every other supposedly independent state to which they are sent, as an
obvious infringement of national sovereignty.
" ...the energy level of the complacent is rising"
ISIS and Al Nusra pose at rebelling against their Saudi/CIA masters, and yet through war and
terror do exactly what Saudi/U.S./Israel want them to do.
Black Lives Matter and other identity politics groups pose at rebelling against their MoveOn
and Democratic Party masters, and yet through creation of chaos and 'FEAR OF TRUMP' do exactly
what the Democratic Party and Hillary 2016 want them to do.
Rg an LG @20
I thought where you were going was ... When the previously complacent but now energized are
tightly restricted in what they think is permissible thought, poorly and politically correctly
'educated', and (therefore) easily manipulated, they are as likely to be placated by 'other hatred',
or by imperialist fear-mongering and "Let's have a war!" as by all the good things we wish they'd
fight for.
Simply put, any and all organization pretending to do "good" has actually been infiltrated and
subverted by the PTB. From local NGO's all the way to HRW, USAID, Red Cross, and even UN agencies
like the Minustah who spread cholera to Haiti post-earthquake. But you dont believe in the NWO,
do you? ;) /a>
As the originator of " ...the energy level of the complacent is rising", please notice that I
didn't say what the result would be. I continue to smoke hopium or I would have offed myself long
ago.
i agree with fairleft/28 and Lozion/29 that all the spreading of Democracy since WWII has been
more about empire building with private finance at the core.
The reason we won't see world wide uprisings in the smaller countries is because our organizations
of empire backed by the MIC/NSA/CIA et. al. have eliminated any potential threats, likely in their
youth for decades now.
Again, the ring that rules them all is private finance and those that own that hidden matrix.
lebretteurfredonnant | Mar 12, 2016 11:10:53 PM |
32
Great article B
Next to the NED and the IRI, The Open Society of George Soros must be added to the forefront
of Pro Democracy nonprofit group used by The CIA and The deep state and the oligarchs linked to
them.
One thing about all this Russo-phobia is that with the new Russia military dominance all this
habit To scream bloody murder every time Russia does something seems Like water off a duck's back.It
is too late and unless Russia get another Yeltsin or Gorbachev after Putin or the united state
catch up on its military technology we are already living in a new world.The US dominance throughout
the world is over.
This action seems more about Putin's paranoia about internal dissent than the effectiveness of
these pseudo NGO's who can be easily monitored. Russia may have a military backed with Nukes but
their economy is about the size of Mexico so I doubt they will be projecting much military might
for very long.
Putin is apparently settling into his President for Life position and informing the weak opposition
that any dissent will be viewed as foreign interference.
article offers a bit more details, yet still unconfirmed whether it was "shot-down" by rebels
...
Syrian rebels claim to have downed a Syrian air force MiG-21 fighter jet that crashed in
Hama Province while bombing militant positions. At least one pilot died, for which conflicting
reports blame either fire from the ground or a jet malfunction. "The pilot was ejected and
brought to safety in al-Mughayr," a military source told the
Syrian Al Masdar News outlet. The same source insisted that the plane was not taken down
by militants, but crashed due to a technical failure.
Biden Jr's resume is unsurprisingly sprinkled with Ivy-league dust - he is on the
Chairman's Advisory Board for the National Democratic Institute , a director for the Center
for National Policy and the US Global Leadership Coalition comprising 400 American businesses,
NGOs, senior national security and foreign policy experts.
Former US President Bill Clinton appointed him an
Executive
Director of E-Commerce Policy and he was honorary co-chair of the 2008 Obama-Biden Inaugural
Committee.
NED and affiliates: a perpetuum mobile for reapimg benefits from US imperialism!
5;You will be very unhappy;Trump says he's gonna put Jesus back in Xmas!We'll be able to say Merry
Christmas wo getting the haters upset.I didn't see that quote in todays Ziorags though.
The lying times also gets yesterdays weather and sports scores correct,so lets be fair now.
Blaming the violence from outside agitators on Trumps "political arson"is hilarious.Who da Nazis?
Bernie quickly denounced Trumps claim of them being Sanders supporters.He has to eschew that commie
label. Move on .Org has been silent throughout the abysmal Obomba reign.There resurrection as
Trump bashers will be a death knell for the Ziohypocrites who run it.Trump is a direct threat
to the Zionist control of America.Their hair is on fire.
I think what is really happening is the that Trump people are not the complacent,as anyone
fighting his words obviously are stuck in the narrative of BS foisted on US by the global monsters,or
have skin in the illegal immigrant game.
Why are there no protesters at the hell bitches rallies?I mean she is directly responsible
for hundreds of thousands of innocents deaths,division and destruction to rival ww2,while Trump
calls to bring back troops,help the working man,protect and expand SS are protest worthy?All things
they protested under the shrub?Hypocrisy writ large.
21;Wapo was just as bad under the previous owners.
How any nation could trust American based NGOs in this day and age reveals the absolutely
perfidy of the leaders of those nations in allowing it. Payoffs.
I just read that The Donald has been invited and is going to make an appearance at the AIPAC
ring-kissing event toward the end of the month. The Hil and Joe Biden will be there too, of course,
kissing ass for all they're worth ... the only 'logical' thing for Trump to do is to let 'er rip
in opposition. Send his critics in both forks of the War Party around the bend, set his 'loyalists'
... and how many others? ... dancin' in the streets. The AIPAC command performance might be interesting
this year ...
Yeah the WaPo was trash before Bezos ... they played it straight though, tryied to carry
on as a newspaper with a poker face. Now the joker is unmasked. Bezos doesn't even care what people
think. He's laughing ... in print ... at the people who read his rag. \
It is a "nonprofit organization" in the same sense that the U.S. Armed Forces are a "nonprofit
organization".
An excellent description of all US/AngloZionist NGOs
@41 Trump has also stated, given the ISIS situation, he would put 20,000-30,000 US troops in
Iraq/Syria. He doesn't say whether they would be fighting with ISIS or against it.
41;Of course the donald will make nice with the framers of the agenda,or else they'll call in
Mossad to kill him off,or invent memes like HE is the fascist.Sheesh.The crimes of the Hell Bitch
leave one, with the lack of arrows at her huge inviting target suspicious,eh?
AIPAC;Talk bout a foreign NGO and its tax exempt!
Trump is not afraid to talk turkey with these clowns,he's dome it already,with his neutrality
comment.
Over the last 40 years or so it has become unfashionable among the intelligentsia to want Merry
Xmas said.It's the generic happy holidays.
Because the Zionists didn't like it. It's ok for the 60% Israelis to have a Jewish State, but
its not ok for 90%Christian America to have a Christian (nominal)state. And do you know who had
prayer (voluntary)t aken out of schools? Zionists from LI.Nazis. Just like the idiots in Chicago
who gave Sanders a black eye. Soros, the Zionist. Helps Shillary?
Their hypocrisy is breathtaking.
I hate organized religion btw, its all personal. Freedom.
And the FF agreed,by keeping religion far from govt.
[... ]
I imagine all the Pakistanis reading your joke are 'laughing' uproariously.
jfl | Mar 13, 2016 7:54:47 PM | 45
I do not know many Pakistanis but I know some. And in that small sample, some do show a sense
of humor and some do not.
By the way, I actually had hard time understanding if the problem of "Happy Holidays" versus
"Merry Christmas" is totally contrived or not. It reminds me when as a "wee lad" someone stopped
me on the street with a simple question "Where is the store?" "What do you mean, the store?" "Liquor
store, of course!" The point is that when you say "Happy Holidays" in Poland it is an obvious
abbreviation of Holiday of the God's Birth.
And after few months another problem. You can wish "Happy Holidays" once more, but more standard
is "Happy Great Night Holidays" and somewhat rare "Happy Holidays of the Lord's Resurection".
So to people who have a choleric attitude to some variations of the greetings I would wish
"Be yourself! Be grumpy if you wish! No need to be happy!".
"... Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by social movements and periods of political upheaval. ..."
"... It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers, PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure, these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists, strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non- governmental organizations. ..."
"... Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular democracy and revolutionary fervor. ..."
"... Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking these events. ..."
"... The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions, destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all. They must learn that simply because leaders appear to them, attempt to speak the same language and articulate rage does not mean that these leaders are men of the people. ..."
"... the wanton destruction of communities belonging to you or your neighbors is not only counterproductive, it produces rage that will be aimed back at you, and justifiably so. The entire country is being played like a fiddle. ..."
The relevance of the Soros connection may seem confusing to many. Certainly, however, no
one in their right mind will suggest that a man that has made his fortune bankrupting nations and
impoverishing their peoples lies awake at night wringing his hands over concerns for black people
in America.
Soros is most well-known for playing a major role in the funding and facilitating of the "Bulldozer
Revolution" in Serbia that overthrew Slobodan Milosevic in 2000, Georgia's "Rose Revolution"
of 2003, the 2006 push to move Turkey toward a more Islamist governing structure, and even the Occupy
movement in the United States among a great many others - none of which brought anything other than
greater misery, impoverishment, and police state mechanisms to bear on the general public. The Occupy
movement, being the only exception, still brought nothing to its participants except the opportunity
to burn off excess anger and energy along with a few cracked protester skulls. It was otherwise an
incredible waste of time.
Regardless, the methods being used by the Soros machine in terms of the #blacklivesmatter
and other related campaigns across the country are much the same as those used in Europe to usher
in greater austerity, police states, and fascism through government-coup and social protest
- i.e. a coordinated media campaign to provide the general public with a false perception of events
as well as a false narrative, the use of social media and slogans, and the deployment of "swarming
adolescents" in the streets.
When media campaigns alone are not enough, there are other methods that are able to be implemented
if need be. For instance, a
Mother Jones report revealed the fact that in some areas where rioting began, there appears to
have been a concerted effort on the part of the authorities to create an environment in which riots
would be inevitable. For example, in an instance where it was reported that teens in Baltimore attacked
police by throwing rocks, it was never mentioned that police had corralled these teens - who should
have been on their way home - off the bus and into an area in between the mall and the high school.
According to onlookers, it appeared that both the teens and the police were surprised at the situation
- the police surprised at the lack of violence and the teens surprised that they were kept from going
home. Eventually, rocks and bottles were reportedly thrown at police and the situation deteriorated
from there. Of course, the entire story was never fully reported in the mainstream press. Still,
while the rocks and bottles may have started from those in the crowd, others may justifiably wonder
if there were not provocateurs already placed simply waiting to cause violence as soon as the tension
had reached a boiling point. As it is, it is very likely that protesters and police alike were dupes
in a devious game.
Consider also the fact that the Baltimore authorities, despite implementing heavy-handed tactics
against high schoolers on their way home, allowed criminals, thieves, and violent thugs to prey upon
innocent people, private property, and communities for quite some time without a serious effort to
stop them. In fact, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake even openly admitted that the looters
were allowed to riot
when she stated that "We also gave those who wish to destroy space to do that as well." The police
were prevented from actually stopping the riots and were kept largely unequipped as well. In other
words, the riots were both allowed and encouraged until they had reached a boiling point
and the National Guard was called in.
Of course, the color revolution and destabilization is not merely some communiqué presented to
a small group of people that organically takes on a life of its own. There is an entire science behind
the application of a movement of destabilization both when it takes place overseas as well as when
it takes place domestically.
As Pottenger and Frieson of Color Revolutions and Geopolitics write,
Many are the professions that utilize this type of understanding, including (but not limited to)
marketing, advertising, public relations, politics and law-making, radio, television, journalism
and news, film, music, general business and salesmanship; each of them selling, branding, promoting,
entertaining, sloganeering, framing, explaining, creating friends and enemies, arguing likes and
dislikes, setting the boundaries of good and evil: in many cases using their talents to circumvent
their audiences' intellect, the real target being emotional, oftentimes even subconscious.
Looking beneath the facade of the color revolutionary movement we also find a desire-based
behavioral structure, in particular one that has been built upon historical lessons offered by
social movements and periods of political upheaval.
It then makes sense that the personnel of such operations include perception managers,
PR firms, pollsters and opinion-makers in the social media. Through the operational infrastructure,
these entities work in close coordination with intelligence agents, local and foreign activists,
strategists and tacticians, tax-exempt foundations, governmental agencies, and a host of non-
governmental organizations.
Collectively, their job is to make a palace coup (of their sponsorship) seem like a social
revolution; to help fill the streets with fearless demonstrators advocating on behalf of a government
of their choosing, which then legitimizes the sham governments with the authenticity of popular
democracy and revolutionary fervor.
Because the operatives perform much of their craft in the open, their effectiveness is heavily
predicated upon their ability to veil the influence backing them, and the long-term intentions
guiding their work.
Their effectiveness is predicated on their ability to deceive, targeting both local populations
and foreign audiences with highly-misleading interpretations of the underlying causes provoking
these events.
With this explanation in mind, consider the description provided by Ian Traynor of the Guardian
regarding the "revolutions" and "mass movements" which was taking place in Ukraine, Serbia, Belarus,
and Georgia in 2004 and the time of the writing of his article. Indeed, Traynor's depiction of the
methodology used by the Foundations, NGOs, and government agencies stirring up dissent and popular
revolt is equally illuminating.
Traynor writes,
In the centre of Belgrade, there is a dingy office staffed by computer-literate youngsters who
call themselves the Centre for Non-violent Resistance. If you want to know how to beat a regime
that controls the mass media, the judges, the courts, the security apparatus and the voting stations,
the young Belgrade activists are for hire.
They emerged from the anti-Milosevic student movement, Otpor, meaning resistance. The catchy,
single-word branding is important. In Georgia last year, the parallel student movement was Khmara.
In Belarus, it was Zubr. In Ukraine, it is Pora, meaning high time. Otpor also had a potent, simple
slogan that appeared everywhere in Serbia in 2000 - the two words "gotov je", meaning "he's finished",
a reference to Milosevic. A logo of a black-and-white clenched fist completed the masterful marketing.
In Ukraine, the equivalent is a ticking clock, also signalling that the Kuchma regime's days
are numbered.
Stickers, spray paint and websites are the young activists' weapons. Irony and street comedy
mocking the regime have been hugely successful in puncturing public fear and enraging the powerful.
These slogans and symbols are the product of mass marketers employed by State Departments and
intelligence agencies for the sole purpose of destabilizing and/or overthrowing a democratically
elected or unfavorable (to the oligarchy)government.
The details and techniques of the manipulation of mass numbers of people have only continued to become
more and more advanced and sophisticated, particularly with the advent of social media.
As Jonathan Mowat wrote,
As in the case of the new communication technologies, the potential effectiveness of angry youth
in postmodern coups has long been under study. As far back as 1967, Dr. Fred Emery, then director
of the Tavistock Institute, and an expert on the "hypnotic effects" of television, specified that
the then new phenomenon of "swarming adolescents" found at rock concerts could be effectively
used to bring down the nation-state by the end of the 1990s. This was particularly the case, as
Dr. Emery reported in "The next thirty years: concepts, methods and anticipations,'' in the group's
"Human Relations," because the phenomena was associated with "rebellious hysteria." The British
military created the Tavistock Institute as its psychological warfare arm following World War
I; it has been the forerunner of such strategic planning ever since. Dr. Emery's concept saw immediate
application in NATO's use of "swarming adolescents" in toppling French President Charles De Gaulle
in 1967.[1]
[...]
In November 1989, Case Western Reserve in Cleveland, Ohio, under the aegis of that university's
"Program for Social Innovations in Global Management," began a series of conferences to review
progress towards that strategic objective, which was reported on in "Human Relations" in 1991.
There, Dr. Howard Perlmutter, a professor of "Social Architecture'' at the Wharton School, and
a follower of Dr. Emery, stressed that "rock video in Kathmandu," was an appropriate image of
how states with traditional cultures could be destabilized, thereby creating the possibility of
a "global civilization." There are two requirements for such a transformation, he added, "building
internationally committed networks of international and locally committed organizations,'' and
"creating global events" through "the transformation of a local event into one having virtually
instantaneous international implications through mass-media."[2]
The American people must quickly learn the formula behind color revolutions,
destabilizations, and the agendas of the world oligarchy before it becomes too late for us all.
They must learn that simply because "leaders" appear to them, attempt to speak the same language
and articulate rage does not mean that these leaders are men of the people.
Protests are necessary. Directed rage may also be necessary. But the wanton destruction of communities
belonging to you or your neighbors is not only counterproductive, it produces rage that will be aimed
back at you, and justifiably so. The entire country is being played like a fiddle. Baltimore is not
an isolated collection of dupes, it is a microcosm. It is time the American people wise up and become
street smart before it is too late.
This is the review of the book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government by one of Moon of Alabama readers.
Looks like the course on making The USA imperial power (which was related later in Washington consensus and Wolfowitz doctrine)
was taken directly after WWII. Cold War was just a smoke screen under which the USA tried to establish hegemony over the world. Both
documents could well be written by Alan Dulles himself.
Any president who dare to deviate from this is ostracized , impeached or killed. So the political role of intelligence agencies
since their establishment by Truman was to serve as the brain center if USA imperial beuracracy (as well as the tools for projecting
it abroad)
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that
conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for wars and for expanding the US influence abroad for
multinationals, and that is what they have done for 70 years (Dulles came from Wall Street). Among other things it
deliberately creates small wars just to demonstrate the US military might. Neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative
Michael Ledeen suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it
against the wall, just to show we mean business."
Another book deserves to mentioned here too here too. Prouty book
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control
of the United States and the World (which was suppressed in 1973 when irt was published and did not see shelves before
republishing in 2011) is described like the the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy conducted by CIA has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964,
managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S.
military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in
critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition
and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... We find Dulles attempting to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard
Gehlen, so today there are personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists"
to achieve our goals. ..."
"... Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed by this, but for someone like myself interested
in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately the 1930s through the 1969. ..."
"... the ruling elite of the US was deeply split. ..."
"... A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up ties
with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were so important
that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot makes clear that
in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!). ..."
"... And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. ..."
"... Talbot covers this topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar)
the fact that "fired" and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday
through the hours that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia. ..."
I just finished listening to the audio book of David Talbot's The Devil's Chessboard. Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise
of America's Secret Government . It was very good I think.
I'll spare you a full review, but the Dulles era has some very important and interesting similarities with our own (in fact,
the ties are most certainly those first formed during the Dulles brothers tenure at State and CIA). Talbot doesn't delve deeply
into these more recent aspects, but he does acknowledge them. And the similarities are quite clear. We find Dulles attempting
to convince his superiors of the need and advantages of dealing with "moderate Nazis" like Reinhard Gehlen, so today there are
personalities in our government following a policy of working with "moderate Islamists" and "moderate ultra-nationalists" to achieve
our goals.
Initially I had heard that it was a Allen Dulles biography, and though there is a lot of detail about his personal life, his
marriage, and even his kids, I would say it strays from what one might consider a "standard" biography and is more about Dulles
and his times. For instance, there are a couple of chapters devoted just to the Kennedy Assassination, another on Oswald, and
one on the "Generals' putsch" in France in '61. Perhaps someone looking for more focus on Dulles the man might be disappointed
by this, but for someone like myself interested in the history and insights of era Dulles lived in. The era covered is approximately
the 1930s through the 1969.
Talbot uses Dulles life as the base to build up the important (and to my mind misunderstood and misconstrued) stories in recent
US history. That story is, of course, the following: despite the impression most Americans have of our country fighting the ultimate
"good war" against universally despised enemies - that fact is that the ruling elite of the US was deeply split.
A large portion of the US elite was sympathetic to the Nazis. Indeed, the pro-Nazi segment of the US elite had built up
ties with Germany during the inter-war period. The bonds were economic, political and even ideological - indeed, these links were
so important that likely Germany would not have been able to rearm itself without the help of these "patriotic" Americans (Talbot
makes clear that in some cases this kinship was evident even during the war itself!).
And no one represents the fascist sympathizing segment of the US elite like Allen Dulles. And Talbot tracks this key
figure's fascist ties as he rises in the US power structure from his early years as an OSS man wheeling and dealing with Nazi
generals in Bern, Switzerland and on through Dulles' creation and/or support of fascist governments in Latin America, the Middle
East, and Africa during the Cold War. Talbot covers the events surrounding Dulles life excellently. Especially moving was his
chapter on Guatemala - the tragedy of the Arbenz family as a mirror of the tragedy of Guatemala is covered through the eyes of
the grandson of Arbez.
Talbot covers the horror stories of the results of America working closely with dictators like Trujillo, the Shah, Mobutu Sese
Seko, and Batista (he misses Indonesia though, an operation that caused the death of 1,000,000 Indonesians). But of course, as
an American, the most important question to Talbot is that of Dulles role in the Kennedy assassination. Talbot covers this
topic well and makes a very good case for Dulles involvement - including revealing (from his day calendar) the fact that "fired"
and "retired" from the CIA Allen Dulles, spent the weekend - from the time Kennedy was shot and killed Friday through the hours
that Oswald was gunned down - at a CIA command facility in Virginia.
Allen Dulles papers released by CIA to Princeton are now online
Posted on January 23, 2008 by Dan Linke
The Central Intelligence Agency has released to Princeton University some 7,800 documents covering the career of Allen W.
Dulles, the agency's longest-serving director, which now can be viewed online at
http://arks.princeton.edu/ark:/88435/st74cq497
Dulles (1893-1969), a Princeton alumnus who headed the CIA from 1953 to 1961, was renowned for his role in shaping U.S.
intelligence operations during the Cold War. Last March, the CIA released to Princeton a collection of letters, memoranda,
reports and other papers - some still redacted - that the agency had removed from Dulles' papers after his death and before
their transfer to the University in 1974.
"... The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain: ..."
"... countries, groups, that have a socialistic bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national (e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.) ..."
"... Energy rich countries who wont open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or wont permit US type banking system in their country, or arent subservient enough on a host of points (ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq) ..."
Dan at 2.
There is no single cohesive policy. Only selfishness
The USA attacks militarily directly, or by overt other means (economic), or behind the curtain:
those that challenge it even in the imagination, provided small and pretty powerless
countries, groups, that have a 'socialistic' bent, try to do well for their citizens, and/or
espouse some ideology that appears, *on the face of it*, anti-capitalistic, nationalistic, or pan-national
(e.g. Communism in the past, Baath party, Arab nationalism, Cuba.)
those who try to annul or wash away ethnic, racist, religious, and so on differences in favor
of some kind of 'universality', a citizen status, mandate - this goes against the colonialist model,
abroad and at home, in which ppl are sand niggers, blacks, etc. The US support for equality thus
turns to trivia, gay marriage, quarrels about abortion, etc.
Energy rich countries who won't open up to US corps, domination. (ex. Venezuela), or won't
permit US type banking system in their country, or aren't subservient enough on a host of points
(ex. Syria, Lybia) or somehow manage to cozy and then resist for a long while (ex. Iraq)
Those who are involved massively with illegal and dubious trade - human trafficking, organ
sales, child forced prostitution, drugs, illegal arms, condoned murder of rivals, vicious internal
repression, heavy torture, prisons, etc. are generally supported, but on occasion they rebel or try
for other, which is not to be allowed (ex. Afghanistan)
Anyone that can be attacked on any grounds, opportunistically, to racketeer fines, big sums
of money, such as in the banking sector.
Countries it pretends to admire who are secretely dominated by them and only escape ostracim,
sanctions or bombs or more by subservience, and a 'belonging to a controlled block' (EU.) Sweden
and the Netherlands come to mind.
Other.
That is a lot countries, people, all together. The foreign policy is not cohesive, I agree, it
is simply all over the board, adjusted all the time, based on ad hoc criteria, racist supremacy,
capitalistic short term profiteering, snobby disaproval, empty rage, power plays, sectorial interests,
corporate meddling, personal arm-twisting and blackmail, deals with foreign potentates, arms production
and selling which needs war, and on and on.
"... The author may be too young to know about it. A detailed study of FBI and other infiltrations into various movements through the 50s , 60s, 70s would repay the effort. ..."
"... Perhaps field guides should be written on how to "spot the agent", "spot the plant", "spot the disruptor" etc. ..."
"... "Homeless people make up a significant proportion of participants in the Occupy Movement in cities across the United States, from Los Angeles to Atlanta, where at times they comprise an estimated third of the occupiers… Despite stereotypical beliefs that homeless people are not interested in politics, the homeless actually have perhaps the least to lose and the most to gain from being involved in the Occupy Movement." ..."
"... "[The social composition of the movement is] quite varied. Occupy Oakland, for example, is perhaps 50% black and Latino, whereas occupations in other parts of the country may be mostly white. Some occupations are primarily very poor people, homeless people, etc., others include a lot of white-collar workers. Young 'précaires' [people whose work situation and future prospects are precarious] are certainly among the most numerous participants." ..."
"... Yes, there was a 17-city, coordinated paramilitary crackdown. All in one night. I watched and chronicled the live stream. ..."
"... For about a year I've wondered why NC could be so hard on Syriza while continuing to run that embarrassing Occupy banner at the top of the page. And you're fond of quoting Gandhi, (you lose, you lose, they give up, you win). But while you're losing you're getting beat up. And that's the problem with Americans generally; can't take a punch. Glass jaw. ..."
"... When leadership isn't willing to make that commitment there is no organization. And with no organization we're left with "going postal". Americans are much more adept at that. ..."
"... Unlike the situation in Europe, however, there appears to be little effort among the dispersed elements of the movement in the United States to achieve political power. The stronger effort here is to create a viable alternative to the current corrupt and destructive political/economic system, to step outside it and grow something else again. ..."
"... L'Échaudée: "Would you say that State repression (especially the unified and coordinated raids against the camps) was the main cause of Occupy's decline?" Ken Knabb: "Yes." ..."
"... Yes. And the violent attack on the encampments didn't just disperse the people. Cops destroyed food and food service supplies, shelter, electronic equipment, libraries, and medical and first-aid supplies, much of it likely donated by people not necessarily able to be part of an encampment. For some campers this was maybe most of what they had or, for the homeless and other marginalized people who came to the camps, more than they had. If we do build a movement, if bringing about real change will require people to strike, or boycott, or occupy vacant land or buildings, this kind of community support is crucial. We ought not discount (the "authorities" certainly didn't) the material and psychological impact of this destruction beyond just the local participants; and we need to find more sustainable, less vulnerable ways of providing community support. ..."
"... There is a difference between "color revolution" style events which promote neoliberalism and Occupy style events that oppose it. In case of color revolution style events the participants can rely on all the power of Western embassies, NGO, intelligence agencies and flow of money and equipment. Training of leaders would be provided, "revolutionaries for hire" will emerge, etc. ..."
"... Many of us Professional-Managerial Class (PMC) activists are hampered by having been told implicitly and explicitly for our entire education that we are the leaders of the world when we are at best lieutenants of the 1%. ..."
"... The sort of utopianism on display here is not only callow and tiresome (and precisely why Occupy failed), but also depressing. And if it reflects the level of understanding held by "activists" of the nature of the crisis we face, I am not heartened. ..."
"... I agree completely. This recap is self-absorbed, naive, and absurd - it reminds me in many ways of the business plan of a start-up that has no clear route to actually making money. It's impossible to imagine a movement of people who think like this accomplishing anything, because they have no model for the outcome they want; what they do have is a model for how they want themselves to be. ..."
"... "As a life-long member of the working class I find the suggestion that I need to be schooled in the ways of courageous resistance breathtakingly arrogant" ..."
"... Whatever else you may say about Lenin, his goals, his means, or his beliefs, he had a remarkably clear-eyed and unsentimental view of power and how one goes about getting it and how one goes about holding on to it. ..."
"... From my perspective the Leninist alternative dismisses any interest in a democratically self-organized society. In postulating a disciplined revolutionary party to act in the name of society he completed the final arc in a profoundly undemocratic political trajectory from which the traditional Left has not yet recovered. ..."
"... May be the traditional Left has not yet recovered , but traditional right fully adopted Lenin's methods and organization under color revolution banner. ..."
"... "Occupy" failed because it had no goal, and having no goal, it didn't know how to get there. See: http://goo.gl/m6qmGn ..."
"... It goes on and on, protest after protest. Anti-racial profiling. Anti-union busting. Anti-tuition increases. Anti-school closings. Anti-mortgage fraud. Anti-unsustainable development. Anti-corruption. Anti-this, anti-that, anti-the other thing. ..."
"... For reasons unknown, the Occupy movement seems to take a perverse pride in being leaderless and directionless, preferring to run hither and yon, protesting whatever strikes their fancy. No focus. No plan. No idea. Just protest. ..."
"... The Tea Party has a simple, easily understood focus: Lower taxes. What is Occupy's simple, easily understood focus? ..."
"... The public grows weary of ineffectual, random, aimless protests, and Occupy, which began with such great promise, becomes last week's newspaper. A lost opportunity is a step backward, as people become discouraged and slide into lethargy. ..."
"... Somewhere, in board rooms around the world, the 1% is laughing. ..."
"... Do nothing? I'd be curious to hear what you mean on that. It took incredibly coordinated state action to defuse Occupy, not public weariness. ..."
"... It's unfortunate Occupy was not able to organize in a way to neutralize such action, but at the very least, it pulled back the curtain on the police state specifically and the power of government more generally in a way no one can deny moving forward. That's the spark of hope from the various events of the last few years. The elites want us to believe they are all powerful. But it is actually taking them quite a bit of effort to maintain that illusion. In reality, they are strategically weak and vulnerable. And they know it. ..."
"... Which is why the Democratic party has had to become so blatantly pro-inequality. Even a modest opposition to fascism on their part would ruin the efforts of the past few decades. ..."
Leaderlessness is very different than having many leaders. The strongest movements have
many leaders that each know/feel when/how to lead and follow and cooperate in turn. Many
powerful people, powerful enough to know that power does not mean dominating others in the
movement. Such a movement will be much harder to stop than a leaderless one, where the FBI can
easily insert its own leaders and derail the whole thing.
The author doesn't address it, but I wouldn't be surprised if many of those emotional bullies
he describes were gov't plants. Building a movement full of physically and emotionally
powerful people is how to combat such tactics.
different clue, December 28, 2015 at 3:10 pm
The author may be too young to know about it. A detailed study of FBI and other
infiltrationism into various movements through the 50s , 60s, 70s would repay the effort.
Perhaps field guides should be written on how to "spot the agent", "spot the plant", "spot
the disruptor" etc.
nobody, December 28, 2015 at 10:04 am
Anybody who says, of Occupy, that "everyone went home," doesn't know what the fuck they are
talking about.
cf:
"Homeless people make up a significant proportion of participants in the Occupy Movement in
cities across the United States, from Los Angeles to Atlanta, where at times they comprise an
estimated third of the occupiers… Despite stereotypical beliefs that homeless people are not
interested in politics, the homeless actually have perhaps the least to lose and the most to
gain from being involved in the Occupy Movement."
(Matthew Charles Cardinale, "U.S.: Homeless Play Key Role in Occupy Movement," from December,
2011.)
**
"[The social composition of the movement is] quite varied. Occupy Oakland, for example, is
perhaps 50% black and Latino, whereas occupations in other parts of the country may be mostly
white. Some occupations are primarily very poor people, homeless people, etc., others include
a lot of white-collar workers. Young 'précaires' [people whose work situation and future
prospects are precarious] are certainly among the most numerous participants."
(Ken Knabb, "The Occupy Movement at Its Peak, November 10, 2011)
Yves Smith, December 28, 2015 at 1:45 pm
Yes, there was a 17-city, coordinated paramilitary crackdown. All in one night. I
watched and chronicled the live stream.
Occupy had very much depended on "place" as in the actual occupations. They had a great
deal of difficult regrouping after that.
In NYC some group continue to do good work, most notably Occupy the SEC and Alternative
Banking. Occupy Sandy was VERY important, and some of the many Occupy Homes groups were
effective but not give much credit or even notice in the media.
MarcoPolo, December 28, 2015 at 9:48 am
For about a year I've wondered why NC could be so hard on Syriza while continuing to run
that embarrassing Occupy banner at the top of the page. And you're fond of quoting Gandhi,
(you lose, you lose, they give up, you win). But while you're losing you're getting beat up.
And that's the problem with Americans generally; can't take a punch. Glass jaw.
Jesse published a quote from Fredrick Douglas a couple of weeks ago. I can't find it now. But
it speaks to that; the commitment and preparation necessary to take the kind of punishment you
must. When leadership isn't willing to make that commitment there is no organization. And with
no organization we're left with "going postal". Americans are much more adept at that.
Interesting that I didn't see any recognition that Podemos has won electoral victory in
Spain (May have missed it, long article and all). Podemos grew directly out of the Indignato
movement which was a precursor and model for the Occupy movement in the US and latterly around
the world.
Whether Podemos will go the way of Syriza and basically become the leftish face of neo-fascism
and colonialism remains to be seen. They say they learned from the Greek tragedy and they
won't make the same mistakes Syriza did, but power does strange things to its holders and
implementers.
The occupied squares were cleared by police in Madrid and the rest of Spain, sometimes over
and over again and with as much violence as the police displayed in the United States and
elsewhere, but the movement did not die in Spain. It dispersed and in dispersion, it built a
politically potent element that now has control of the Spanish government - at least in
theory. We'll see what happens when "reality" sets in.
The movement was not destroyed, it was dispersed in the US as well. Hundreds of localized
programs and projects grew out of the dispersal of the Occupy movement, many of which continue
and grow. The dispersal of the movement was akin to the broadcast of seeds over fields.
Unlike the situation in Europe, however, there appears to be little effort among the dispersed
elements of the movement in the United States to achieve political power. The stronger effort
here is to create a viable alternative to the current corrupt and destructive
political/economic system, to step outside it and grow something else again.
That's more in tune with the anarchist roots of the movement than trying to obtain control of
government.
nobody
The secret truth is that Occupy Wall Street was supposed to work.
And this is how it was supposed to work:
"A worldwide shift in revolutionary tactics is underway right now that
bodes well for the future… The beauty of this new formula, and what makes
this novel tactic exciting, is its pragmatic simplicity: we talk to each
other in various physical gatherings and virtual people's assemblies … we
zero in on what our one demand will be, a demand that awakens the
imagination and, if achieved, would propel us toward the radical democracy
of the future … and then we go out and seize a square of singular symbolic
significance and put our asses on the line to make it happen.
"The time has come to deploy this emerging stratagem against the greatest
corrupter of our democracy: Wall Street, the financial Gomorrah of America.
"On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower
Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall
Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat one
simple demand in a plurality of voices.
"Tahrir succeeded in large part because the people of Egypt made a
straightforward ultimatum – that Mubarak must go – over and over again
until they won. Following this model, what is our equally uncomplicated
demand?… something all Americans, right and left, yearn for and
can stand behind."
And what happened to that idea? David Graeber and his friends derailed
it:
"Two days later, at the Outreach meeting we were brainstorming what to
put on our first flyer. Adbusters' idea had been that we focus on "one key
demand." [sic] This was a brilliant idea from a marketing
perspective, but from an organizing perspective, it made no sense at all. We
put that one aside almost immediately. There were much more fundamental
questions to be hashed out. Like: who were we? Who did want to appeal to?
Who did we represent?"
Yotam Marom: "But the truth is, it wasn't the state…"
**
L'Échaudée: "Would you say that State repression (especially the unified and
coordinated raids against the camps) was the main cause of Occupy's decline?"
Yes. And the violent attack on the encampments didn't just disperse the
people. Cops destroyed food and food service supplies, shelter, electronic
equipment, libraries, and medical and first-aid supplies, much of it likely
donated by people not necessarily able to be part of an encampment. For some
campers this was maybe most of what they had or, for the homeless and other
marginalized people who came to the camps, more than they had. If we do
build a movement, if bringing about real change will require people to
strike, or boycott, or occupy vacant land or buildings, this kind of
community support is crucial. We ought not discount (the "authorities"
certainly didn't) the material and psychological impact of this destruction
beyond just the local participants; and we need to find more sustainable,
less vulnerable ways of providing community support.
different clue, December 28, 2015 at 2:54 pm
Weren't the very first few days of Occupy Wall Street conducted by semi-spontaneous
contemporary young people in part responding to a slogan written and a call issued by Kalle
Lasn of Adbusters Magazine ( "Occupy Wall Street") called-for to happen on a particular day?
This is just sketchy memory to be sure. And it became worth much more than one day's
involvement.
But after the very first few days, I read somewhere that David Graeber and other
older-generation holdover-anarchist-nostalgiasts crashed the movement and infiltrated the
leadership and degraded it into a live-action display of "this is what Anarchism looks like".
If that is part of the problem of what happened, then younger people will have to analyse that
very carefully and if they have another upsurge, they will have to rigidly exclude and reject
any David Graberoid self-actualizing/validation-seeking aging Anarchist Nostalgiasts from any
contact whatsoever from a genuine upsurge-of-the-young movement.
They might also do some careful thinking about what they actually DO want, and WHY they want
it . . . in actionable specificity.
Jim
So what is the lesson from this type of response by the national
security state?
It may be worthwhile to take a more careful look at successful
occupation strikes.
For example, Solidarity in Poland, after 30 years of average
citizen political defeats, managed, through a carefully thought-out
and premeditated assertion of power to occupy the Lenin Shipyard, in
August of 1980, and to also create an interfactory strike committee
which at the beginning consisted of 20 supporting enterprises that
insured lateral lines of communication between the occupying sites
within the entire Baltic coastal region–in order to ultimately
accomplish was was thought of as impossible–the achievement of a
self-governing trade union independent of the party state.
When the strike was initially announced at the Lenin Shipyard
Walesa said the following:
"I declare an occupation strike. I have been given the trust of the
workers. We are occupying the shipyard. We aren't going anywhere until
we're sure we've gotten what we wanted. We're staying. This is an
occupation strike. I'll be the last one to leave."
They had a single strategic goal with some 20 additional demands
backed by a self-created institutional structure (with significant
leverage) that was able to protect its citizens and leadership within
the shipyard from the State during the time of occupation.
Serious politics with extremely high stakes that managed, for a
time, to shift the balance of power, within Poland–and people who
participated in this success talked about how their personal fear, in
the process of this democratic assertion of power, began to dissipate.
likbez
There is a difference between "color revolution" style events which promote
neoliberalism and Occupy style events that oppose it. In case of color revolution style events the participants can rely on all the power of Western
embassies, NGO, intelligence agencies and flow of money and equipment.
Training of leaders would be provided, "revolutionaries for hire" will emerge, etc.
Occupy was against the most powerful state in the world without any substantial external support.
I would distill my history of activism since the 60's by claiming that the new society will grow
within the cracks of the old. I turned from working on "the revolution" a long time ago and now
focus on small, achievable projects that have a potential for lasting and making a difference – a
progressive forum that brings in speakers to a monthly potluck, a progressive film festival that
encourages wide-ranging political discussion, a small think tank consisting of volunteers
researching local issues (tax increment financing, anyone?).
Many of us Professional-Managerial Class (PMC) activists are hampered by having been told
implicitly and explicitly for our entire education that we are the leaders of the world when we
are at best lieutenants of the 1%. For dealing with the rest of the (non-PMC) world, I recommend
the strategy suggested by Lois Mark Stalvey in The Education of a WASP: (Loosely quoting from
memory) Go to meetings run by minorities (or non PMC-types), do not take over the meeting or
offer advice – just be there and help with whatever project they are working on; develop
relationships.
Experience being the minority. Later, when you have become accepted as a member of
the group, only make suggestions and proposals that promote progressive values and build on the
group's already existing values. Always be respectful of the group and its members. This is the
best training for dealing with the world and building connected centers of resistance.
GlobalMisanthrope, December 28, 2015 at 12:48 pm
Sorry everybody, but I'm going to go against the grain here. Putting to one side the
intolerably wise-whimsical tone, I read this piece as hagiography posing as critique.
(It's mortifying to read, especially the struggle as raison d'ętre trope where he's
totally cribbing and doesn't even seem to know it, even though this has been put forth
as recently as this year to much fanfare and criticism by Ta-Nehisi Coates. No, he
thinks he made it up. Yikes!)
Human history is disheveled, spasmodic attempts by those of us who would really rather
get on with our lives to stop the ruthless from making that impossible. This battle
rages and recedes over and over, sometimes for centuries. Just look how the revolutions
of Christianity and capitalism completely reshaped the world and in both cases for good
and for bad. Good grief, son. Read a book.
What's more, if you need Gestalt therapy to evoke fear in your heart, then you either
aren't paying attention or are on the safe side of the fray. The rest of us are daily
made aware that power and powerlessness are not cosmetic and that those are the forces
that shape our lives while we try to live in them as best we can. And yet we find the
courage to smile at our children. As a life-long member of the working class I find the
suggestion that I need to be schooled in the ways of courageous resistance
breathtakingly arrogant. I am not charmed.
The sort of utopianism on display here is not only callow and tiresome (and precisely
why Occupy failed), but also depressing. And if it reflects the level of understanding
held by "activists" of the nature of the crisis we face, I am not heartened.
SRL, December 28, 2015 at 12:59 pm
I agree. Although I supported Occupy, it really had nothing to teach me.
Nick, December 28, 2015 at 3:40 pm
I agree completely. This recap is self-absorbed, naive, and absurd - it reminds me in
many ways of the business plan of a start-up that has no clear route to actually making
money. It's impossible to imagine a movement of people who think like this accomplishing
anything, because they have no model for the outcome they want; what they do have is a
model for how they want themselves to be. Naturally, it turns out after a while that
they all have different models for how they want themselves to be, and then it breaks up
like an unstable bunch of polyamorists who can't stand the constant negotiating anymore.
I'm trying to imagine a leader of the civil rights movement writing a post-mortem like
this, and simply can't.
animalogic, December 28, 2015 at 6:59 pm
Thank you, GlobalMisanthrope, I agree.
Credit where due, the author has reached out for some knowledge of both self and
circumstances, however, that knowledge is symptomatic of someone lost in the the land of
PC idealism.
Frankly, the "bad conscience" is alive and well in these ones. Callow indeed. In the
face of one of the most vicious oligarchies in history, these amateurs fret and fight
over the simple VALIDITY of leadership.
Perhaps, I should not be unfair: after all, how could people cultivated lifelong in
the playroom of PC/Identity politics ever gain the knowledge, let alone the INSTINCTS.
sufficient to fight our oligarchs ?
Indeed, PC/identity politics has been one of the oligarchs greatest assets over the
last few decades:
1. PC etc has usefully SPLIT workers etc into descrete, often contradictory, even
isolated, movements. Divide and conquer politics.
2. PC etc has DISTRACTED effort away from core economic issues onto social/cultural
ones, which have little to no real bearing on their wealth/power. Or does anyone really
believe that the real elites give a SHIT whether (say) gay people marry or not ?
3. PC etc has given them a wonderful stick with which conservatives can beat their
"liberal" enemies. Can we not admit that PC often slips over into the ludicrous ?
4. And, in some ways best of all, PC encourages a fearful self censoring citizenry.
Indeed, the author is a perfect example of a guilt ridden, confused, trivial modern
citizen…really, anything to fear there ? Lol.
Roll on the crypto (?)fascist state….
Ulysses , December 28, 2015 at 10:39 pm
"As a life-long member of the working class I find the suggestion that I need to
be schooled in the ways of courageous resistance breathtakingly arrogant"
Well said!
sid_finster, December 28, 2015 at 4:53 pm
Y'all really really need to study the works of V.I. Lenin.
Whatever else you may say about Lenin, his goals, his means, or his beliefs, he had a
remarkably clear-eyed and unsentimental view of power and how one goes about getting it
and how one goes about holding on to it.
Jim, December 28, 2015 at 6:40 pm
Sid,
From my perspective the Leninist alternative dismisses any interest in a democratically
self-organized society.
In postulating a disciplined revolutionary party to act in the name of society he
completed the final arc in a profoundly undemocratic political trajectory from which the
traditional Left has not yet recovered.
likbez,
"In postulating a disciplined revolutionary party to act in the name of society he
completed the final arc in a profoundly undemocratic political trajectory from which the
traditional Left has not yet recovered."
May be "the traditional Left has not yet recovered", but traditional right fully
adopted Lenin's methods and organization under "color revolution" banner.
sandra, December 29, 2015 at 12:37 am
We came out of the sixties with the idea that those people who pushed political and
anti-war meetings into internal conflict that was intolerable to sit through were often
undercover government agents. Sorry, it has happened and has been documented from the
sixties and into the present. If it is a natural phenomenon that political movements
move though that stage of participants attacking each other to the detriment of
everyone, it is something that calls out for recognition as an historical phenomenon
that is repeated, and that wider perspective is necessary somewhere in your analysis.
The occupy movement may have been short-lived and crushed by the power of the state. But
it was successful in my experience beyond our imaginings.
Your movement redefined everything that happened afterward. It is absolutely accepted
that we live in an oligarchy, that wall street has destroyed the economy, that the banks
are corrupt and the government is in their orbit. Your visceral reactions to the
corruption that surrounds us made a profound mark upon the country's understanding of
itself. Do not underestimate that. The thinking about what to do next had not yet
evolved.
The corrupt capitalists are still in power and still control the major media, but
they have lost the country. Sorry but there is no constituency there anymore to support
their views. They must lie to us and trick us, as those in power have done. They must
skew the elections. The path ahead was not clear to you or to us when your dramatic
movement sprang up. And it is not clear now that we know these truths. We know how far
away the power structure is from our values. And that is where we stand.
Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
"Occupy" failed because it had no goal, and having no goal, it didn't
know how to get there. See:
http://goo.gl/m6qmGn
Here is a quote from the above June 2012 article:
It goes on and on, protest after protest. Anti-racial profiling.
Anti-union busting. Anti-tuition increases. Anti-school closings.
Anti-mortgage fraud. Anti-unsustainable development. Anti-corruption.
Anti-this, anti-that, anti-the other thing.
For reasons unknown, the Occupy movement seems to take a perverse
pride in being leaderless and directionless, preferring to run hither
and yon, protesting whatever strikes their fancy. No focus. No plan.
No idea. Just protest.
The Tea Party has a simple, easily understood focus: Lower taxes.
What is Occupy's simple, easily understood focus?
The business and political leaders, against whom Occupy protests,
have learned one thing: Do nothing. Occupy will protest and then
they will be gone, and we can resume business as usual.
The public grows weary of ineffectual, random, aimless protests,
and Occupy, which began with such great promise, becomes last week's
newspaper. A lost opportunity is a step backward, as people become
discouraged and slide into lethargy.
Somewhere, in board rooms around the world, the 1% is laughing.
washunate, December 29, 2015 at 10:11 am
Do nothing? I'd be curious to hear what you mean on that. It took incredibly
coordinated state action to defuse Occupy, not public weariness.
It's unfortunate Occupy was not able to organize in a way to neutralize such action, but
at the very least, it pulled back the curtain on the police state specifically and the power
of government more generally in a way no one can deny moving forward. That's the spark of hope
from the various events of the last few years. The elites want us to believe they are all
powerful. But it is actually taking them quite a bit of effort to maintain that illusion. In
reality, they are strategically weak and vulnerable. And they know it.
Which is why the Democratic party has had to become so blatantly pro-inequality. Even a
modest opposition to fascism on their part would ruin the efforts of the past few decades.
"... lawmaker Oleh Barna walked over to him with a bunch of red roses and then grabbed him around the waist and groin, lifting him off his feet and dragging him from the rostrum. ..."
&
Fighting broke out in parliament among members of Ukraine's
ruling coalition on Friday after a member of President Petro
Poroshenko's bloc physically picked up Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk
and pulled him from the podium.
Yatseniuk was defending his embattled
government's record when
lawmaker Oleh Barna walked over to him with a bunch of red roses and then
grabbed him around the waist and groin, lifting him off his feet and
dragging him from the rostrum.
Members of Yatseniuk's People Front party waded in, pushing Barna and throwing punches, sparking a brawl in the assembly.
Ukraine's parliament has indefinitely postponed a vote of
no-confidence in the government of Arseniy Yatseniuk, but not without
highlighting the fragility of the country's pro-western coalition.
Citing a flurry of corruption scandals and the lacklustre pace of
reforms, an increasing number of MPs - even within the ruling majority
- have in recent weeks called for the ousting of Mr Yatseniuk via a
no-confidence vote on Friday.
Ukraine's western backers, namely the US and EU, feared
such a move could plunge the war-torn and recession-ravaged country
into a deep political crisis as it continues to battle
Russian-backed separatists in eastern regions - and jeopardise a $40bn
international bailout led by the International Monetary Fund.
Such concerns are believed to have been expressed by US
vice president Joe Biden in closed door discussions during a
visit to Kiev early this week in which he publicly called for
political unity, swifter reforms and deeper anti-corruption efforts.
Instead, the IMF is backing Ukrainian policy, its
kleptocracy and its Right Sector leading the attacks that
recently cut off Crimea's electricity. The only condition on which the
IMF insists is continued austerity. Ukraine's currency, the hryvnia,
has fallen by a third this years, pensions have been slashed (largely
as a result of being inflated away), while corruption continues
unabated.
Despite this the IMF announced its intention to extend new
loans to finance Ukraine's dependency and payoffs to the oligarchs who
are in control of its parliament and justice departments to block any
real cleanup of corruption.
For over half a year there was a semi-public discussion with U.S.
Treasury advisors and Cold Warriors about how to stiff Russia on the
$3 billion owed by Ukraine to Russia's Sovereign Wealth Fund. There
was some talk of declaring this an "odious debt," but it was decided
that this ploy might backfire against U.S. supported dictatorships.
In the end, the IMF simply lent Ukraine the money.
By doing so, it
announced its new policy: "We only enforce debts owed in US dollars to
US allies." This means that what was simmering as a
Cold War against Russia has now turned into a full-blown division of
the world into the Dollar Bloc (with its satellite Euro and other
pro-U.S. currencies) and the BRICS or other countries not in the U.S.
financial and military orbit.
When most people think of CIA sabotage, they think of coups, assassinations,
proxy wars, armed rebel groups, and even false flags - not strategic stupidity and purposeful bureaucratic ineptitude.
However, according to a
declassified document from 1944,
the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), which later became the CIA, used and trained a curious breed of "citizen-saboteurs"
in occupied nations like Norway and France.
The World War II-era document, called Simple Sabotage Field Manual, outlines ways in which operatives can disrupt
and demoralize enemy administrators and police forces. The first section of the document, which can be read in its entirety
here, addresses "Organizations and Conferences" - and how to turn them into a
"dysfunctional mess":
Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions.
Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdotes
and accounts of personal experiences.
When possible, refer all matters to committees, for "further study and consideration." Attempt to make the committee as
large as possible - never less than five.
Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.
Haggle over precise wordings of communications, minutes, resolutions.
Refer back to matters decided upon at the last meeting and attempt to re-open the question of the advisability
of that decision.
Advocate "caution." Be "reasonable" and urge your fellow-conferees to be "reasonable" and avoid haste which might result
in embarrassments or difficulties later on.
On its
official webpage, the CIA boasts about finding innovative ways to bring about sabotage, calling their tactics for destabilization
"surprisingly relevant." While they admit that some of the ideas may seem a bit outdated, they claim that "Together
they are a reminder of how easily productivity and order can be undermined."
In a second section targeted at manager-saboteurs, the guide lists the following tactical moves:
In making work assignments, always sign out the unimportant jobs first. See that important jobs are assigned to inefficient
workers.
Insist on perfect work in relatively unimportant products; send back for refinishing those which have the least flaw.
To lower morale and with it, production, be pleasant to inefficient workers; give them undeserved promotions.
Hold conferences when there is more critical work to be done.
Multiply the procedures and clearances involved in issuing instructions, paychecks, and so on. See that three people have
to approve everything where one would do.
Finally, the guide presents protocol for how saboteur-employees can disrupt enemy operations, too:
Work slowly.
Contrive as many interruptions to your work as you can.
Do your work poorly and blame it on bad tools, machinery, or equipment. Complain that these things are preventing
you from doing your job right.
Never pass on your skill and experience to a new or less skillful worker.
The CIA is proud of its Kafkaesque field manual and evidently still views it as an unorthodox but effective form of destabilizing
enemy operations around the world. Of course, so too might an anarchist or revolutionary look at such tactics and view them
in the context of disrupting certain domestic power structures, many of which are already built like a bureaucratic house of cards.
It seems if any country should refrain from showcasing how easy it is to disrupt inefficient federal agencies, however,
it would be the United States.
"... "A lot of what we do was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA" Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment
for Democracy. Although it promotes itself as a "non-governmental organization", NED receives at least 90% of its funding from the US
Congress, earmarked to USAID. ..."
"... Around that time, Soros Foundation 'appeared' in our country and started usual advertising and promises how they will give
money to 'promising' projects made by young people. Of course, we had an amazing thing (it was really hard to make a printed computer
magazine while having civil war and sanctions, heh) and were certain that we would easily qualify for grant. We got rejected. A guy
printing black and white A4 pamphlet saying shit about government got the money. ..."
"A lot of what we do was done 25 years ago covertly by the CIA" Alan Weinstein, one of the founders of the National Endowment
for Democracy. Although it promotes itself as a "non-governmental organization", NED receives at least 90% of its funding from
the US Congress, earmarked to USAID.
JRobby
Maybe the USSA will do the same with "The Council On Foriegn Relations"??
What would we call it when a controlling faction of the USSA Government outlawed itself and declared itself a threat to national
security and Constitutional order?
That's an organization that needs to go. I know some of its membership in NYC. . . It's not evil, per se, but it places self-enrichment
above ethics. That, and since they all have fancy degress and like to pass their resumes around the table, they naturally believe
they know better than the little people what's best for the little peons.
nmewn
"In a statement released on Monday, prosecutors said the activities of the Open Society Institute and the Open Society Institute
Assistance Foundation were a threat to the foundations of Russia's Constitutional order and national security. They added that
the Justice Ministry would be duly informed about these conclusions and would add the two groups to Russia's list of undesirable
foreign organizations."
Yet here, somehow, he is still a major donor to the National Socialist Democrat Party and BlackLiesMatter.
The world, as I once knew it, has been completely turned upside down...lol.
#SafePlace!
/////
Now wut little trolls...how could that possibly offend you? I mean outside of me being absolutely correct about this worthless
POS all these years ;-)
conscious being
I'm suprised it took this long.
Quinvarius
Looks like buying Russian politicians is not so easy. The West however is is craven and corrupt. This is huge set back for
Obama's transvestite, looter, gay, racist agenda of destroying civilization.
blentus
So, there I was, 18 years old, and living in a shitty civil war torn country. Not giving a fuck about anything, me and few
of my friends managed to print a computer magazine and keep it going for a while. It was impossible to make money with it, and
we never did it for the money anyway. It was a good 'distraction' from everything around us, and it also helped other curious
kids. This was before Internet became popular/accessible, so good information was not so easy to obtain.
Around that time, Soros Foundation 'appeared' in our country and started usual advertising and promises how they will give
money to 'promising' projects made by young people. Of course, we had an amazing thing (it was really hard to make a printed computer
magazine while having civil war and sanctions, heh) and were certain that we would easily qualify for grant.
We got rejected. A guy printing black and white A4 pamphlet saying shit about government got the money.
I was lucky enough to learn early how these pieces of shit work.
Every time I hear phrase 'NGO' my brain simply translates it to 'cunts'. Can't help it.
smacker
Something tells me that some very smart people in Moscow have been carefully studying who is creating all this global unrest.
Russia's actions to kick out "Soros Open Society" and the "US National Endowment for Democracy" - neither of which have anything
to do with what their names suggest - is to prevent Russia becoming another victim.
"... Imagine a U.S. presidential candidate who met with the Russian government and repeatedly accused them of being too soft on
President Obama. A candidate who told Russias foreign minister of the need to set limits on the White Houses misbehavior, and that the
Russians silence on the abusive mistreatment [Russia] suffered at the hands of the Obama administration had encouraged more of the same.
..."
"... Mauricio Macri, a right-wing businessman from one of the countrys richest families, is running for president in elections this
Sunday. According to leaked documents from the U.S. Embassy, published by WikiLeaks, this is the conversation he had with the U.S. ambassador
and the U.S. State Department official in charge of Latin America. He was very concerned that Washington was too soft on Argentina and
was encouraging abusive treatment of the U.S. at the hands of the Argentine government. ..."
"... From 2003-2015, according to the IMF, the real (inflation-adjusted) Argentine economy grew by about 78 percent. (There is some
dispute over this number, but not enough to change the overall picture.) This is quite a large increase in living standards, one of
the biggest in the Americas. Unemployment fell from more than 17.2 percent to 6.9 percent (IMF). The government created the largest
conditional cash transfer program in the Americas for the poor. From 2003 to the second half of 2013 (the latest independent statistics
available), poverty fell by about 70 percent and extreme poverty by 80 percent. (These numbers are based on independent estimates of
inflation.) ..."
"... In the last four years, growth has slowed, inflation has been higher, and a black market has developed for the dollar. Some
of this has been due to a number of unfavorable external shocks: the regional economy will have negative growth this year (Argentinas
will be slightly positive); ..."
Warning Signs on the Road to "Change" in Argentina
By Mark Weisbrot
Imagine a U.S. presidential candidate who met with the Russian government and repeatedly accused them of being "too soft"
on President Obama. A candidate who told Russia's foreign minister of the "need to set limits" on the White House's "misbehavior,"
and that the Russians' "silence" on the "abusive mistreatment [Russia] suffered" at the hands of the Obama administration "had encouraged
more of the same."
Would Americans trust such a candidate? OK, that's a rhetorical question. But in Argentina, it's real.
Mauricio Macri, a right-wing businessman from one of the country's richest families, is running for president in elections
this Sunday. According to leaked documents from the U.S. Embassy, published by WikiLeaks, this is the conversation he had with the
U.S. ambassador and the U.S. State Department official in charge of Latin America. He was very concerned that Washington was "too
soft" on Argentina and was encouraging "abusive treatment" of the U.S. at the hands of the Argentine government.
The analogy is not perfect, since the current Russian government has never played a major role -- or any role, for that matter
-- in wrecking the U.S. economy and creating a Great Depression here. But the U.S. Treasury Department, which was the International
Monetary Fund's decider during Argentina's severe depression of 1998-2002, did indeed exert an enormous influence on the policies
that prolonged and deepened that depression. Argentines are not holding a grudge, but neither would they want the U.S. to again play
a major role in their politics or economic policy.
But there are other reasons to worry about Macri's intentions that hit closer to home. In his conversations with U.S. officials,
in 2009, he referred to the economic policies of the Kirchners -- Néstor Kirchner, who was president from 2003-2007, and his wife
Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, who was elected in 2007 -- as "a failed economic model." He has made similar statements during the
campaign, and although he has often been vague, he has indicated that he wants something very different, and considerably to the
right of current economic policy.
It is worth looking at this much-maligned record of the Kirchners, especially since Daniel Scioli, who is the candidate of Cristina
Fernández de Kirchner and her "Front for Victory" alliance, represents some continuity with "Kirchnerismo." Macri's coalition is
called "Cambiemos," or "Let's Change."
From 2003-2015, according to the IMF, the real (inflation-adjusted) Argentine economy grew by about 78 percent. (There is
some dispute over this number, but not enough to change the overall picture.) This is quite a large increase in living standards,
one of the biggest in the Americas. Unemployment fell from more than 17.2 percent to 6.9 percent (IMF). The government created the
largest conditional cash transfer program in the Americas for the poor. From 2003 to the second half of 2013 (the latest independent
statistics available), poverty fell by about 70 percent and extreme poverty by 80 percent. (These numbers are based on independent
estimates of inflation.)
But these numbers do not describe the full magnitude of the achievement. As I describe in my book, "Failed: What the 'Experts'
Got Wrong About the Global Economy" (Oxford University Press, 2015), Néstor Kirchner took office as the economy was beginning to
recover from a serious depression, and it took great courage and tenacity to stand up to the IMF and its allies, negotiate a sustainable
level of foreign debt (which involved sticking to a large default), and implement a set of macroeconomic policies that would allow
for this remarkable recovery. It was analogous to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's leadership during the U.S. Great Depression,
and like Roosevelt, Kirchner had the majority of the economics profession against him -- as well as the media. Cristina Fernández
de Kirchner also had to fight a number of battles to continue Argentina's economic progress.
In the last four years, growth has slowed, inflation has been higher, and a black market has developed for the dollar. Some
of this has been due to a number of unfavorable external shocks: the regional economy will have negative growth this year (Argentina's
will be slightly positive); Argentina's biggest trading partner, Brazil, is in recession and has seen its currency plummet;
and in 2014 a New York judge of questionable competence made a political decision to block Argentina from making debt payments to
most of its creditors. So, despite the overall track record of 12 years of Kirchnerismo delivering a large increase in living standards
and employment, and successful poverty reduction, there are significant problems that need to be fixed.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan ran for president of the United States in the midst of a recession and inflation passing 13 percent. He,
too, promised change and he delivered it -- and ushered in an era of sharply increased inequality and other social, political, and
economic maladies from which America is still suffering. Just look at his proud progeny in the Republican presidential debates.
Macri probably does not have Reagan's talent as an actor and communicator to radically transform Argentina and reverse most of
the gains of the last 13 years. But it seems likely from the interests that he represents, and his political orientation, that Argentina's
poor and working people will bear the brunt of any economic adjustment. And there is a serious risk that by following right-wing
"fixes" for the economy, he could launch a cycle of self-defeating austerity and recession of the kind that we have seen in Greece
and the eurozone.
The Kirchners also reversed the impunity of military officers responsible for mass murder and torture during the dictatorship,
and hundreds have been tried and convicted for their crimes. Macri has dismissed these unprecedented human rights achievements as
mere political showmanship. His party also voted against marriage equality, which was passed anyway, making Argentina the first country
in Latin America to legalize same-sex marriage.
"Let's Change" is an appealing slogan, but the question is "change to what?"
Lambert here: AKP stands for Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi in Turkish, which translates to Justice
and Freedom Party. I admit that I don't know much about
Turkey's domestic politics - which is why we're very glad to have this very timely post -
but Erdogan's newly built palace (images
here) seems like a fine operational definition of "wretched excess"; Erdogan's making that
Ukrainian dude
with the private zoo in his palace, Viktor Yanukovych, look like a mendicant monk.
The worst terrorist attack in the history of the Republic of Turkey took place on October 10,
2015 in Ankara. The Ankara massacre. Two suicide bombers killed 102 of the participants in a
Peace and Democracy rally and hundreds were wounded.
Why did this happen?
To give some answers, let us go back to 2002.
Turkey's ruling Sunni Islamist party, the Justice and Development Party (AKP), took power in
2002. From 2002 until 2015, it had won four general elections in a row and secured enough seats
in the national assembly to form a single party government in the first three.
Although the AKP won about 50% of the votes in the third of these elections that happened in
2011, it has been in decline since then. And, in the last general election that took place on
June 7, 2015, it failed to secure enough seats to form the government on its own. However, the
AKP is still the ruling party, at least practically, because it is the only party in the caretaker
government until the coming "repeat" election on November 1. The other parties either refused
to join the interim government or left it after a while.
A milestone between the 2011 and 2015 general elections was the presidential election of August
10, 2014. Despite the ongoing decline of the AKP, its leader and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan
won 51.8% of the vote in the first round to become the first elected Turkish President. Ekmeleddin
İhsanoğlu, the joint candidate for the opposition Republican People's Party (CHP) and Nationalist
Action Party (MHP) received 38.4% whereas Selahattin Demirtaş, the candidate of the mainly Kurdish
nationalist People's Democracy Party (HDP), received 9.8%.
However, this election was of very low turnout by Turkish standards, essentially because İhsanoğlu
is a known Islamist also. When a devotedly secularist section of the CHP voters resented İhsanoğlu
and boycotted the election, the participation turned out to be a measly 74%. This was the lowest
turnout since the coup d'état of 1980; even lower than the 79% turnout of the 2002 election that
took place after a major economic collapse in 2001.
But the main event of this presidential election was the 9.8% vote the HDP candidate Demirtaş
received. The 10% national threshold imposed by the 1980 military junta has been in place since
the 1983 general election and no Kurdish party had ever been able to cross that threshold until
June 7, 2015.
Indeed, in the 2002 election, that is, when the AKP took power, only three parties (AKP, CHP
and MHP) managed to cross the threshold. With the 2007 election, a fourth party started to appear
in the national assembly because the Kurdish parties and their leftist allies managed to bypass
the threshold through candidates entering the elections as independents and then reassembling
a party in the national assembly. However, despite that they usually secured between 5% and 7%,
this trick always led to their underrepresentation in the assembly, because a big chunk of the
votes on the independents were wasted.
When Demirtaş received 9.8%, indicating a high probability of crossing the 10% threshold, the
HDP entered the 2015 general election as a party rather than as a collection of independent candidates.
The significance of this was that had they crossed the threshold, they would have had a much larger
representation in the national assembly.
And they crossed the threshold in the June 7 general election, receiving an unexpected 13%.
When the HDP got 80 representatives and pushed the AKP below 276 by 18 in a 550 member national
assembly, the AKP rule was over, at least legally.
This was a defining moment in the history of the Republic of Turkey.
Coming out of the ashes of the Ottoman Empire in 1923, the Republic of Turkey inherited the
Empire's diverse identities and added a new one.
A major identity divide in the Empire had been along the religious lines: Muslim versus non-Muslim.
However, there has been a conscious cleansing of the country from non-Muslims since the early
20th century and, as a result, this divide is currently about 99% to 1%, although it
was more like 70% to 30% in the beginning.
The new identity the Republic added was that of the secular. So the new and more important
religious divide in the country is the pious versus secular divide created by the founders of
the Republic (although the origins of this goes way back). Of course, the founders were secularists,
and their interest was to engineer a secular, capitalist nation-state along the lines of most
advanced capitalist states of the West. Named after their charismatic leader, and the first president
of the Republic, Mustafa Kemal, their ideology is called Kemalism.
Interestingly, they defined the nation of this nation-state – that is, the Turkish nation –
based on religious identities. Who we call Turkish today – if by that we mean the citizens of
the Republic of Turkey – are essentially the grandchildren of the (mostly Sunni) Muslim subjects
of the Ottoman Empire, many of whom sought refuge in current-day Turkey from other parts of the
Empire to avoid religious persecution. They can be from any of the many ethnicities in the former
Empire as long as their grandparents were or became (preferably Sunni) Muslims.
But, the mostly Sunni Kurds (themselves a collection of many ethnicities) have never bought
this definition. And, despite that Sunni Islam has been the "unofficial" religion of this "secular"
Republic from the beginning, the Alevites – some of whom are Kurdish – remained, although their
number decreased some as percentage.
To sum up, the most notable current identity divides include – but are not limited to – Turkish
versus Kurdish, Sunni versus Alevite and pious versus secular.
Lastly, there is the military, out of which most founders of the Republic including Mustafa
Kemal came. Until recently, the military had been viewed by many as guardian of the secular Republic.
It took power three times: in 1960, 1971 and 1980, although there had been a number of other coup
attempts also. Seen as an arch-rival, the military had been "attacked" by the AKP government as
of 2010 in the courts captured by the Islamists. Many of its high ranking officers got jailed
for a variety of (as recently confessed by President Erdogan, mostly made-up) reasons and the
institution has been weakened. Despite this, however, whether the military is now fully under
the AKP control is debatable for a variety of reasons including that there still are many Kemalists
in its ranks.
Although the conflict between Turks and Kurds goes way before the start of the Republic, the
most recent armed conflict started in 1984. Since then, the Turkish military and Kurdistan Workers'
Party (PKK) have been fighting on and off (most intensely in the early 1990s) and the total death
toll is at the order of tens of thousands. In a nutshell, this is the so-called "Kurdish question"
in Turkey
The PKK (founded in 1978) is an armed organization considered by many including the Turkish
Government to be a terrorist organization. The HDP (founded in 2013), on the other hand, defines
itself as a leftist and anti-nationalist party. Further, there are many non-Kurds in the party.
However, many consider the HDP as the political wing of the PKK and whether this perception is
reality or not is hotly debated in the country.
Enter President Erdoğan and Prime Minister Davutoğlu.
A darling of the West until about three years ago, Erdoğan and the AKP have evidently been
running a programme whose objectives were not so obvious to some. That this had been the case
can easily be deduced from the recent confessions of many nationally prominent figures – mostly
liberal intellectuals – who had been ardent supporters of Erdoğan and the AKP until recently.
Over the last year, it has seemed as though not a single day passed without one such figure coming
out and claiming that he or she had been cheated by Erdoğan and/or the AKP.
The existence of the programme became obvious to all shortly after Erdoğan won the presidential
election. This was because Erdoğan's handpicked heir – former Foreign and current Prime Minister
– Ahmet Davutoğlu publicly named it on August 21, 2014: the "restoration programme." According
to Davutoğlu and his aides, the term does not refer to restoring the Ottoman Empire but to repairing
the republic, democracy, foreign policy and a model of the economy that had been "injured" for
the past 92 years.
But, what did happen 92 years ago?
Well, the Ottoman Empire ended and the Republic of Turkey was founded.
Indeed, in 2001, a year before the AKP took power, the then academic Davutoğlu published a
book, "Strategic Depth," that set out the basics of this programme, so why these liberal intellectuals
feel cheated is difficult to understand.
According to the Davutoğlu doctrine, Turkey is one of those countries which are "central powers."
Because of its Ottoman legacy, Turkey is a Middle Eastern, Mediterranean, Balkan, Caucasian, Caspian,
Central Asian, Gulf and Black Sea country. It can exercise influence in all these regions and
thus become a global strategic player. Or so said Davutoğlu in his "Strategic Depth." And his
now badly failed "zero problem policy with neighbours" was about Turkey's capitalising on its
soft power potential culminating from its historic and cultural links with all these regions,
as well as its "democratic institutions" and "thriving market economy"
Given these and that Davutoğlu appeared to be objecting to the Huntingtonian theory of clash
of civilisations, his doctrine had often been labelled as neo-Ottomanism. But this
label was incorrect because Ottomanism was a nineteenth-century liberal political movement
whose objective was to form a civic Ottoman national identity overarching ethnic, linguistic and
religious identities. Any careful reading of Davutoğlu's book could have revealed that his doctrine
had nothing to do with any form of Ottomanism. Furthermore, his objection to Huntington's theory
was not to that there was a clash of civilisations. He agreed with Huntington there. Where he
differed was that Islam was the better civilisation. Put differently, his doctrine was not neo-Ottomanism
but pan-Islamism.
It now appears clear even to many of his unquestioning former supporters as well as Western
powers such as the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) that not only Davutoğlu but
also Erdoğan agreed with Huntington's clash of civilizations thesis. Except that Erdoğan also
believed in superiority of the Islamic civilization. It now appears clear to them also that becoming
the leader of the Muslim world and (there are even rumours that) caliph of the Sunni Muslims were
two of Erdoğan's three major fantasies.
Of course, these two fantasies have always been beyond Erdoğan's reach, if only for the simple
reason that they are based on a third fantasy that Davutoğlu invented: the unifying character
of the Ottoman Empire. Ask any Arab or Balkan nation who had lived under the Ottoman rule to see
how they feel about the Empire. And there are strong rivals such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran
and even ISIL (the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, also known as ISIS), and Syria, Iraq
and Libya are in shambles, so forth. No doubt, Davutoğlu's "zero problem policy with neighbours"
eventually deformed into his current foreign policy of "honourable loneliness."
Erdoğan's third major fantasy was becoming the sultan of Turkey. This was a potentially realizable
fantasy because, after his presidency, all he needed was to get the constitution changed to introduce
a presidential system which would decorate him with executive powers. Had this happened, he could
have become the effective sultan to continue the restoration process through which Turkey would
become some sort of repressive Islamic state (which would be even more repressive than Turkey
is currently).
For this, the AKP had to win at least 330 deputies in the national assembly.
And Erdoğan had a fear. Had the AKP failed to form a single party government, several legal
cases could have been filed against him at the Supreme Council of Judges for a host of reasons
with severe criminal consequences.
To avoid this, the AKP had to win at least 276 deputies in the national assembly.
Now, I can offer some answers to the first question I asked, that is, why the Ankara massacre
happened. And I will do that in the next part, after the November 1 election.
JTMcPhee, November 1, 2015 at 7:41 am
Sounds like "Neo-Ottomanism" is of the same genera as "Neo-Liberalism."
And given how individual motivations that, for people who actually have the skills and
talents and incentives to be actual Power Players in the world, all resolve to "way more
for me, and as near as possible nothing for the rest of you," no surprise that the "neo"
kleptocratic agenda is everywhere in the ascendant.
Erdoğan's palace, Obama's Presidential Library and Theme Park, the well documented excesses
and thieveries and frauds of the ruling class pretty much everywhere - all of a piece. And
where's the organizing principle and flag, for the 99% to form up and organize around? Our
Betters are all reading out of the same implacable insatiable playbook– where's the book
for people who just seek decency, comity, and a "modest competence" for themselves and
their children, who diligently and intelligently in the Hope of Change, minimize their
"footprints" (so there's more slack for the Few to consume and use up)?
PlutoniumKun, November 1, 2015 at 12:23 pm
There has been a huge boom in Turkey under Erdogan, although its a moot point as to how
much he can take credit for it – certainly Turkey was a major beneficiary of QE, etc. My
understanding is that he and his party was a major facilitator for the construction
industry, including most notoriously of all, pretty much handing over one of the last
public parks in Istanbul to a shopping mall developer.
PlutoniumKun, November 1, 2015 at 1:15 pm
Possibly. But Erdogans political base is rural and small town regular folks – the type
of people who keep their cards close to their chests. Its entirely possible that this was a
classic case of voters being unwilling to admit to pollsters who they will vote for. And
also a case that people may reluctantly feel they should vote for a corrupt strongman over
the alternative of possible chaos. Reminds me a bit of the UK election where pollsters and
commentators got it very badly wrong.
Its interesting though that nobody seems to be alleging fraud (so far) – seems that Turkey
has a pretty robust voting system.
susan the other, November 1, 2015 at 1:48 pm
It is clear that politix in Turkey is chaos. God only knows what the freedom and justice
freaks are looking to gain. Erdogan is on the outs with everyone; NATO, Russia, the Saudis,
the USA and etc. That can only mean one thing: there is no consensus and therefore there is
no government. And Erdogan is just vamping around on the stage until he wears out his
fishnets and high heels.
Sabri Oncu -> Synoia, November 2, 2015 at 5:55 am
Turkey and Saudi Arabia are not rivals for the new Caliphate. They are rivals for
regional hegemony. So, I was combining two things together. Given that Saudi Arabia, Egypt
and Iran are rivals of Turkey, Turkey cannot be the leader of the Muslim world. At least
these three will not accept Turkey's leadership. As for the Caliphate ISIL is the
competitor. But, more importantly, Arabs will not accept a Turkish as their caliph. That
was what I had in mind. But, the article is already quite long even as it is so I was
economizing, I guess.
Synoia, November 1, 2015 at 4:23 pm
It is not clear that Erdogan and the Saudi's are rivals for the new Caliphate.
The Saudi's will aim for the religious capital (Mecca) and the Turks the Legislative
Capital as under the Ottomans, and the Rules will exchange family member in marriage as is
common among royalty.
Ergogan's planace looks like it if fit for a Caliph.
Turkish Observer,
When I read articles online about this recent election people keep
referring to Erdogan as having "savvy" or making some sort of "gambit".
Perhaps you could say this, if it was in any way a fair competition.
But nothing about this election was fair.
Only days before the election, the government appointed trustees to 22
different companies that were part of a holding company that wasn't so
keen on the government. This included two television stations and two
newspapers. Immediately after seizing control of them, in clear violation
of the constitution of Turkey which prohibits the seizing of media
regardless of whether or not it helped enable a crime, they fired all
employees who had refused loyalty to the new trustees. The next editions
of these newspapers did a 180 coming out in full support of AKP and the
ruling party.
The amount of media time spent on covering AKP rallies/political
events was far greater in all state media than that given to the other
three main parties. I believe in previous elections, and most probably
this one as well, the ratio is something like 90% of all campaign airtime
was given to their party.
In addition, President Erdogan repeatedly abused his power as
president. This position is one that is supposed to be unpartisan and
ceremonial, but instead he has turned every public appearance into an
occasion to gain support for the AKP.
The ruling government has continued to systematically dismantle
bastions of opposition: whether they be found in industrial, financial or
media sectors. They have attacked academics, fomented assaults of media
channels and stations by armed groups, and refused to provide adequate
protection for opposition rallies and events.
They continue to spread lies, disinformation and enflame racial hatred
on pro-government media outlets. Several weeks ago, the result of this
were three or four nights of militant-nationalist rallies across
different areas of Turkey including Istanbul. One of the chilling calls
heard by myself and others was "we don't want war, we want genocide"
while they occasionally destroyed a kurdish-looking business or
stabbed/beat a kurdish-looking person to death. These were government
sanctioned outbursts. If the opposition tried to rally for peace, within
30min plain clothes police officers and riot police would stop them. But
rallies for genocide? Completely acceptable in Erdogan's Turkey – you
could even see some of the security forces smiling.
What comes next will be more of the same, but I can only imagine what
will happen when the economy here starts to crumble…
I expect all or some of the following to happen in the next year
politically:
- further attacks on the HDP, perhaps pushing them below 10% and using
this as an opportunity to get to the 330 seat level needed to change the
constitution
- the withering away of the militant nationalist MHP, as supporters
and politicians within this party have fewer differences with the
policies and positions of the AKP. Perhaps a split, with half of the
members crossing the aisle to the AKP.
- attacks on media interests/financial interests of the CHP, so that
any presidential system becomes a two party one, where one party always
wins (guess which). (you can expect some problems to arise with IS Bank,
if they want this outcome)
Financially:
- continued fall in visitor/tourist numbers
- further contraction of industrial production as the sanctity or
property rights a revealed to be a farce
- a complete collapse of the construction sector, if and only if the
FED starts to hike rates
- lira reaching 4 to the dollar by May
Socially:
- exodus of anyone who can get out of Turkey, a significant brain
drain
- greater conservatism within society, the imposition of more
moral/social controls
- a dramatic increase in the breadth and width of the conflict between
the Turkish military and PKK. (if and only if the HDP is dismantled as a
political outlet)
Yes another case of a global trend of resurgence of nationalism in action... Turkey now pretend
for the role of of the leader of Islamic world and that paradoxically it is nationalism that stimulates
shift toward more militant Islamism.
Notable quotes:
"... The only ones who had anything to gain from the bombings were AKP. That's undeniable. But,
its not proof, sadly. ..."
"... The 'play caliphate jibe' was a reference to his support for ISIS and to the growing importance
of religious custom in Turkey and its influence everywhere, including on law. ..."
"... BREAKING NEWS: Tonight scenes of joy in Raqqa, Mosul and Palmira...Daesh men are in a good
mood...anyone knows the reason? ..."
"... Superstition prevails in some islamic and Christian states nowadays. ..."
"... That would explain why so many AK trolls have mobilised under the comments section of every
major news agency. But doesn't quite explain where the AKP got its extra 1 million votes in Istanbul
where the CHP took over 280k of the 268k votes lost by the HDP and MHP. ..."
"... Turkey has strong hand, many, many refugees eager to get to Europe. At the same time, it is
a country which is not without its own internal problems, not least the old contradiction between Islam
and modernization. One thing remains certain, Turkey is the key state in the Near East and will be courted
more than ever by the USA and EU. ..."
"... The problem isn't those celebrating, it's the way the AKP party has sold itself as the party
that God wants people to vote for. ..."
"... Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi sends Erdogan his congratulations from Raqqa ..."
"... Interesting how a country that couldn't count how many were killed in the Ankara suicide attack
for 3 days counted 54million votes in 3 hours. ..."
"... I live in Turkey and I can tell you that here is a culture of submission and complacency about
any kind of real change-they will vote out of fear, vote out of intentional ignorance of the reality
of things. At least half the nation are happy to live in a cloud of lies and delusion, sadly ..."
"... However it seems like this taking a lot of money from Saudi and somehow Turkish nationalist
does not see it as a problems . ..."
"... This is like when Netanyahu's party won the Israeli election that followed after they incited
Rabin's murder. Warmonger violence is rewarded by the voters. Unless Erdogan shows unexpected moderation,
this is a grave development. ..."
"... I don't think you understand the point I am making, I never said his goal is peace with the
Kurds. His goal was to win back the votes he lost in June and he did that. He got the nationalist vote
back by bombing the crap out of the PKK and threatening the PYD in Syria. ..."
"... Where in all this do you get the idea that I am an AKP supporter. I am criticizing the man
saying he capitalized on the deaths of soldiers to win back the important nationalist vote. Him winning
in this fashion is a terrible thing, he will change the constitution and plant himself on his throne.
Erdogan now has more power over Turkey than Ataturk ever did. HE is basically Putin with a moustache.
..."
"... Erdogan sweeps to power on the back of security and safety fears. His claim of intervention
against Daesh (a shame) and the PKK (real); coupled with his silencing of the media critics (real);
made a tremendous difference. Expect Daesh to have the welcome mat out for the black market deals -
trucks and weapons and supplies for oil and concentration on the PKK and YPK. ..."
"... Turkey, whether they know it or not, voted for a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship and ethnic
war. The crumbling economic performance and the religious agenda parallel the path of Morsi in Egypt
... but here Erdogan has already neutered any threat from the military with all the treason trials.
..."
"... The war against the PKK was obviously a calculated risk. Voters usually rally behind the status
quo in troubled times. The terror attacks reinforced this message. ..."
"... Yes, yet another disaster. The recent farcical goings on in Portugal, the swing to the right
in Poland and Denmark and a seemingly ever increasing necessity to deal with despots and dictators.
..."
"... That is cos Erdogan controls the pools in Turkey just as the Tories controlled the polls in
Britain. To get the right-wing vote out they have the polls announcing that the election is in doubt.
Modern Capitalism doesn't just own the media. It owns the polls too. ..."
"... Because left is so attracted to internationalist and multi cultural garbage that lost its appeal
to average people . Left used to stand for workers and better working conditions ,but now stands for
pure weirdness! ..."
"... If there has been no ballot rigging, then the Turks are no different from the Americans who
voted for Bush the second time or the British who voted Cameron a second time. People will vote for
oligarchs and authoritarians when they are fearful or full of hate. ..."
"... I am not so sure about turkey. A country that embrace Kemal attaturk and consider him as national
hero but goes against his Reforms. Attaturk changed the Arabic alphabet to Latin and closed many masques
to undermine Arabic influence there but turkey now is infested with Isis and Arabic culture. I simply
do not get it. ..."
"... This result is a disaster for the EU. Erdogan has Merkel and her acolytes across Europe over
a barrel, and will drive a hard bargain for agreeing to help stem the migrant/refugee flood. ..."
"... America has gone along with the strategy of forming ISIS to overthrow Assad, from the very
beginning. The goal was to have these mostly criminals do the dying and when they achieve overthrowing
Assad, send an army to clean them out and become heroes. But reality has a way of working itself out,
then ISIS got out of hand. ..."
"... Indeed. As an ardent, self-enriching neoliberal, Erdogan's hardly a threat to the West. And
it probably suits the West's strategic interests better for Turkey to remain a mild Islamist democracy
than for it to return to Kemalism. ..."
"... Needless to say the socialist regime of the 50s in Iran taken out by Britain and the US of
the time for oil reasons was a much better vehicle for metropolitan aspirations than the shah's conservative
and authoritarian regime, because the whole country, including the rural poor outside Tehran had much
more of a stake in in it. A tragedy indeed. ..."
"... The west, come on, who are you exactly talking about? The west supports Saudi tyranny and their
jihadi underlings, Erdogan is doing the west's bidding in Syria, and played along in Libya. ..."
"... EU supported jihadis to destroy Libya and Syria, I hope you can handle a few chanting God is
great. ..."
"... Erdogan: BFF of ISIS, Nemesis of Kurds. Yep, America's ally. Feckin' perfect. Business as usual.
..."
"... Geopolitically, Turkey is an ally and partner in NATO. Turkey is a training ground and safe
zone for moderate jihadis. Turkey hates Syria and agrees with Obama that Assad must go . The Guardian
agrees with all these positions. Ergo the victory is legitimate . Just ask Portugal ..."
"... There will soon be comments describing AK party supporters as poor, uneducated, religious nutters
from enlightened Europeans. With everything going in Turkey, Erdogan is popular because out of all the
candidates he is the one the Turks think will offer economic prosperity. I think that is what matters
the most to majority of voters I guess. ..."
"... Nationalism is reaction itself. It doesn't need PKK or whatever. Was Lukashenko observing these
elections? Balls to them ..."
"... Erdogan was a polarising figure in Turkish politics he won't lose heavily (in fact he actually
won more votes through his cynical act of social imperialism) because the political opposition to him
is too incompetent and cliquey (ie non are interested in broadening their political support beyond their
base, MHP for instance call Alevites heretics and want a death list of all Kurdish activists, CHP are
uninterested in courting religious Turks or Kurds, HDP is still a nationalist party despite its liberal
pretentions) to beat Erdogan and it seems my predictions have come true. ..."
The institutionalized religion AKP built is a dangerous tool in the hands of those who have
absolute power, or any power, and no real pragmatism, nor any desire to govern all citizens fairly
and equally. If you research human rights records of Turkey, you will find out how much abuse
is perpetrated in the name of religion, in the name of sect, in the name of gender, in the name
of party affiliation.
Having superficial knowledge of these matters and claiming to speak for all Turks, what is
best for Turks is wrong. Voting for a party formed by thieves, that is perpetrating abuses, corruption,
killing its own citizens, and claiming there isn't any alternative is a lame excuse. When there
is no alternative, one creates its choices.
Hesham Abdelhafez -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 16:28
Just like that! where are the democracy of the "civilised" west gone? so all these talks about
democracy and human rights that the western media gave us headache are all crap!
AdemMeral -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 16:25
Erdogan is not Islamist. Erbakan was. Nobody can touch republic in Turkey.
Even a hint of it and Erdogan is history.
In fact Gulen was the most dangerous one and he had good people in the army. But he is history
now.
missythecat -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 16:13
I agree with you that the the opposition in Turkey isn't doing a great job. But this doesn't
justify why one should vote for erdogan. This is really interesting, I always wanted to understand
why people vote for him. Are you really not aware that he and his party members are actually breaking
the law and acting against the constitution by spending public funds for their personal or the
AKP's gain?
Are you really not aware that while people of Turkey suffer from unemployment, poor education
and poverty, he can somehow spend our money on a palace, luxury cars, etc. and his wife can close
a luxury boutique in Brussels to shop privately?
Are you really not aware that his relatives somehow always manage to land on the government's
juicy construction projects? Are you really not aware that everyone who is against him is silenced
by force (e.g. journalists)? Are we really talking about the same country and the same person?
Necati Geniş -> laticsfanfromeurope 1 Nov 2015 16:12
they learned elections from the U.S.A. and U.K. The winners are decided before the elections.
What Turkey did not learn was to have the patience to make the elections to be a product of the
will of the people which would then mean there would be less trouble with the electorate and very
little need to control them with harsh measures since they would have more confidence that their
votes actually counted and they could make a difference at the next election..
when you remove all hope of voting in a change you create more trouble for yourself.
littlewoodenblock -> Necati Geniş 1 Nov 2015 15:45
So prove him wrong, my friend. I would love to see some definitive evidence. But it is not
there. What we have everytime is some AKP jerk atanding up and saying its PKK before the police
have even opened the case to investigate! Davutoglu even came up with the stupid suggestion that
PKK and ISIS were partners in the Ankara bombing!
The only ones who had anything to gain from the bombings were AKP. That's undeniable. But,
its not proof, sadly.
littlewoodenblock -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 15:40
The 'play caliphate jibe' was a reference to his support for ISIS and to the growing importance
of religious custom in Turkey and its influence everywhere, including on law.
Whether sharia law is where Turkey arrives is unlikely, i agree, but the country will certainly
not become more liberal ...
laticsfanfromeurope 1 Nov 2015 15:39
BREAKING NEWS: Tonight scenes of joy in Raqqa, Mosul and Palmira...Daesh men are in a good
mood...anyone knows the reason?
RossNewman -> Gazzy312 1 Nov 2015 15:37
Mein Kampf was also quite popular there not so long ago, where it was a best seller.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/29/turkey.books
As result I don't find this news surprising.
Candide60 1 Nov 2015 15:36
"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide
nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin
Erdogan is a dictator using religion to brainwash masses, a corrupt evil man surrounded by
weak, corrupt, ignorant yes men and women.
missythecat -> AdemMeral 1 Nov 2015 15:16
Democracy? Republic? They've already been crushed by Erdogan. He is a lonely lunatic leaving
in his something thousand room palace. Please don't troll here. On another note, yes, the only
few remaining newspapers which haven't been raided by erdogan yet, do talk about the YSK's dodgy
play with the numbers (Cumhuriyet and Sozcu) go and do some reading.
Hesham Abdelhafez 1 Nov 2015 15:10
shut up hypocrite western! you don't open your fucking mouse after what you did to Egypt and
supporting a bloody military coup and inviting the criminal in Europe!
andresh -> Alfie Silva 1 Nov 2015 15:07
Superstition prevails in some islamic and Christian states nowadays.
Mmmoke 1 Nov 2015 14:58
Taking in more than 4 million refugees and still getting the same party voted in with a majority,
is a testament to the greatness of the Turkish people. Bless them. And Europe, USA who caused
the crisis, complain about a few thousand refugees. Shame.
Gazzy312 1 Nov 2015 14:39
Really disgusted with some of the Guardians coverage always trying to imply that Erdogan will
try to rig. He is popular in Turkey you need to accept that, this is the reason the Millitary
which hate him dare not launch a coup against him.
littlewoodenblock -> Ilker Camci 1 Nov 2015 14:39
Interestingly AKP overtook MHP in the fascist-look-a-like competition. So much so that 4% of
its vote increase this election came directly from MHP!
Ozgen Killi -> Necati Geniş 1 Nov 2015 14:26
That would explain why so many AK trolls have mobilised under the comments section of every
major news agency. But doesn't quite explain where the AKP got its extra 1 million votes in Istanbul
where the CHP took over 280k of the 268k votes lost by the HDP and MHP.
BlueJayWay -> Ilker Camci 1 Nov 2015 14:23
Yeah, the reality of keeping that Islamist clown Erdogan and his fascist goons in power. This
election reeks of fraud. How can the votes have been counted that quickly?
andresh 1 Nov 2015 14:21
Erdogan has allowed new recruits to reach IS through the "porous border". He sent supplies
for IS. He ordered the security forces to look the other way when young Turkish students from
Adiyaman organized the terrorists mass murdres in Sucuk, Ankara and Diyarbakir. At the same time
he ordered killing the Kurds in Diyarbakir and tried to precent the YPG from liberating the Kurdish
Syria from IS. Erdogan is a criminal.
ID9179442 RJSWinchester 1 Nov 2015 14:19
Turkey has strong hand, many, many refugees eager to get to Europe. At the same time, it
is a country which is not without its own internal problems, not least the old contradiction between
Islam and modernization. One thing remains certain, Turkey is the key state in the Near East and
will be courted more than ever by the USA and EU.
littlewoodenblock Peter Conti 1 Nov 2015 14:18
Dont joke, at the beginning of a football match a minutes silence was held for the victims
of the ankara bombings and AKP supporters started chanting "Allah Akbar!"
Sick Fucks
SHA2014 -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 14:06
Just two lines of proof:
1. Turkey has renewed the fight against PKK one of the most effective anti-IS firces in Northern
Syria.
2. Instead of assisting civilians in Kobani when it was under siege by IS, Turkey closed the borders
to any refugees.
3. Where do you think all these foreigners who go to fight for IS from Europe pass through? It
is Turkey of course. There is no apparent attempt to stop this traffic.
There is other evidence also.
YouHaveComment -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 14:05
The problem isn't those celebrating, it's the way the AKP party has sold itself as the
party that God wants people to vote for.
That's bad news for democracy. It's also bad news for the secular space and religious freedom
that allows people of any faith or none to be members of the same community.
GoloManner Trabzonlu 1 Nov 2015 14:04
Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi sends Erdogan his congratulations from Raqqa
Abu Al-Izz Hanoun -> killerontheroad 1 Nov 2015 13:56
By the way ISIS consider Erdogan and his party Kafirs and vow to fight them. ..just in case
you were wondering.
1ClearSense 1 Nov 2015 13:56
Will US now support both Erdoganite Turks and YPG/PKK Kurds while they fight each other?
andresh -> decisivemoment 1 Nov 2015 13:55
Allah Akbar! Stop fascism! It was the turkish security forces that allowed young supporters
of IS from adiyaman to stage the murderes if Sucuk, Ankara and Diyarbakir. Erdogan is a cynical
murderer, inciting violence to remain i power.
thatshowitgoes -> abf310866 1 Nov 2015 13:54
Put it this way. The bank robbers leave from your house, go to rob the bank with guns you have
given them, then come back to your house with the loot - you support the bank robbers. Or perhaps
you think Turkey has no control of its borders, in which case I invite you to swan in without
a visa next time you go on holiday and see how far you get.
Trabzonlu 1 Nov 2015 13:53
As predicted, HDP and PKK have shot themselves in the foot by backing violence instead of peace
and their actions have led to this AKP majority, no one should be surprised by the result. As
you can see, free and fair elections seem reason enough for violence in the Kurdish areas as per
usual, quite how these people dream of governing a Kurdistan is beyond me. Hopefully this government
will finally grow some balls and eliminate these PKK terrorists once and for all - the people
have voted, time to shut this threat down unilaterally and with determination.
Super Tramp 1 Nov 2015 13:53
The good have lost by the hands of fraud. Foxy smile of the triumph of ignorance, brutality
and lies.. Such a dystopia it is; watching my beautiful country helpless while it's evolving to
the 3rd world for the last decade. now this is the end of the way of secularism. me and my bereaved
youthfulness lets have another bottle of wine isnt it a perfect day for the losers?
RJSWinchester 1 Nov 2015 13:52
"Democracy" wrapped in Erdogan's iron fist.
Ozgen Killi 1 Nov 2015 13:52
Interesting how a country that couldn't count how many were killed in the Ankara suicide
attack for 3 days counted 54million votes in 3 hours.
decisivemoment 1 Nov 2015 13:51
It's not necessarily that bad a result. Under the circumstances it's hardly surprising the
party promising law and order would gain seats, but they have not gained enough to amend the constitution
and the HDP has made it past Turkey's ridiculously high threshold and secured their place in parliament.
Growing pains, certainly, but not primitivism. With this somewhat conditional seal of approval
-- authority to govern without having to form a coalition with crazies, but not so much authority
as to silence mainstream opposition and use the constitution to promote authoritarianism -- we'll
have to see what Erdogan does.
I live in Turkey and I can tell you that here is a culture of submission and complacency
about any kind of real change-they will vote out of fear, vote out of intentional ignorance of
the reality of things. At least half the nation are happy to live in a cloud of lies and delusion,
sadly
Afshin Peyman -> SHA2014 1 Nov 2015 13:22
Was it the sultanate was corrupt and backward ?
That is why young Turks and attaturk tried to change the system and replace it with modern
and secular government?
However it seems like this taking a lot of money from Saudi and somehow Turkish nationalist
does not see it as a problems .
ChristineH 1 Nov 2015 13:21
Does anyone know how such a huge and populous country as Turkey counts its votes so quickly?
Only article I could find was about people counting votes by tractor headlights, having voted
at the side of the road, which makes the speed even more surprising.
This is like when Netanyahu's party won the Israeli election that followed after they incited
Rabin's murder. Warmonger violence is rewarded by the voters. Unless Erdogan shows unexpected
moderation, this is a grave development.
Mr_HanMan -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 13:13
I don't think you understand the point I am making, I never said his goal is peace with
the Kurds. His goal was to win back the votes he lost in June and he did that. He got the nationalist
vote back by bombing the crap out of the PKK and threatening the PYD in Syria. After the
Suruc bombing the killing of the two police officers by the PKK wasn't the first time the PKK
killed during the supposed ceasefire. They shot and killed soldiers in Diyarbakir last year and
the government back then did nothing. The only reason they did something now was to get back the
nationalist vote. So it's all one big dirty game and the PKK were in on it, or they are just too
stupid to realise this as their actions harmed the HDP.
Where in all this do you get the idea that I am an AKP supporter. I am criticizing the
man saying he capitalized on the deaths of soldiers to win back the important nationalist vote.
Him winning in this fashion is a terrible thing, he will change the constitution and plant himself
on his throne. Erdogan now has more power over Turkey than Ataturk ever did. HE is basically Putin
with a moustache.
Edmund Allin -> RayMullan 1 Nov 2015 13:08
186,000 ballot boxes. About 750,000 independent (i.e. opposition) observers. 57m voters, of
whom apparently 45mn turned up. 45mn/186,000 = 241 votes per ballot box. Easy enough.
owl905 1 Nov 2015 13:06
Erdogan sweeps to power on the back of security and safety fears. His claim of intervention
against Daesh (a shame) and the PKK (real); coupled with his silencing of the media critics (real);
made a tremendous difference. Expect Daesh to have the welcome mat out for the black market deals
- trucks and weapons and supplies for oil and concentration on the PKK and YPK.
Turkey, whether they know it or not, voted for a Muslim Brotherhood dictatorship and ethnic
war. The crumbling economic performance and the religious agenda parallel the path of Morsi in
Egypt ... but here Erdogan has already neutered any threat from the military with all the treason
trials.
Putin and al-Baghdadi are probably thinking the Cheshire Cat got into their mirror this
morning.
Stechginster -> Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 13:04
Merkel, the architect of one catastrophe, will shortly usher in another, as she promotes
the entry of Turkey into the EU, in return for Erdogan's assistance.
I should turn this into a drinking game… no, she won't. She made some positive noise about
supporting Turkey in the accession process, what was actually on the table were visa waivers for
Turkish travellers visiting the EU and (likely, although unofficially) delaying the publication
of a negative report on Turkish human rights violations.
SHA2014 -> Michael Yeovil 1 Nov 2015 13:02
The war against the PKK was obviously a calculated risk. Voters usually rally behind the
status quo in troubled times. The terror attacks reinforced this message.
ErnaMsw 1 Nov 2015 12:57
At least Turkey won't become a presidential republic. With 96.48% of votes now counted, HDP
stands at 10.47% and is guaranteed to pass the threshold.
ChemicalArif 1 Nov 2015 12:53
Quite hilarious reading the comments from most BTL posters... Simple fact is, the AKP has been
a "popular" government in Turkey for the last decade and even won the majority of votes in the
last election. Did urbane elite seriously think that they were going to be ousted from power by
a fractured, dysfunctional opposition? Beggars belief.
Of course the urbane city dwelling elite can always take to the streets to protest the result,
much like the Egyptians did. Democracy is only palatable when the city dweller's preferred candidate
is elected to power...
Tim Gray 1 Nov 2015 12:52
A very disturbing result, it is difficult to believe the vote or that the ruling party hasn't
had a hand in the unrest across the country since the voters rejected AKP in the last election.
Turkey's government will now use this result as a green light to continue its war against the
Kurds, attack trade unions, women and those opposed to this conservative, nationalist government.
Stechginster -> jharz15 1 Nov 2015 12:50
The Turkish people I personally know would share that opinion, but young Turkish expats and
the young people in the big cities such as Istanbul and Ankara are far more liberal than the average
Turkish voter in the east. I don't think it was necessarily rigged, in uncertain times, many people
vote for stability (the devil you know..) over anything else.
irem demir 1 Nov 2015 12:44
Majority of Turks are not secular, modern or democratic. But there are still so many open minded
people living in Turkey, unlike in other muslim countries. But sadly this didn't really help the
future of the country.
Phil Porter Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 12:42
Yes, yet another disaster. The recent farcical goings on in Portugal, the swing to the
right in Poland and Denmark and a seemingly ever increasing necessity to deal with despots and
dictators.
TonyBlunt Phoenix9061210 1 Nov 2015 12:41
That is cos Erdogan controls the pools in Turkey just as the Tories controlled the polls
in Britain. To get the right-wing vote out they have the polls announcing that the election is
in doubt. Modern Capitalism doesn't just own the media. It owns the polls too.
Afshin Peyman gregmitchell87 1 Nov 2015 12:38
Because left is so attracted to internationalist and multi cultural garbage that lost its
appeal to average people .
Left used to stand for workers and better working conditions ,but now stands for pure weirdness!
Michael Yeovil 1 Nov 2015 12:35
So six months the AKP Government obtained it's worst ever result to it's best . In that six
months, the worst terror attack on the country happened, civil war was resumed with the PKK, inflation
rose to it's worse rate since the AKP came to power, unemployment rose, - but then the AKP obtain
the best ever result it is obtained !
Make of that what you will !!
GordonBrownStain 1 Nov 2015 12:35
The Poles voted for a shower of ignorant pricks and so did us Brits, that's democracy, the
Muslims are no different from us after all
Simon100 1 Nov 2015 12:34
If there has been no ballot rigging, then the Turks are no different from the Americans
who voted for Bush the second time or the British who voted Cameron a second time. People will
vote for oligarchs and authoritarians when they are fearful or full of hate.
Trancedesk -> studious1 1 Nov 2015 12:34
And to think we were entertaining Turkey joining the EU not that long ago.
Erdogan is now in an even stronger position, and will demand entry in return for helping Merkel
deal with the consequences of her idiocy.
Afshin Peyman 1 Nov 2015 12:33
I am not so sure about turkey. A country that embrace Kemal attaturk and consider him as
national hero but goes against his Reforms. Attaturk changed the Arabic alphabet to Latin and
closed many masques to undermine Arabic influence there but turkey now is infested with Isis and
Arabic culture. I simply do not get it.
Trancedesk 1 Nov 2015 12:32
This result is a disaster for the EU. Erdogan has Merkel and her acolytes across Europe
over a barrel, and will drive a hard bargain for agreeing to help stem the migrant/refugee flood.
Merkel, the architect of one catastrophe, will shortly usher in another, as she promotes
the entry of Turkey into the EU, in return for Erdogan's assistance. Western Europe, the cradle
of Western civilisation, is doomed and we should probably leave.
glad2baway 1 Nov 2015 12:30
Well, if that is democracy then we have to sometimes accept that this is bad news. I am surprised
at the result. What does Turkey do now? Have a revolution just because lots of people don't like
the result? As the saying goes, people get the governments they deserve. So something has gone
badly wrong somewhere.
1ClearSense -> TeeJayzed Addy 1 Nov 2015 12:29
America has gone along with the strategy of forming ISIS to overthrow Assad, from the very
beginning. The goal was to have these mostly criminals do the dying and when they achieve overthrowing
Assad, send an army to clean them out and become heroes. But reality has a way of working itself
out, then ISIS got out of hand.
djhurley -> SUNLITE 1 Nov 2015 12:27
Indeed. As an ardent, self-enriching neoliberal, Erdogan's hardly a threat to the West.
And it probably suits the West's strategic interests better for Turkey to remain a mild Islamist
democracy than for it to return to Kemalism.
Mr_HanMan -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 12:26
Lets go back, the bombing in Suruc happened, the HDP and PKK blamed the AKP and then went on
a killing spree of Turkish police officers and soldiers. Then in cities in the south east HDP
members declaring autonomy, trenches being dug in the middle of the streets using machinery owned
by the local government authority (HDP).
No matter which way you look at it the PKK is the reason why the HDP lost a lot of votes. To
add any operation done against the PYD in Syria is a boost for the AKP when it comes to the nationalist
vote.
GreatUncleEuphoria -> GreatUncleEuphoria 1 Nov 2015 12:26
Needless to say the socialist regime of the 50s in Iran taken out by Britain and the US
of the time for oil reasons was a much better vehicle for metropolitan aspirations than the shah's
conservative and authoritarian regime, because the whole country, including the rural poor outside
Tehran had much more of a stake in in it. A tragedy indeed.
1ClearSense -> littlewoodenblock 1 Nov 2015 12:22
The west, come on, who are you exactly talking about? The west supports Saudi tyranny and
their jihadi underlings, Erdogan is doing the west's bidding in Syria, and played along in Libya.
GreatUncleEuphoria -> Paul Easton 1 Nov 2015 12:22
Iran is, broadly. split between a metropolitan urban and ( urbane ) group, and a religious
rural, provincial and suburban group, like Turkey, Egypt and elsewhere. The Islamic revolution
traded the influence of the former for the latter, like the brief rule in Egypt of the MBrotherhood.
riceuten64 birdcv 1 Nov 2015 12:20
He's a gradualist. He will make it more and more difficult, say, to drink alcohol, as he has
already done. He will put pressure on the few remaining independent news outlets. He will further
censor the internet. He will change electoral systems to suit the AKP. He has already made his
wish for an Executive Presidency clear.
1ClearSense -> LittleMsGggrrrrr 1 Nov 2015 12:19
EU supported jihadis to destroy Libya and Syria, I hope you can handle a few chanting God
is great.
TeeJayzed -> Addy 1 Nov 2015 12:18
Erdogan: BFF of ISIS, Nemesis of Kurds. Yep, America's ally. Feckin' perfect. Business
as usual.
DiplomaticImmunity 1 Nov 2015 12:17
Geopolitically, Turkey is an "ally and partner" in NATO. Turkey is a training ground and
"safe zone" for "moderate" jihadis. Turkey hates Syria and agrees with Obama that "Assad must
go". The Guardian agrees with all these positions. Ergo the victory is "legitimate". Just ask
Portugal
littlewoodenblock -> atkurebeach 1 Nov 2015 12:12
Rubbish. AKP reignited the war with Kurds to polarise the nation and it is AKP that locked
cities down for days on end, who is killing kurds with out any legal process whatsoever, it is
allegedly AKP supporters that are threatening on television opposition journalists with violence.
Then when that violence occurs im exactly the way threatened the supporter - a ministerial candidate
- is not even questioned by police, by he took the stage with Davutoglu just 2 days ago.
AKP is allegedly courting mercenaries and thugs to achieve its aims ...
AKP is attacking kurds in northern syria and iraq because they are too strong and they are
closing the gap across the Euphrates and further west - AKP have made it very clear they will
not tolerate that. Why, i wonder. ISIS supply lines allegedly.
And you are still taliking about PKK.
Hilarious
littlewoodenblock -> Paul Easton 1 Nov 2015 12:06
Civil war, terrorism, providing water to Cyprus, making the parliamentary election about him,
the President, silencing fully opposition media, blaming the wests fear of a strong turkey to
explain economic woes ... When you have complete control you can achieve what you want easily.
The Turks are not fools, they are being lied to blatantly and they are scared
Lathan Ismail 1 Nov 2015 12:04
There will soon be comments describing AK party supporters as poor, uneducated, religious
nutters from "enlightened" Europeans. With everything going in Turkey, Erdogan is popular because
out of all the candidates he is the one the Turks think will offer economic prosperity. I think
that is what matters the most to majority of voters I guess.
Down2dirt -> atkurebeach 1 Nov 2015 11:56
Nationalism is reaction itself. It doesn't need PKK or whatever. Was Lukashenko observing
these elections? Balls to them
Newcurrency 1 Nov 2015 11:49
There is no ethnic pressure above Kurds for at least 10 years. You are the ones who turned
our country into a bloodbath -- Killing innocent teachers, newly graduated doctors, officer's wifes
who's only fault is sitting in their house, know your facts before you talk about peace.
Don't expect people to support a man who talks of peace while his brother is in mountains fighting
with states army.
Newcurrency 1 Nov 2015 11:42
I cant believe why major media sites like guardian is backing up a separatist like Selahattin
Demirtaş. Do you really think a man who threatens people with violent street acts if hdp cant
pass the election threshold is a peace talker ? The Tsipras of Turkey ? Don't mock with peoples
intellegence...
KK47 1 Nov 2015 11:42
Few days ago I was berated by some posters for pointing out that though Erdogan was a polarising
figure in Turkish politics he won't lose heavily (in fact he actually won more votes through his
cynical act of social imperialism) because the political opposition to him is too incompetent
and cliquey (ie non are interested in broadening their political support beyond their base, MHP
for instance call Alevites heretics and want a death list of all Kurdish activists, CHP are uninterested
in courting religious Turks or Kurds, HDP is still a nationalist party despite its liberal pretentions)
to beat Erdogan and it seems my predictions have come true.
Now here's my next prediction - watch for a more aggressive/militaristic approach towards
Syria by the Turkish government.
Looks like color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people started to understand the mechanics and
financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington) protesters. BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this
Shaun Walker
Notable quotes:
"... The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine promoting the right kind of democracy to the tune of $5 billion is a matter
of record, courtesy of Fuck the EU Nuland. ..."
"... As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014 - once under a false identity. If
the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar visits, that would be a problem, no? ..."
"... Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesnt mean they are wrong. ..."
"... International Observer: The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs ..."
"... This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distortions of what is happening in Russia. A piece of
journalism which tell us something about the level of propaganda that most mainstream media in our free west have set up in the attempt
to organize yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem to pursue this goal, as it shows to
have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place
in Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...thats too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the means...so forget about
honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but
clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy. ..."
"... The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and
more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions)
to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY). ..."
"... Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against
Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. ..."
"... a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of
Russian people. ..."
"... I will generalize here - if by those you mean the West you are mistaken. The vast majority of its populace are carrying a huge
burden of personal debt - it is the bank that owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy,
frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous. ..."
"... If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to
change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country ..."
"... if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesnt work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very
quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMDs well anything to try to take the moral
high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons. ..."
"... Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India and I have been to Russia and I
dont like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. ..."
"... Also, I doubt youve visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. Its as if the Soviet Union had just collapsed and
they were forgotten. Worse, actually. ..."
"... Werent the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another
anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian. ..."
"... In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but its hardly democracy. ..."
"... Also the election of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraines own Constitution (Goggle -
check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable fact which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.
..."
"... Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and civil services...State owned museums
still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful owners that were robbed during 1930-45. ..."
"... A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev. Both
have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links
to politicians as well. Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would
like to believe. ..."
"... A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The Ukrainians were hired by the West to
promote a coup detat against an elected government, this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general
election in the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections. ..."
"... Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder whats going to happen in the coming weeks.
..."
"... And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant
its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGOs and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in
Ukraine ..."
"... What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do and say? Do you think they are
just going to sit on what information they think they get? ..."
"... Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? ..."
"... Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority ..."
"... "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom." ..."
"... After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar
scenario played out in Russia. That being: am also wary of vISISantism. ..."
"... As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland:, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan
was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasnt peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected
officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa. ..."
"... Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure for Crimea for both turnout and
for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real
results," when it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were apparently against the idea
of the referendum in the first place. ..."
"... This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir peoples opinion in the former Soviet republics.
..."
"... There were students from Lviv who were given college credit for being at Maidan. ..."
"... There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but chosen street riots instead. ..."
"... Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December that the US had spent $5 billion
since the 1990s on democratization programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent? ..."
"... All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine. We shouldnt get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to
leave the EU. ..."
"... Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you ..."
"... How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kievs government troops and Nazi battalions??
..."
"... pro-democracy protesters? like ISIL, Right Sector, UÇK? They are right ..."
The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan,: Thursday it would fight any attempts to bring Russians on to the streets to protest
against the government. Its name is a reference to the Maidan protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former
Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovych.
"All street movements and color revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first", Dmitry Sablin, previously
a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of
parliament.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan
of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."
BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate slaughter and Nazi battalions....all
in just 8 sentences. great job
I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:
The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to the tune of $5 billion is a
matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.
As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014 - once under a false identity.
If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made similar visits, that would be a problem, no?
TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21
Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still don't know those fighters in Syria
are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself informed.
jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19
You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.
The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e. someone acceptable to the US government
at the helm. Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first spend the money fixing the
huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.
jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12
What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my country.
I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine.
Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations
which are in turn, funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in Georgia and both revolutions
in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a lawyer in a US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party.
Ukraine has a prime minister who was brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine described as "our insider"
(in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).
The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed since a law was brought in, requiring
foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual accounts.
Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong.
Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09
He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable 20%. But shown no platform other
than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The
party base disintegrated. The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found this timely.
But we cannot blame on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny himself. He is reactive on current issues but got
zero vision. Russia is a merit based society.
They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can contribute but not lead. His best way is to choose
a district and stand for a parliament seat. The state already shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop lookibg
to abroad for scripts. The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his mates lists. After such exposure he lost
any groups with many Russians.
Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50
I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just offer a different scale. Put value of
every human life above any ideology. The west is full of aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays
and atheists. There is a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal. Bombing for democracy
is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.
Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41
This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as the main topic. The problem is the
balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted
in the UK was told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might be OK with some theoretical
conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just most a child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator:C
is out of their reach. But guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.
Asimpleguest -> romans
International Observer: ''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''
PeraIlic
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," Nkolai Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal
politician.
Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself briefly. An Interview with Popular Russian
Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov:
Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.
Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily. If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba,
would you support Ukraine joining NATO?
That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that America is a friend.
imperfetto
This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distortions of what is happening in Russia. A piece
of journalism which tell us something about the level of propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up
in the attempt to organize yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem to pursue this
goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British interests. If this implies misguiding the readers
on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify
the means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have decided so, because it is convenient)
then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.
The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA,
CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow
the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY).
The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism, scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing
movement of protesters may finally shake up the 'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people
will occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted oligarchs, allowing the US to guide,
control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed that three important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)
But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by the voters. Contrary to what
is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some
important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a democratic republic.
But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.
Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious attention of western media. There should
merely be the enforcement of the law:
a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression
of Russian people.
VladimirM
"The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia,":e Surgeon, whose real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.
Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as "beast" but what he:s closer to "rodent",
a small animal. So, using this word he just stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.
These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of the current Ukrainian crop of politicians.
Here is an article from the New York Observer that will get you up to speed....
The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs
Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht
Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That many of the deaths were also ethnic
Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the USSR as a whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader
was Georgian,his secret police chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers were also mostly
non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the USSR,including many Ukrainians.It is a canard of the
Wests to blame Russia for the famine that also killed many Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic
time trying to stir Russophobia.
seventh
Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to defend it.
Robert Sandlin -> seventh
Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the police and military. These civilian
volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay of Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened
in Ukraine, to strike Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't wanted in Russia.
Bulagen
I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that they have "democracy" and "freedom
of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly
removed the wording that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more convinced that all this hysteria
about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more than an attempt to sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values)
to modern Trojans (Russians).
jezzam -> Bulagen
All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic values". They would also greatly benefit
the Russian people. Putin opposes these values purely because they would threaten his power.
sashasmirnoff -> jezzam
The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?
I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast majority of it's populace are carrying
a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly
wealthy, frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.
The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle,
and considerable stress due to (amongst other things) the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.
I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested
in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration
etc. All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.
One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the poverty and misery of those the West colonizes
and exploits. The last thing on Earth the West would like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates.
That would totally ruin the World Order.
Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan
Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?
Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin
Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have the corner on black shirts!
WardwarkOwner
Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries or those that are on major oil/gas
pipeline routes far more often than other countries?
Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner
I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran, Norway, Qatar, etc.
So what exactly is your point?
Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob
Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by USA to change governments and get raw
materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to be blind . in Mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people
.
PullingTheStrings
If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country
to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country
if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and
very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take
the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons.
Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings
For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire comment is an act of deflection.
The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest economic turmoil will make it even
worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent
the FSB to bomb Moscow apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.
Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any protests with violent vISISante groups
like those seen in other repressive countries.
Bob Vavich -> Jackblob
Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India and I have been to Russia and
I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you that I have never seen as much poverty as in India.
I can also tell you that when I drove through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post
apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I can go on and on about social injustice.
Regardless your comments are even more slanted than the assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".
Jackblob -> Bob Vavich
I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that info comes from PBS's latest broadcast
of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".
Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the Soviet Union had just collapsed
and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.
Hamdog
Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another
anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.
We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.
In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.
E1ouise -> Hamdog
Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliament* after he fled to Russia. Why don't you know this yet?
secondiceberg -> E1ouise
Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him out" the next day.
Bosula -> secondiceberg
Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the Rada with weapons while the vote taken.
Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle
- check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn
on the issue.
Sourcrowd
The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it disintegrated. Russia today looks more
and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity and blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.
Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd
I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.
Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and civil services...State owned
museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful owners that were robbed during 1930-45.
I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you appear to be clueless about this
particular subject and don' t know what you are talking about.
Bosula -> Sourcrowd
Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?
Bosula
A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.
Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have
strong links to politicians as well.
Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe.
TuleCarbonari -> Bosula
A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The Ukrainians were hired by the West
to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government, this against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from
general election in the country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.
Flinryan
Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming
weeks.
MarcelFromage -> Flinryan
I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and continue to bring death and destruction
to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the rest of the international community.
secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage
And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to
plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries,
as it did in Ukraine. Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.
Velska
CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat statements favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.
To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not sure whether bribery in Russia is
a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.
Bosula -> Velska
You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.
secondiceberg -> Velska
What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do and say? Do you think they
are just going to sit on what information they think they get?
What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment you made, and then rendition you to
another country so that you will not be able to claim any legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing"
threats from the U.S.
Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.
cichonio
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people suffer first,"
That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really been seen yet.
Also,
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"
I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.
Bosula -> cichonio
Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? How much does this compromise
Kiev as its agenda is very different from the agenda the US have with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and
the killing its own people, but this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a new cold war type environment.
Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals. Utterly bizarre.
secondiceberg -> cichonio
So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint. Ukraine actually has two presidents. Only
one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.
Bob Vavich -> cichonio
Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he
scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely, the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking
were discouraged. What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a second official language.
Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think? Maybe. Probably not.
SHappens
"Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons
then of course I will be ready,":lia Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.
This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but dont mess with them for too long. Once
on their horses nothing will stop them.
They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against
democracy.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in Ukraine," he added. "Under
the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."
ploughmanlunch
After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see
a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being: am also wary of vISISantism.
FlangeTube
"Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high approval rating. Stop trying twisting
language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they are anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not
the same thing.
Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but I would think the other 75% (the
ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a say too.
As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland:, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there,
Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed
against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa.
Sergei Konyushenko
Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?
FallenKezef
It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which was justified after the fact by an election
once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.
Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it happened to a pro-Russian government it's
ok.
I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.
Spaceguy1 One
The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations. The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia
is speeding around the internet after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory.
Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure for Crimea for both turnout
and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on
the "real results," when it seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were apparently
against the idea of the referendum in the first place.
It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in Crimea and its legitimacy, probably
as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize
Russia in the process.
This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir people's opinion in the former Soviet
republics. And they also set the precedent of conducting at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen
- elsewhere. There are obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and voting not by street disturbance
and stone throwing.
Beckow
Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia they will come out and protest in the streets if there are anti-government
demonstrations. Their side also needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.
That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with
a tattoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western connections. That's the way democracies should work.
About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an interesting point. There were students
from Lviv who were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men
lived on streets in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?
Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in this case we need to see the invoices,
is that always the case or just when Russia issues are involved?
rezevici
Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the "patriots", if he and government
doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's plan to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.
The ethics of Russians will be on display.
Anette Mor -> rezevici
There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but chosen street riots instead.
The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take part in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political
and economical platform and patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street riots. Several
years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy opposition which attracts minority but they play fair.
Nobody against them protecting and demonstrating even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists
or national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are not opposition.
They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract public by spreading slander and rising tension.
Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group of people who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very
complex process.
by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid, everyone was paid to be there,
was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle thrown,":blin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which
there is no evidence.
There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret anymore.
Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December that the US had spent $5 billion
since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?
We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from 2008-2012 alone -- on international
"Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...
...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an initiative from the New America
Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile mesh network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase,
to allow activists to continue to communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened in several
Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.
Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?
All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine. We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time
to leave the EU.
And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.
daffyddw
Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in ages. Bless you all, little brothers.
susandbs12 -> daffyddw
Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.
Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.
Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different views from you, so what?
LaAsotChayim
Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned unarmed police officers alive, or
the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all
financed via "US aid" implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?
How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions??
Hey, guardian??!!
Anette Mor -> Strummered
Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In Russia with its 100 nationalities and
all world religions simple straight forward majority rule does not bring any good.
A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the forms for such safety net. Putin fits well as he is fair and gained
trust from all faith, nationalities and social groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality. Many of them came
from USSR including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities chamber. representation there is disproportional to
the number of population but reflecting minorities voice - one sit per nation, no matter how big or small.
The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest nationalities depending how much of
autonomic administration each can afford to manage. People in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship
of majority. That is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are suppressed.
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for Russian non-governmental organizations
to carry out specific projects.
"... Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies ... Its main
participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The
outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from Donetskis , but also from Kievskis ,
Lvivskis , Rivnenskis and others, wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific
publication. ..."
"... Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being
systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine,
including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law ..."
"Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being systematically, and brutally
destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine, including through means
and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law," - wrote A. Lopata.
... ... ...
According to the scientist, this revolution was nothing more than a coup.
"Huge amounts of money were spread around in it, and not just those Nuland cookies ... Its main
participants were outcasts from across the country, who, in fact, had nothing to lose. The
outcasts very much wanted to take the property not just from "Donetskis", but also from "Kievskis",
"Lvivskis", "Rivnenskis" and others," wrote, in particular, the author of the scientific
publication.
In addition, Lopata qualified the war in the Donbass as the genocide of the people in the east of
the country by the army of Ukraine. "Today, the population of Donbass en masse is being
systematically, and brutally destroyed by the Armed Forces and the National Guard of Ukraine,
including through means and methods of warfare that are prohibited by international law," - wrote
A. Lopata.
The author also points out that "the authorities of the country have made a decision to urgently
direct the entire Maidan "fuel" material to Eastern Ukraine;" and that "there is no aggression of
Russia against Ukraine, but instead there is a US war with Russia in Donbass "to the last
Ukrainian."
"OUR BROTHERS ARE there," Khalid said when he heard I was going to Ukraine. "Buy a local SIM card
when you get there, send me the number and then wait for someone to call you."
Khalid, who uses
a pseudonym, leads the Islamic State's underground branch in Istanbul. He came from Syria to help
control the flood of volunteers arriving in Turkey from all over the world, wanting to join the global
jihad. Now, he wanted to put me in touch with Ruslan, a "brother" fighting with Muslims in Ukraine.
The "brothers" are members of ISIS and other underground Islamic organizations, men who have abandoned
their own countries and cities. Often using pseudonyms and fake identities, they are working and
fighting in the Middle East, Africa and the Caucasus, slipping across borders without visas. Some
are fighting to create a new Caliphate - heaven on earth. Others - like Chechens, Kurds and Dagestanis
- say they are fighting for freedom, independence and self-determination. They are on every continent,
and in almost every country, and now they are in Ukraine, too.
In the West, most look at the war in Ukraine as simply a battle between Russian-backed separatists
and the Ukrainian government. But the truth on the ground is now far more complex, particularly when
it comes to the volunteer battalions fighting on the side of Ukraine. Ostensibly state-sanctioned,
but not necessarily state-controlled, some have been supported by Ukrainian oligarchs, and others
by private citizens. Less talked about, however, is the Dudayev battalion, named after the first
president of Chechnya, Dzhokhar Dudayev, and founded by Isa Munayev, a Chechen commander who fought
in two wars against Russia.
Ukraine is now becoming an important stop-off point for the brothers, like Ruslan. In Ukraine,
you can buy a passport and a new identity. For $15,000, a fighter receives a new name and a legal
document attesting to Ukrainian citizenship. Ukraine doesn't belong to the European Union, but it's
an easy pathway for immigration to the West. Ukrainians have few difficulties obtaining visas to
neighboring Poland, where they can work on construction sites and in restaurants, filling the gap
left by the millions of Poles who have left in search of work in the United Kingdom and Germany.
You can also do business in Ukraine that's not quite legal. You can earn easy money for the brothers
fighting in the Caucasus, Syria and Afghanistan. You can "legally" acquire unregistered weapons to
fight the Russian-backed separatists, and then export them by bribing corrupt Ukrainian customs officers.
"Our goal here is to get weapons, which will be sent to the Caucasus," Ruslan, the brother who
meets me first in Kiev, admits without hesitation.
WITH HIS WHITE hair and beard, Ruslan is still physically fit, even at 57. He's
been a fighter his entire adult life. Born in a small mountain village in the Caucasus, on the border
between Dagestan and Chechnya, Ruslan belongs to an ethnic minority known as the Lak, who are predominantly
Sunni Muslim.
The world that Ruslan inhabits - the world of the brothers - is something new. When he first became
a fighter, there wasn't any Internet or cell phones, or cameras on the street, or drones. Ruslan
joined the brothers when the Soviet Union collapsed, and he went to fight for a better world, first
against the Russians in Chechnya and Dagestan during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. He then
moved to Azerbaijan, where he was eventually arrested in 2004 on suspicion of maintaining contact
with al Qaeda.
Even though Ruslan admits to fighting with Islamic organizations, he claims the actual basis for
the arrest in Azerbaijan - illegal possession of weapons - was false. Authorities couldn't find anything
suspicious where he was living (Ruslan was staying at the time with his "brothers" in the jihad movement)
but in his wife's home they found a single hand grenade. Ruslan was charged with illegal weapons
possession and sent to prison for several years.
In prison, he says he was tortured and deliberately housed in a cell with prisoners infected with
tuberculosis. Ruslan took his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, accusing
the authorities in Azerbaijan of depriving him of due process. The court eventually agreed, and asked
the Azerbaijani government to pay Ruslan 2,400 euros in compensation, plus another 1,000 euros for
court costs.
But when Ruslan was released from prison, he didn't want to stay in Azerbaijan, fearing he would
be rearrested, or even framed for a crime and again accused of terrorism. "Some of our people disappear
and are never found," he says. "There was one brother [who disappeared], and when he was brought
for burial, a card was found showing that he was one of 30 people held in detention in Russia."
In Russia, a warrant was issued for Riuan's arrest. Returning to his small mountain village was
out of the question. If he goes back, his family will end up paying for what he does, anyhow. "They
get to us through our families," he says. He condemns those who refused to leave their own country
and fight the infidels. This was the choice: either stay, or go abroad where "you can breathe freedom."
"Man is born free," Ruslan says. "We are slaves of God and not the slaves of people, especially
those who are against their own people, and break the laws of God. There is only one law: the law
of God."
After his release from prison in Azerbaijan, Ruslan became the eternal wanderer, a rebel - and
one of the brothers now in Ukraine. He came because Munayev, now head of the Dudayev battalion, decided
the brothers should fight in Ukraine. "I am here today because my brother, Isa, called us and said,
'It's time to repay your debt,'" Ruslan says. "There was a time when the brothers from Ukraine came
[to Chechnya] and fought against the common enemy, the aggressor, the occupier."
That debt is to Ukrainians like Oleksandr Muzychko, who became one of the brothers, even though
he never converted to Islam. Muzyczko, along with other Ukrainian volunteers, joined Chechen fighters
and took part in the first Chechen war against Russia. He commanded a branch of Ukrainian volunteers,
called "Viking," which fought under famed Chechen militant leader Shamil Basayev. Muzychko died last
year in Ukraine
under mysterious circumstances.
Ruslan has been in Ukraine for almost a year, and hasn't seen his family since he arrived. Their
last separation lasted almost seven years. He's never had time to raise children, or even really
to get to know them. Although he's a grandfather, he only has one son - a small family by Caucasian
standards, but better for him, since a smaller family costs less. His wife calls often and asks for
money, but Ruslan rarely has any to give her.
IN THE 17th century, the area to the east of the Dnieper River was known as the "wilderness,"
an ungoverned territory that attracted refugees, criminals and peasants - a place beyond the reach
of the Russian empire. Today, this part of Ukraine plays a similar role, this time for Muslim brothers.
In eastern Ukraine, the green flag of jihad flies over some of the private battalions' bases.
For many Muslims, like Ruslan, the war in Ukraine's Donbass region is just the next stage in the
fight against the Russian empire. It doesn't matter to them whether their ultimate goal is a Caliphate
in the Middle East, or simply to have the Caucuses free of Russian influence - the brothers are united
not by nation, but by a sense of community and solidarity.
But the brothers barely have the financial means for fighting or living. They are poor, and very
rarely receive grants from the so-called Islamic humanitarian organizations. They must earn money
for themselves, and this is usually done by force. Amber is one of the ideas Ruslan has for financing
the "company of brothers" fighting in eastern Ukraine - the Dudayev battalion, which includes Muslims
from several nations, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even a few Russians.
The brothers had hoped the Ukrainian authorities would appreciate their dedication and willingness
to give their lives in defense of Ukrainian sovereignty, but they miscalculated. Like other branches
of fighters - Aidar, Azov and Donbass - the government, for the most part, ignores them. They're
armed volunteers outside the control of Kiev, and Ukraine's politicians also fear that one day, instead
of fighting Russians in the east, the volunteers will turn on the government in Kiev. So ordinary
people help the volunteers, but it's not enough. The fighters associated with the Ukrainian nationalist
Right Sector get money, cars and houses from the rich oligarchs.
Ruslan has a different plan. He's afraid that if they begin stealing from the rich, the Ukrainian
government will quickly declare their armed branch illegal. He's decided to work in the underground
economy - uncontrolled by the state - which the brothers know best.
Back in the '90s, the amber mines in the vast forests surrounding the city of Rivne were state-owned
and badly run, so residents began illegally mining; it was a chance at easy money. Soon, however,
the mafia took over. For the right daily fee, miners could work and sell amber to the mafia at a
fixed price: $100 per kilogram. The mafia conspired with local militia, prosecutors and the governor.
That was the way business worked.
As a result, although Ukraine officially produces 3 tons of amber annually, more than 15 tons
are illegally exported to Poland each year. There, the ore is processed and sold at a substantial
profit. The Rivne mines operate 24 hours a day. Hundreds of people with shovels in hand search the
forest; they pay less to the mafia, but they extract less amber and earn less. The better off are
those who have a water pump. Those people pump water at high pressure into the earth between the
trees, until a cavity 2 to 3 meters deep forms. Amber, which is lighter than water, rises to the
surface.
At one point, Ruslan disappeared in Rivne for several weeks. When he returned, he was disappointed;
he'd failed to convince the local mafia to cooperate with the brothers' fight for an independent
Ukraine. But now, he has other arguments to persuade them. His men are holding up the mines, by not
allowing anyone into the forest. Either the local gangsters share their profits, or no one will get
paid.
Ruslan doesn't like this job. He knows it won't bring him any glory, and could land him in prison.
He would have preferred to be among the fighters at the front lines, where everything is clear and
clean. He says he can still fight, but he's already too old to really endure the rigors of battle,
even if he doesn't want to admit it. He may still be physically fit, but fighters don't usually last
longer than a few years. Then they lose their strength and will to fight.
He has other orders from
Munayev: he's supposed to organize a "direct response group" in Kiev. The group will be a sort of
rear echelon unit that take care of problems, like if someone tries to discredit the Dudayev battalion.
It will also collect debts or scare off competition. There's no doubt the new branch will work behind
the lines, where there isn't war, but there is money - as long as you know where to get it. If need
be, the direct response group volunteers will watch over the mines in Rivne, or "will acquire" money
from illegal casinos, which operate by the hundreds in Kiev.
Ruslan sends me photos of the group's criminal exploits: they came into the casinos with weapons,
and broke into the safes and slot machines. They disappeared quickly, and were never punished. The
money went to food, uniforms, boots, tactical vests and other equipment necessary for the fighters.
The mafia knows they can't beat them at this game. The brothers are too good, because they are armed
and experienced in battle. The police aren't interested in getting involved either. In the end, it's
illegal gambling.
I told Ruslan that it's a dangerous game. He laughed.
"It's child's play," he says. "We used to do this in Dagestan. No one will lift a finger. Don't
worry."
RUSLAN FINALLY DROVE me to see his "older brother," to Isa Munayev, and his secret base located
many miles west of Donetsk.
Riding in an old Chrysler that Ruslan bought in Poland, we drove for several hours, on potholed
and snowy roads. Ruslan had glued to the car one of the emblems of Ukraine's ATO, the so-called Anti-Terrorist
Operation, which includes both soldiers and volunteers in the fight against separatists.
The bumper sticker allows him to drive through police traffic stops without being held up - or
if he is stopped, they won't demand bribes as they do from other drivers. The ATO sticker, Ruslan's
camouflage uniform, and a gun in his belt are enough to settle matters. Policemen salute him and
wish him good luck.
He drives fast, not wanting to rest, sleep or even drink coffee. If he stops, it's to check the
compass on his belt to check the direction of Mecca. When it's time to pray, he stops the car, turns
off the engine, places his scarf in the snow and bows down to Allah.
Asked whether - after so many hardships, after so many years, and at his age, almost 60 now -
he would finally like to rest, he answered indignantly, "How could I feel tired?"
There's much more work to do, according to Ruslan. "There's been a small result, but we will rest
only when we've reached our goals," he says. "I'm carrying out orders, written in the Holy Quran.
'Listen to God, the Prophet.' And I listen to him and do what I'm told."
On the way into the city of Kryvyi Rih, we met with Dima, a young businessman - under 40 - but
already worth some $5 million. He's recently lost nearly $3 million from his business in Donetsk,
which has been hit hard by the war. Dima worked for Igor Kolomoisky, one of the oligarchs who had
been funding Ukraine's volunteer battalions. Dima and Ruslan have only known each other for a short
time. Ruslan claimed Dima owed him a lot of money, although it's unclear from what. Ruslan kept bothering
him, threatening to blackmail him. Finally, he got $20,000 from Dima.
That's not nearly enough to support the Dudayev battalion. But Ruslan had something bigger to
offer Dima: amber. Now, Dima was ready to talk. He came up with the idea to find buyers in the Persian
Gulf, including wealthy sheikhs. They would like to sell an entire house of amber: furniture, stairs,
floors, and inlaid stones. It only takes contacts, and Ruslan has them. The brothers from Saudi Arabia
like to help the jihad in the Caucasus and the Middle East.
The next day, Ruslan was behind the wheel again. The old Chrysler barely moved, its engine overheated.
A mechanic with an engineering degree and experience working in Soviet arms factories connected a
plastic bottle filled with dirty water to the radiator using a rubber hose.
"I don't know how long I'll last," Ruslan says suddenly. "It depends on God. I'll probably die
on this road. But I don't have any other road to take."
Photos: Tomasz Glowacki
Next: The Life and Death of a Chechen Commander
* At the request of the writer, "Ruslan" is identified by a pseudonym.
– The material for this story is part of BROTHERS, a documentary film being developed for Germany's
broadcaster WDR – Die Story and Autentic, produced by Propellerfilm, broadcast date May 18th, 10pm
(MET).
"Do you realize what you've done?" -- Putin about recent US sponsored color revolutions.
Notable quotes:
"... instead of reforms and the triumph of democracy and progress "we've got violence, poverty and social disaster, and human rights, including the right to life, to which no weight is given." ..."
"... "Rather than bringing about reforms, aggressive foreign interference has resulted in the brazen destruction of national institutions and the lifestyle itself," ..."
"... "Therefore they do not have to reckon with the UN, which instead of automatically authorizing, legitimizing the necessary decisions often creates obstacles or in other words 'stands in the way'." ..."
The export of so-called 'democratic' revolutions has continued, but has unleashed poverty and violence instead of the triumph
of democracy, Russian President Vladimir Putin said addressing the UN General Assembly.
Attempts to push for changes in other countries based on ideological preferences have led to "tragic consequences and degradation
rather than progress," said Putin in his speech to world leaders and policy makers gathered at the UN General Assembly's anniversary
70th session in New York on Monday.
"We should all remember what our past has taught us," Putin said. "We, for instance, remember examples from the history of the
Soviet Union."
It seems however that some are not learning from others' mistakes, but keep repeating them, he said, adding that "the export of
so-called 'democratic' revolutions continues."
"I cannot help asking those who have caused this situation: Do you realize now what you have done?" he asked. "But I am afraid
the question will hang in the air, because policies based on self-confidence and belief in one's exceptionality and impunity have
never been abandoned."
He cited the example of revolutions in the Middle East and Northern Africa, where people have wished for change. However,
instead of reforms and the triumph of democracy and progress "we've got violence, poverty and social disaster, and human rights,
including the right to life, to which no weight is given."
"Rather than bringing about reforms, aggressive foreign interference has resulted in the brazen destruction of national institutions
and the lifestyle itself," he said.
... ... ...
A single center of domination emerged in the world after the Cold War era ended, Putin stated. Those who were at the "top of this
pyramid" were tempted to think that "if they were so strong and exceptional, they knew what to do better than others."
"Therefore they do not have to reckon with the UN, which instead of automatically authorizing, legitimizing the necessary
decisions often creates obstacles or in other words 'stands in the way'."
Al Qaeda only ever exists in a country where the US decides on a regime change because that country in not under their control
so the old Al Qaeda wag the dog mercenaries for propaganda show up (they brutally kill civilians don't they, the more barbaric
the better, we'll hate them more and then have justification to bomb even more)
Zarqawi in Iraq was such horse manure propaganda, and the CIA continue to use that boogeyman strategy because:
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame
on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again."
George W. Bush
fooled again, fooled continuously, just plainly fools
Bay Area Guy
George, they're only brown people. It's black lives that matter. The brown people? Not so much.
Here's a Waging Wabbit's wedding day photograph taken some 5 years after he had allegedly participated
on the side of Dudayev's breakaway Chechen Republic in the First Chechen War against Russia. He
has also been accused of torturing Russian prisoners of war during that conflict.
If these allegations against Yatsenyuk are true, then Noodleman's candidate "Yats" would have
been a "brother-in-arms' of that delightful, late and not so lamented Oleksandr Ivanovych Muzychko
(aka Sashko Bilyi [Сашко Білий] – "White Sasha"]):
Показания на Яценюка дали его
подельники Testimony against Yarsenyuk was given by his accomplices Members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership, Nikolai Karlyuk and Kyiv journalist Stanislav
Klykh, have said that in the 90s the prime minister of the Ukraine tortured and killed Russian
soldiers in Chechnya.
That Yatsenyuk was a murderer became known during an investigation into atrocities committed
in 1994 by ther members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership Nikolai Karlyuk and Kyiv journalist Stanislav
Klykh.
Last year dozens of lawyers unsuccessfully attempted to have them released from a remand
prison. In order to secure their release, they "sang" to whole of the Ukrainian mass media, but
in vain: on September 15 in the Supreme court of Chechnya there was held a preliminary hearing.
"That Yatsenyuk was a murderer became known during an investigation into atrocities committed
in 1994 by the members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership" should read: "That Yatsenyuk was a murderer
became known during an investigation into atrocities committed in 1994 by other
members of the UNA-UNSO party leadership"
Ukraine's current Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk used to fight in Chechnya against Russia, according
to Aleksandr Bastrykin, head of Russia's Investigative Committee, reports Ukrainska Pravda citing
the Russian newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta.
The Russian investigators have questions to the Ukrainian citizens Dmytro Korchinsky, Ihor Mazur,
Valery Bobrovich of the UNA-UNSO, the leader of the Right Sector Dmytro Yarosh, the leader of the
Svoboda Party Oleh Tiahnybok and his brother Andriy in connection with the war in Chechnya in 1994-1995,
according to Bastrykin's interview with Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Ukrainska Pravda reported.
"The investigation also found that at the time, Arseniy Yatsenyuk fought by their side against the
Russian military as part of Argo punitive group, and later - Viking, led by Oleksandr Muzychko,"
said Bastrykin.
"According to the investigation, Yatsenyuk took part in at least two of the armed confrontations
that took place on December 31, 1994, on the Minutka square in Grozny and in February, 1995, outside
the city hospital 9 in Grozny; as well as in torture and executions of prisoners," he said.
In addition, Bastrykin says that Yatsenyuk was conferred Honor of the Nation Dzhohar Dudayev's
highest Honor of the Nation title in December, 1995.
"In early 1995, Arseniy Yatsenyuk returned to Ukraine via Georgia with a group of journalists.
Later, he was repeatedly seen at conventions and other events of UNA-UNSO in Kyiv," said Bastrykin.
According to the official biography of Arseniy Yatsenyuk, in 1995, he had studied law at the University
of Chernivtsi.
UNIAN memo. UNA-UNSO) is a Ukrainian political organisation seen as far-right in Ukraine and abroad.
Although the Ukrainian National Assembly (UNA) was the organisation's political wing, on 22 May 2014
it merged with Right Sector; the UNA-UNSO continues to operate independently.
Oleksandr Muzychko was a Ukrainian political activist, a member of UNA-UNSO and coordinator of
Right Sector in Western Ukraine. Russian prosecutors accused him of killing "at least 20" captive
Russian soldiers during the First Chechen War. The inquiry by the Russian Investigative Committee
began in March 2014, years after the alleged killings. Muzychko jumped into media spotlight on February
27, 2014, after attacked the Prosecutor of the Rivne region in his office. On 11 March 2014, Russian
State Duma opposition leader Valery Rashkin urged Russian special services to "follow Mossad examples"
and assassinate Right Sector leaders Dmytro Yarosh and Muzychko. On 24 March, 2014, Oleksandr Muzychko
was shot dead.
Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can
protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start
to disappear one by one.
They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show."
.
"...Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't
want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred."
. Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome. But those
who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even half of what he has
achieved.
.
Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told. He waged war in
the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told him to. He is a non-entity."
.
"...Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government: (1). He destroyed Ukraine's
military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the way) with Russian military, as any
obedient CIA stooge will do. (2). He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should
have benefit from it's position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting
Europe from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come up
with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again."
.
"...Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring
under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention."
.
"...When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties share
a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with your political
overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how to which is through
violence. I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's
constitutional proposals."
.
"...I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising
the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up
the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves!"
.
"...I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia has
been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow of yanukovic.
The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan protests
which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who tarrgetted ethnic
Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition to granting extra powers
to eastern territories is hardly surprising."
Notable quotes:
"... I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie, troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror attacks but were killed democratically. ..."
"... - Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17 policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror attacks... ..."
"... "Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their 'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power. The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war." ..."
"... It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better. ..."
"... Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little evils? ..."
"... A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft. ..."
"... In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe" and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest to believe the opposite of everything they tell us. ..."
"... It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling to Russia/Belarus. ..."
"... Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!). ..."
"... Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white. It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face. ..."
"... February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda) implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings. ..."
"... These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise the war in the East could not continue. ..."
"... History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered, rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin or ISIS. ..."
"... Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money at will, in which Russia has no involvement. ..."
"... The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government. ..."
"... Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e. they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive, they will start to disappear one by one. ..."
"... Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred. ..."
"... The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy". ..."
"... Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention. ..."
"... Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella. ..."
"... I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves up all by themselves! ..."
"... idan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed them in the first place. The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke. ..."
Another version has it that the explosion outside parliament was orchestrated by the president's
administration or the Ukrainian special services in order to discredit Svoboda and other radical
nationalists and to "tighten the screws" on the political life of the country thus justifying control
over opposition forces.
This version hardly stands up to criticism. The demonstration was led by MPs who are members of
Svoboda but got into parliament as independent candidates. In the 2014 elections Svoboda did not
win the 5% of the vote necessary to enter parliament. Four months earlier, in the presidential election,
the party's leader, Oleg Tyagnibok, won only a little over 1% of the vote. This week he was photographed,
together with other Svoboda activists, trying to drag a soldier out of the human chain formed around
parliament into the crowd of protesters. It was a moment very reminiscent of the Maidan days, only
that then Svoboda members and their leader were inside parliament. Since then the party has found
itself increasingly marginalised.
However, there were other groups represented in the demonstration , among them two that deserve
special attention: Oleg Lyashko's radical party and Igor Kolomoisky's Ukrop party. T-shirts with
the latter party's emblem were given out free at the demonstration, and those willing to take part
were paid to protest. Kolomoisky is considered to be an enemy of President Poroshenko since he was
sacked from his position as governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region. Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor
Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by the former president of Georgia, Mikheil
Saakashvili.
Immediately after the blast, Lyashko, who is a radical populist with little in common with the
radical nationalists, announced the establishment of a campaign to save the nation. Only three or
four hours after the explosion, his party had already registered a bill that would block changes
to the constitution at times when the country is under military attack. Lyashko came second in the
presidential elections, and over the last year his Radical party has gone up in the ratings. It is
interesting that articles in the press regularly claim to have evidence that both the Svoboda party
and the Radical party have been financed by the same oligarchs, the above mentioned Kolomoisky, Sergey
Levochkin – who was head of the presidential administration under Yanukovich and who fled to Moscow
after the Maidan – and Dmitry Firtash, who is now being investigated on corruption charges in Austria.
Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation. To begin with, volunteers who went
off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant
groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during the Maidan. There were also volunteers who
had no affiliation to any party who went to fight. When the Ukrainian army took over the main role
in the fighting, many of the volunteers returned home, taking weapons with them.
nnedjo 3 Sep 2015 16:18
Well, the purpose of the constitutional changes in Ukraine should be that rebels in the southeast
stop fighting and accept Ukraine as his country, and not Ukrainian nationalists to stop throwing
grenades at the police in Kiev. However, these laws passed by the Ukrainian parliament, can contribute
very little that the main objective. Their main goal is just to create the illusion that Ukraine
really is trying to comply with the requirement of Minsk 2 agreement, and thus to meet the expectations
of their Western friends, which means to prevent lifting of sanctions against Russia. And, on
the other hand, these laws need to be completely contrary to the expectations of the rebel peoples
in Donbas, or in other words to achieve the same thing that the Ukrainian government unsuccessfully
tried to achieve with weapons.
It is particularly interesting that the President of Ukraine Poroshenko himself makes no secret
at all that it is true what I've previously written, as can be understood, among other things,
also from those of his statements:
According to the president, "the threat of break-up of the international pro-Ukrainian coalition"
would have increased if the Verkhovna Rada had not voted in favor of decentralization amendments
to the constitution on Monday.
It could also lead to the lifting of sanctions, which "are very painfully hitting the aggressor,"
he said, apparently, referring to Russia, which Kiev blames for sending troops to war-torn eastern
Ukraine....
...But what they [Donetsk and Lugansk Regions] have got instead is a lean line about the features
of local self-governance," Poroskenko stressed.
So, even though the law that caused the protests in front of parliament has the name of "decentralization",
in fact it needs to further strengthen the competence of the central government. Based on this
law, the Presidency received the right to appoint a prefect, who with his hand has the discretionary
right to dismiss officials elected at the local elections in certain regions. And if they do not
like it, they can appeal to the constitutional court in Kiev, where were apparently is known in
advance what may be the decision of the constitutional court.
On the other hand, the law on the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk, which was passed earlier,
is practically suspended at this point by the recent decision of the President Poroshenko.
In this respect, it is necessary to emphasize two things.
Although according to the Minsk 2 arrangement, the special status of the Donbas region should
have been incorporated as an integral and permanent part of the Ukrainian Constitution, the law,
which is now suspended, does not meet any of these two demands.
This law therefore is attached only as an annex to the Ukrainian constitution, and its validity
is limited to just three years. And, according to the idea of Ukrainian legislators, the law can
come into force only after the local elections in Donbass which would be held under the previous
Ukrainian legislation, and when Ukrainian forces take control over the whole territory of Ukraine,
including its entire border with Russia.
Until then, they will be consider that Donbas region is temporarily occupied part of Ukrainian
territory, and officials of the People's Republic of Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republic will
be considered as terrorists. And since with the terrorists must not be negotiations, leaders of
the LNR and DNR were completely excluded so far from discussions about the law on the special
status, which is also contrary to the Minsk 2 agreement, given that it explicitly requires just
that.
All in all, they are asking the pro-Russian rebels that lay down their arms voluntarily, without
getting anything in return. Or more accurately, to get just a little bit of what they are looking
for and only for a period of three years. So, congratulations on wishful thinking, but the question
is whether it is achievable at all.
LimaCPapa -> ridibundus 3 Sep 2015 15:48
I first learned about this when a new Ukrainian student introduced himself, and we asked why
the name he gave was not the name on his papers. He explained (with clear annoyance) that he had
to use a Ukrainian name. He had to keep it while he was here as well, because it was the name
in his passport. Now he's free of all that and uses his Russian name. Needless to say, he did
not return to Ukraine. Another Ukrainian has since confirmed that the same thing was true for
her passport. In both cases, issued in the early 2000s. So who's lying then?
beakybloom -> gablody 3 Sep 2015 13:34
What's inherited??.. The bankrupt economy, loss of Crimea, loss of Donbass, 6000 dead, civil
war, downing of Malaysian airliner with 300 souls on board, Odessa massacre, murders of political
opponents, the nazi parliament, stupid laws glorifying Ukraine's nazi past, no visa-free access
to EU, Nazis throwing grenades at the police???..
Nothing here is inherited except the absence of visa-free access to EU
a "show on the road" ? On IMF funny money? For how long? It's a shitshow, and unsustainable
to boot.
nnedjo -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 13:28
The putinposters are still reeling with the news that the Ukrainian government is fighting
"Nazis" in Kiev,...
It will be possible to say just when the news arrives that the organizers of these demonstrations
were sentenced to a few tens of years in prison, and that guy who threw this grenade from which
the Guardsmen killed, was sentenced to life imprisonment.
What is quite unbelievable judging by the past behavior of government from Kiev.
The piece of shit she CHOSE to work with.
Jewish neo-con skunk and neo-Nazi thug seems like a match made in heaven.
jezzam -> Chillskier 3 Sep 2015 10:19
Go ahead then. I can't wait. Neither can Poroshenko. His best option is passive resistance
when Putin launches his next land grab. Russia will be forced to give it back eventually when
they are totally bankrupt
Bosula -> RVictor 3 Sep 2015 08:55
The congregation is mostly made up of ethnic Ukrainians, members of a community that numbers
hundreds of thousands and has been growing rapidly since the start of the conflict in eastern
Ukraine.
This is what the Guardian reported on 13 May 2015 - this was JUST for Poland:
"Last year Poland issued 331,000 permits for short-term work to Ukrainians, up 50% on 2013,
says Marta Jaroszewicz, a migration expert at the Centre For Eastern Studies (OSW), an independent
Warsaw thinktank funded by the Polish government.
She estimates that there are now 300,000-400,000 Ukrainians in Poland, as many as twice the
officially recognised number. In January and February, the number of residence applications by
Ukrainians in the Mazovian voivodeship – the province which includes Warsaw – was up 180% on the
same months of 2014."
There are other articles for other neighbouring countries bordering Ukraine, but the Guardian
is a pretty authoritative source.
Since this story the number crossing the border to leave Ukraine has increased significantly.
FlappyCat 3 Sep 2015 08:20
Poroshenko to Transnistria..
Yats to Macedonia and
Saakishwilly to Tajikistan.
oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:12
I read the Gorby's interview where he said 'Yes' about the NATO promises.But he's a fool nevertherless
to beleive the promises,written or verbal from his enemy.
elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 08:07
>>He's trying to provoke Putin.
Hmm in that case you have proved Poroshenko is a fu##ing idiot. Only an idiot would set out
to provoke the leader of a neighbouring country into invading. Is that what you lot voted him
in for? No, it isn't. He should be making peace and securing the future for his people. Face it,
your leader is taking orders from Pyatt and you know it.
BigBanana 3 Sep 2015 07:50
"Kolomoisky's man in Odessa, Igor Palitsa, also lost his job as governor and was replaced by
the former president of Georgia, Mikheil Saakashvili"
Jeez, Saakashvili is a stupid appointment for a very long list of reasons. He's the idiot who
got Georgia dismembered after misjudging the situation terribly.
It's as if Poroshenko is deliberately trying to fuck things up.
HuffingHume -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 07:41
All of the ex-Soviet Union, with the exception of the Baltic states, are horribly corrupt dysfunctional
kleptocracies run by Soviet era bigwigs who carved up their state's assets up for themelves, leaving
most of their fellow countrymen in poverty. This is the reason why many Ukrianians want to be
more 'European'; because they want to be more like Poland and the Baltic States, rather than in
the Russian orbit, in which every state has barely made it out of the 80's.
Dimmus -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:15
"It was the right wing Svoboda Party that started the trouble, definitely not a 'peaceful protest'
as you make out. "
I talk about the media coverage. At that time "the right wing Party" was just a Putin lie,
troubles were cause by Putin, protesters were peaceful and policemen were killed not in terror
attacks but were killed democratically.
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:14
Putin has a record of false flag operations, starting with the Moscow apartment block bombing
performed by the FSB when he was head and which brought him to power.
And the proof is ... o, yes, - something written by oligarch in exile! Btw., here is a short
list of admitted FF operations be US and it's vassals. Remember "Iraq WMD"?
oleteo -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 07:10
Why being invaded by Putin, Ukraine is trading a discount for gas, [and asks for ] deferral
of loan?
irishinrussia -> Alex Hughes 3 Sep 2015 07:03
It's irony. He is implying that when protesters the west likes kill policemen then they at
peaceful demonstrators, perhaps defending themselves against brutal security forces, at worst
any violence is the action of a few hotheads or extremists among overwhelmingly peaceful, democratic
victims of the state. However, when the very same protesters attack our guys (Poroshenko), they
are radicals, extremists and terrorists, perhaps abetted by shadowy enemies of freedom and democracy
(FSB).
PanoptikonicallyKool -> Briar 3 Sep 2015 06:15
Shhh!!!! You are not supposed to say things like that! 'US backed coup'? That is not part of
the story. And it's ancient history history, no connection to current events. In fact it didn't
even happen, according to repectable news sites. Or they don't mention it, so it must not have
happended . The US, as the article states, or rather doesn't state, or rather doesn't even mention,
has nothing to do with political events inside Ukraine, that's why we never read anything about
it. Did Russia do it or not do it? That's the only serious question for anything that happens
in Ukraine.
US involvement in Urkaine? Harrruuumph! Conspiracy theory! And don't bring it up again!
Dimmus 3 Sep 2015 06:15
"But the media has been busy throwing up theories about who has most to benefit from
this terrorist attack. "
- Ehhh... was it a terrorist attack? Not a peaceful protest democratically fighting bad
and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament? Because at the Euromaidan 17
policemen were killed and more than 200 injured when peaceful protesters were democratically fighting
bad and corrupt police prohibiting them to freely take the parliament... and there were no terror
attacks...
ositonegro -> BastaYa72 3 Sep 2015 06:11
"Corporatism was one of the ideals of both German Nazism and Italian fascism. They held
it as a carrot before the people, as a 'solution' to the class problem. They used it as their
'revolutionary' credentials and in both cases, ditched it completely soon after taking power.
The idea of each sector of society being organized to take its place at the high table of the
state was always "jam tomorrow." Today's agenda was always "war."
It should also be understood that fascist 'corporatism' has nothing to do with the global
corporations that are not often bigger than nation states. Modern 'corporatism' only shares a
name with the fascist 'ideal.' Not that it any better.
How can anyone not take the US state department's line. It is the truth. Ergo, everyone else
is paid by the Russians.
Калинин Юрий -> elias_ 3 Sep 2015 04:59
He does not answer the questions, he blames Putin in all the world's sins and universe disasters.
Global warming - Putin, extreme heat in the EU - Putin, police conflicts in the USA - Putin. Ask
him, wh has scratched a car by a shopping mall last month - Putin!
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:53
The West has not broken international law since the Iraq invasion.
Support and organization of governments overthrow all around the world? War in Libya? Killing
with drones on foreigns territories? Bombing of Syria territory?
Theo Humbug -> normankirk 3 Sep 2015 04:52
Princesss Nuland of the neocons is a nasty murderous piece of work. One to watch. Hopefully
somebody will 'putsch' her and her equally loathsome husband. Have they spawned any more little
evils?
RVictor -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49
Why does Georgia not get Interpol to issue an arrest warrant for Saakashvili? Ukraine
would have to comply. The answer is obvious. They would not get one because the charges against
Saakashvili are politically motivated, like most of the corruption charges in Russia.
Right - like any West institution Interpol is so-o-o independent, exactly like International
Court!
Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:49
I have come to realise that Jizzem is just a Turing Bot.
Theo Humbug -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:48
HAHAHAHAHA... Are you serious? Which planet are you on? Do you think people forget that quickly?
A neo-neocon organised and paid for putsch is hardly "democratic", same as any other US sanctioned
regime change i.e Mega Nation Theft.
jonsid -> Mark Elliott 3 Sep 2015 04:46
In all matters relating to Eastern Europe the Guardian has pinned its colours to the mast
of the "New East Network." Which is essentially controlled by a Mr George Soros, Radio "Free Europe"
and the National Endowment for Democracy." All mouthpieces of the state department. Its safest
to believe the opposite of everything they tell us.
Theo Humbug -> Chirographer 3 Sep 2015 04:41
You clearly have a very bad memory. The Russian offer of cancelling debt and very reasonable
prices for fuel was very attractive to the ELECTED government of Victor Yanukovych and far far
better than the EU offer, which was why they were all for accepting the Russian offer and aligning
more with Moscow..
But the USA can't have any country deciding it's own fate if it is not in accord with the Lords
of this Universe.
The neocon organised and paid for putsch, Maidan Shootings, Odessa burnings, put a stop to
any agreement beneficial to the Ukrainians and opened the way for the IMF to come in and steal
the wealth of yet another country.
There is no excuse for anybody not to know these recorded and verifiable FACTS.
elias_ -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:36
You are fixated on Putin - you must be a not so secret admirer. Why don't you answer Tomov's
question. What has Poroshenko achieved since becoming President?
RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 04:34
It is very hard to enter EU from the East without visa (and rules for visa application
were hardened for Ukrainians). It is very hard to get job without working permit, and for money
you need to register. Notice, that all these points are not present in case of refugees traveling
to Russia/Belarus.
So I show you official numbers of registered refugees in EU - and amount of unregistered cannot
be high due to immigration laws and functioning police system.
On over side, number of 400000 is taken from nowhere - go on and proof it.
Salut_Salut -> jezzam 3 Sep 2015 04:32
If you are such a hard-core proponent of sanctions policy, then may be you can name the beneficiaries
of it in EU? Farmers? Businesses? Common people? Methinks - only politicians following in the
wake of Uncle Sam's guidelines. The President of Russia is no way a role model or a paragon country
leader, but seeing him behind every corner is nothing but a bout of anti-Russian paranoia. People
of that long-suffering country aren't actually represented by him only.
Theo Humbug 3 Sep 2015 04:29
How far back does history go?
Lat week, last month, Maidan Square, the fall of the Soviet Union?
If taken that far back, then people will surely remember Ronnie Raygun's promises to Gorbachev
that no NATO forces would encroach on former Soviet territory. Ehh?? What??
Fast forward to the neo-neocon putsch and princess Nuland boasting of the death and destruction
that all those humanitarian $5 billion had purchased as she dispensed biscuits in Maidan, just
prior to both sides being shot up by putschist snipers (likely from outside and/or Svoboda, or
the Social Nationalists (don't say Nazis don't have a sense of humour!).
So called separatists voted to stay with Russia, with whom they identified, despite the lies
and propaganda from the US/West/Nato including premature accusations of responsibility fro the
shooting down of MH17 .. funny how 1) the US never released it's data (another Pentagon "plane"?)
2) that has all gone very quiet... Wonder what they found?
Perhaps the putschist regime and/or their neo-neocon pay/puppet-meisters have woken up to the
very real danger of putting nazties withing 'Cooee' of nuclear weapons?
Of course, one does not need to be a nazti to call for nuclear mass murder. The blond plaited
heroine of the right, the ex jailbird, ex Prime Minister (for ganesh sake!!) Tymoshenko called
for the nuking of Donbass, if I remember correctly.
Russian now has the major Western forces and neonazis on their border. President Putin has
to deal with these murderers and the great unwashed, living in their encapsulating bubbles of
Newspeak and reality cooking shows, are told by the Mudorc press and other propagandists that
it is Russia that is pure evil.
I wish there were a god.
Tony Cocks -> danhudders 3 Sep 2015 03:59
" The airliner was almost certainly downed by a Russian crew "
But of course you have not one shred of evidence to support your statement in which case would
you agree it is valueless and was a waste of your time posting it in the first place.
RVictor -> careforukraine 3 Sep 2015 03:49
I think he said refugees crossed the border ........i am not sure that all refugees fill out
the application form?
400000 ? Look on the current 100000's refugees wave from the Asia/Africa to get an expression
how it looks like. Or on the last year summer wave of Ukrainian refugees in Russia - with large
refugee camps for temporary placements etc. You cannot get 400000 refugees to go "unseen" - especially
in case of relatively good-maintained land border.
martinusher 3 Sep 2015 03:09
Its not really a zero-sum game. Russia always maintained that the coup was engineered by
the West by encouraging right wing elements and this is just one of a number of incidents that
prove that their view was correct. This makes our life difficult in the West because we only think
in polar terms -- if Russia is right then they 'win'. Since we cannot allow any situation where
Russia 'wins' we go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to try to prove black is really white.
It would be better to ignore Russia's comments and commentaries and just look dispassionately
at who the actors are and what they're up to. The answers are staring us in the face.
(If you need any indication that something's not quite right in Ukraine then you only have
to look to the appointment of Saakashvili as the governor of Odessa last summer. He's best known
for his role as a Georgian politician, someone who, among other things, provoked a disastrous
confrontation with Russia.)
SHappens 3 Sep 2015 03:07
To begin with, volunteers who went off to fight in the Donbass for the sake of maintaining
Ukraine's unity were radicals from militant groups such as the Right Sector, which sprang up during
the Maidan.
February 24, 2014, right extremist forces (Banderists, Right Sector and neo-Nazis Svoboda)
implemented a coup during the Maiden. At the time the US government warned the Ukrainian authorities
against using force against these 'pro-democracy protestors' even if, according to the pictures
we saw, some of them were neo-Nazis who were throwing Molotov cocktails and other things at the
police and smashing up statues and setting fire to buildings.
These forces were subsequently beaten in the elections, thus rejected by the Ukrainian people.
However the first act of Poroshenko was to legitimate these irregular and illegal militias which,
absent in Parliament, have received the far more important power of arms, courtesy of the new
mixed Ukrainian-American government. Basically the only difference between the parliamentary majority
and the far-right groups is that the first take orders from the West, the latter don't.
These militias became the spearhead of Ukrainian forces in the East and on them falls much
of the war effort in the Civil War. But these militias can not yet be lifted, because otherwise
the war in the East could not continue.
History always repeats itself. Use low ignorant, racist and violent manpower to take power
by force but also to maintain it, but then to dump it as soon as possible because they rare considered,
rightly, unpresentable or otherwise dangerous even for those who have instigated, financed and
exploited them. Of course, sometimes such situations go out of hand, see the Afghan Mujahidin
or ISIS.
Now Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk are receiving their own coin back. They supported and reinforced
those they now pretend to discover to be thugs. The real puppets are and remain in power while
their useful barbarians have become bothersome: infamous, resistant to the point that one can
wonder if the latest riot would not be a false flag from Yats and Poro who used the skills of
these criminal thugs. Because the latter are not mere free electrons who just decided to meet
that day. There is money, people that structure this, a hierarchy, an efficient network and money
at will, in which Russia has no involvement.
Still, Poroshenko and Yatsenuk want more war and call for lethal arms supply. All this while
the rating of Ukrainian is now CC with negative outlook.
RVictor -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 03:02
400,000 refugees crossed the borders from Ukraine into the EU over the past year.
You are lying (surprise, surprise!):
"There were 4,603 applications for international protection in Germany, 3,600 in Poland,
2,956 in Italy, 1,962 in Sweden, 1,763 in France, 200 in Moldova, 60 in Romania, 60 in Hungary
and 20 in Slovakia," the UNHCR findings highlighted.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:16
"Russian TV focused on the events outside the Ukrainian parliament to prove to viewers
that chaos reigns in Ukraine. "
And doesn't chaos indeed reign in Ukraine? I thought that was beyond obvious and doesn't need
any additional proof.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:13
How about the more obvious explanation that Maidan, so much encouraged and celebrated by the
West, had taught Ukrainians that it is Ok to attack the police, try to pull away their shields
(see the photo above), through molotov cocktail at them (there was a picture on Monday) and grenades
in order to pass certain laws in their Rada.
vr13vr 3 Sep 2015 02:11
How exactly Russia is "profiting" from this? is this author just throwing the sentences around
or is he required to fulfill some anti-Russia quota in his article?
ArtofLies -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 02:09
There are undoubtedly going to be further problems with these nationalists, oh come on, we
can call the neo-nazi's or neo-fascists here, just because the journalists above the line cant
be seen to be propagandising for fascists does not mean that we have to play those semantic games.
the fact is this is the second time these fascists have attacked the police, this time with
grenades, the last time it was molotov cocktails, but the media wont criticise them because there
is money to be made in the ukraine, not everything is privatised yet and i hear there are still
dreams of fracking ukraine to prosperity.
nishville -> Jonathan Stromberg 3 Sep 2015 01:43
The far right have done all the dirty work during the coup and still doing it on the frontline
and have not got enough in return, in their view. Croatia had a similar problem with their extremist
veterans who were used by the Croatian right wing HDZ to destabilize social-democrat government.
Both countries are US clients and US has no use anymore for the nazi dogs of war, i.e.
they can protest all they want - they are getting nothing and if they become too obstructive,
they will start to disappear one by one.
They might be dangerous but they are nothing compared to money men running the show.
drrust 3 Sep 2015 01:38
Again you are instigating that the Minsk agreements were reached by western or international
powers in general, implying that angloamerica was part of this. The agreement was a sole and very
sucsessful initiative of Mrs Merkel, who took a reluctant Holland with her who solely sensed a
chance to be viewed as a statesman. The UK had already transports of war material underway.
elias_ -> Bosula 3 Sep 2015 01:14
There's million in Russia although many of them may be hiding to avoid military service. Look
on the bright side, there's another 40 million of them and I bet most will want to move into the
land of milk and honey which is Europe.
MaoChengJi 2 Sep 2015 23:31
"But despite profiting from it, Russia is very unlikely to have perpetrated it"
Oh no, say it ain't so! How can any trouble in this world be caused by something that is not
The Dark Lord Putin?
And how is Russia 'profiting' from this, I'd like to know? Isn's this rather a case of the
western Russophobe industry suffering a loss?
Well, for sure the Russophobe industry suffering a loss is an undeniable victory for all humanity,
but putting it as 'Russia profiting'?.. Oh well, russophobes are weird creatures, I've noticed
it a long time ago.
retarius 2 Sep 2015 22:47
Occam's razor: the fascist nationalist nutters orchestrated the whole thing, because they
don't want any concessions given to the objects of their hatred.
eric lund 2 Sep 2015 20:43
How the USA rule sway the destinies of Ukraine flooding it with blood
One can get an impression that authorities of Ukraine, totally dependent on State Department
of USA, are doing anything – searching for spies, begging for money, getting weapons from USA
and Europe, suppressing dissidence, self-advertising and desperate propaganda, but not taking
the steps to peaceful regulation of conflict in South-East of the country and its economic rise.
According to the last research of Kiev international institute of sociology the rating of president
Petr Poroshenko has fallen three times, down to 13,6%, other candidates don't even get 5%. When
authorities are so unpopular, it is only left for them to turn the screws and continue witch hunting
at full throttle.
The director of Centre of Eurasian researches Vladimir Kornilov noted: "Everybody perfectly
understands where the HR department of Ukrainian policy is. It is in the American Embassy".
In order to strengthen his worthless power Poroshenko fired seemingly over powerful chief of
Service of Safety Valentin Nalivaychenko, who had been transmitting information which often put
Poroshenko himself in not very bright light, to representatives of USA. And new chief of Service
of Safety Vasiliy Gritsak, who is very close to Poroshenko and was the head of his own service
of safety, at one dash arrested 40 colonels and generals allegedly for dissidence in his department.
Danger is getting closer for Home Affairs Minister Arsen Avakov. The chief military prosecutor
Of Ukraine Anatoliy Matios claimed that members of criminal organization 'Tornado', made on the
base of militia and appointed by Avakov from former criminals, had organized secret place in basement
floor of school to torture illegally captured people. The Ukrainian patriarch Filareth presented
a medal for sacrificing and love for Ukraine, so to say for perverted sadism while torments, which
are unofficially legalized by Ukrainian authorities.
At the same time the level of aggression of Ukrainian militaries is only picking up speed.
Thus, the Ambassador of Ukraine in USA Valeriy Chalykh without any scruples stated: We are getting
weapons, including lethal, and nobody can prohibit it to independent Ukraine. The other thing
is that it is not common to disclose these countries, but they are more than 10, only from Europe.
We have different level of technical and military cooperation, and at this stage it is only going
further.
Chillskier -> Paul Moore 2 Sep 2015 20:42
Here is two examples of Porkoshenko being a head of occupational government:
He destroyed Ukraine's military industrial complex, for it's ties (very profitable by the
way) with Russian military, as any obedient CIA stooge will do.
He flipped the country geo-politically, from the state that should have benefit from it's
position in the middle of the Europe, in to some sort of final frontier, protecting Europe
from the hordes of those crazy Russians, all by himself , only crazy person could have come
up with this, or an obedient CIA stooge again.
So it is what Ukraine g-ment does, not what putin tells.
EugeneGur -> Chirographer 2 Sep 2015 20:35
everything would have been wonderful if Ukraine had not decided to finally reject the
brotherly embrace of Putin's Russia
Not everything, because by that time Ukrainian authorities have already ruined a lot. However,
there is little doubt that Ukraine would've been a hell of a lot better off if it hadn't followed
the path of the coup and indulged in anti-Russian hysteria. Has your mother ever told you that
quarreling with your neighbors is never a good idea?
Looking at the situation objectively, it is a good thing that the Kiev government is
trying to follow the Minsk plan.
Objectively? You? It would be a good thing if it were but it doesn't. These constitutional
changes have nothing to do with the requirements for the regional autonomy set out in Minsk II.
Nor have they been agreed to by the Donbass representatives, which makes the whole thing pointless.
But even these miserable changes had to be pushed through by Nuland, because Rada initially refused
to approved them. There are 13 points in Minsk II and so far Kiev fulfilled none of them.
Jeff1000 2 Sep 2015 20:30
Some people think the challenges faced by Ukraine's Poroshenko are now too big to overcome.
But those who would like to take his place have not shown themselves capable of doing even
half of what he has achieved.
Wait...Poroshenko has achieved something? He has done nothing but what he was told.
He waged war in the east because John Brennan told him to. And then stopped when Merkel told
him to. He is a non-entity.
Julian1972 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:54
I know! I know!
Still, when the US funds its various Intelligence Agencies and Covert Overseas Operations Organizations
to levels beyond that which most of the rest of the world combined spend on their actual militaries,
it's hard not see why they end up being suspected of having sticky fingers in various pies.
Poor, innocent US...after all, all that money's just being spent on ergonomic seating and biodegradable
paperclips, right? Hahahaha!
nnedjo 2 Sep 2015 19:51
There is one more possible theory, which seems that the author has failed to notice.
Thus, due to the fact that the proposed legislation is far from what was envisaged by Minsk 2
agreement, and in particular is far from what would satisfy the pro-Russian rebels, the following
question arises:
Does this event may have been aimed to strengthen the claim that this bill is the most that Ukraine
can offer to the pro-Russian rebels, because, "for God's sake, even for this Ukrainians began
to kill each other in the middle of Kiev"?
TomFullery -> Chillskier 2 Sep 2015 19:47
You are right about Ukraine's economy. I visit fairly often and each time I get more Hryvnia
for my Euros. Plus the restaurants are empty so you are guaranteed good service from serving staff
desperate for a tip to supplement their meagre wages (so much for joining the US "democratic"
system!).
Strange that the Nazi putsch in Kiev has benefited me (who wouldn't piss on them if they were
burning) rather more than 99% of Ukrainians.
Although I do notice that the Kiev Nazis seem to have taken one step in the direction of moderation
- the shrine to the Nazi Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera which was there erected about the
time of the putsch has now disappeared (most likely moved to a less conspicuous location).
Julian1972 -> desnol 2 Sep 2015 19:44
Dead right.
In penning the written equivalent of 'The Picture That Fooled the World':
maybe, at least, his 'confusion' is a symptom of his conscience trying to find it's voice.
Hehehe, maybe there's hope for him yet?
Let's face it, straight reporting on The Ukraine is hard to come by, given that it's labouring
under the 3-line whip of the CIA, MI6 and another global I.S. best not to mention.
NorthOfTheM25 2 Sep 2015 19:42
The Ukrainian regime in as much as they try so hard to have a resemblance of 'western values'
(whatever that means) & to avoid behaving like the powers that be at the Kremlin. At the end of
the day have the same approach in how they apportion blame & deflect attention from their obvious
failings.
When you back hard right elements (to further your personal political goals, when both parties
share a common antagonist) who are prone to violence. Don't cry victim when they disagree with
your political overtures & decisions. Acting out that disagreement the only manner they know how
to which is through violence.
I have no sympathy Poroshenko, for the backlash his government is now facing re: his government's
constitutional proposals.
TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:35
His Ukraine policy has two main prongs.
1. Make Putin realise that military aggression against his neighbours carries too high an
economic penalty to be worthwhile.
Nothing got military until the US-instigated Nazi putsch in Kiev. Strategic imperatives trump
short term economic considerations and Russia has reacted skilfully to the attack by the US using
Ukraine as a proxy (much to Ukraine's detriment)
2. Support Ukraine economically until it becomes a prosperous liberal democracy, like
the rest of Europe (Russia excepted of course).
Ukraine will be asset-stripped by US corporations. Ukraine will not be a prosperous, liberal
democracy in your lifetime and neither will the US.
Oligarchs in Ukraine are doing extremely well, obviously not a concern for a coup sponsors.
normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:33
Want an example of a twist?
Kerry warning Poroshenko against resuming hostilities, retaking territory in breach of the
Minsk agreement, then less than a week later Nuland rushing to Kiev to egg Poroshenko on, thoroughly
endorsing his plans
Hanwell123 -> Knapping 2 Sep 2015 19:28
He was the idiot who jumped the gun in the CIA plan to create a war in 2008. He went before
the whistle shelling an unprotected and unwarned city hours before he was supposed to. One of
Asias prize fools. So Poroshenko's made him - a non Ukrainian - Governor of Odessa. Great stuff
Poro!
TomFullery -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:27
Despite Yanukovich's corruption he did a decent job of steering Ukraine down the middle path
between Russia and the US/EU and he was nobody's proxy. As for his corruption he was a mere pickpocket
compared to the like of Timoshenko who is not on any Ukrainian, EU or US corruption list!
This wasn't good enough for the neocons in Washington who wanted the whole country - hence
their instigation of the Nazi putsch in Kiev. It's gone downhill all the way for the Ukrainian
people since then considering they have lost a sizeable chunk of territory and now likely having
to move to some sort of federal system.
On top of those miseries they now have Finance and Economics ministers from Lithuania and Poland
parachuted in by the US and given Ukrainian citizenship on the day of their inauguration to their
respective posts. They also have US stooge and ex-Georgian president Sakaashvili and fugitive
from Georgian justice parachuted in as governor of Odessa. Let's not forget Joe Biden's son who
was appointed to the board of directors of one of Ukraine's biggest energy companies very shortly
after the Nazi putsch.
At least the east of the country is out of the hands of US corporate predators but it's a certainty
that agreements will be signed (if not already) to turn massive tracts of Ukrainian farmland in
the west of that country to US GM giants. I wonder how those US-loving west Ukrainians are going
to react when the horrible reality of US-style "democracy" hits home.
NorthOfTheM25 -> truk10 2 Sep 2015 19:24
Stop it, you are embarrassing yourself & sound like a bitter divorcee who has lost a legal
battle. Nothing you have said has little bearing with the article.
But I guess each time the key trigger words Russia, Ukraine, Kremlin, Stalin & Moscow are mentioned
then just like Putin bots, you are also activated from your dwelling under the bridge to reel
out the tired & repetitive anti Putin bellicose rants.
normankirk -> jezzam 2 Sep 2015 19:22
except it is the oligarchs who are prospering. Kolomoisky is under investigation for diverting
1.8 billion of IMF money to his own Cyprus bank account. Poroshenkos profits have increased astronomically
while all Ukrainians are taking pay cuts.
luckyjohn -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 19:03
Yanukovych contributed a lot to radicalise Ukrainian society. He planned his survival in office
by manipulation - stressing Tyannybok's importance to voters so that in the end there would be
a choice - Tyaynybok or himself Yanukovych for president. Of course - Yanukovych then wins because
the radical Tyahnybok is too "dangerous" to vote in. So much for your democratically elected president
Yanukovych! So the presence of radical elements in Ukrainian society is in fact Yanukovych's doing.
He was a very divisive president who played on divisions in Ukraine rather than trying to heal
them as well as being thoroughly corrupt.
virgenskamikazes 2 Sep 2015 18:37
I would believe the Western version if, after ousting Yanukovich, they would do a 21st century,
EU version of a Marshall Plan. If the EU had said to Yanukovich "we want to flood Ukraine with
Euro with very low interest and in long term, for investment in infrastructure and industrialization
projects - given that you cut ties completely with Russia" and Yanukovich had said "no" to that,
than I think it would be fair for the Ukranian people to oust him.
But the EU offered a humiliating, absurd shock therapy style reform, that's why Yanukovich
"no". Even imediate full EU, EZ membership was not on the table.
The thing is, the Ukrainian people bought on the fantasy that they could mass emigrate to central
Europe overnight had Yanukovich said "yes", that only them had economic problems, that the West
is the promised land, that we are still in the Cold War, etc.
Had Yanukovich hold on tight on power until two months ago, after the Greek tragedy, I doubt
there would be political strength for the USA and the Ukrainian far-right to oust him.
Beckow -> ArthurJenkinson 2 Sep 2015 18:32
He wrote a long article with bizarre conspiracy theories in order to confuse a very simple
attack by a Ukrainian nationalist mob on the police, killing 3 policemen.
The "theories" are there to obfuscate and confuse. We are close to the end game in Kiev and
it will not be pretty. And the angry hysteria among Washington, London and Berlin sponsors of
this madness will also get uglier. They don't like to lose so they would prefer just about anything
to admitting to being defeated in Ukraine.
Julian1972 2 Sep 2015 17:43
Poroshenko's assertion that Russia is to blame for this week's murder of policemen is of the
same Frankenstein DNA as his assertion that Russia was behind the downing of Flight MH17 and that
the Eastern part of The Ukraine's population are not democrats rising up against an illegal putsch
which brought him to power but are simply 'Kremlin puppets'...and therefore justifiably crushed
by the same type of gunfire that otherwise had Maidan martyrs held up as 'heroes'. (Even though
it was members of their own side doing the shooting, hahaha).
Disgusting man hailing from a disgusting class of politician/businessmen trained by the
US to bring death and chaos to any part of the globe that the powers behind the US Government
see fit. Prepare for our own Maidan should this class of parasite-sans-frontieres, (read Mikheil
Saakashvili), succeed in bringing The Ukraine under the NATO umbrella.
BastaYa72 -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:43
You can't even tell the difference between 'neo-fascist' and 'Nazi'.
If either term comes into your tiny mind it obviously defaults to imagining scenes from the
last days in the Führerbunbker - whatever turns you on.
Also, the IMF has always favoured right wing corporatist regimes, preferably with as little
democracy as possible.
desnol 2 Sep 2015 17:41
The author's puzzlement and confusion are directly proportional to how little he understands
the situation in Ukraine. He keeps wondering about various scenario's, each more absurd than the
previous.
I chortled with laughter, almost choked, when he suggested that the Kremlin agents are
organising the far right nationalists in Ukraine, deliberately causing an outbreak of peace in
order to show up the Kiev parties in a bad light! Believe me, Kiev parties can show themselves
up all by themselves!
And then, almost at the very end of the article, after all his fanciful, surreal speculation,
Andrey Kurkov hits the nail on the head with
"Still, the violence could have a far more banal explanation."
But even then he gets it all skewed up, blaming the fact that Ukranian army went to fight the
separatists for the fact that the far right thugs are now armed and throwing bombs in Kiev. Doesn't
he realise they were armed and throwing bombs in Maidan 2014 edition? He doesn't ask who armed
them in the first place.
The author is giving a good impression of being one very confused bloke.
domeus -> thenewstranger 2 Sep 2015 17:30
At least he is an improvement on all the other Guardian journalists who report on Russia and
Ukraine. He connects the right wing group of people behind the killing of the of the policeman
in Kiev with those those who volunteered to kill their fellow countrymen in Odessa and throughout
the eastern and southern regions. Autonomy for the regions would have solved the problem then
and prevented the unnecessary bloodshed and suffering. But Nuland had other plans and the western
media acted accordingly.
Jessica Roth -> alpamysh 2 Sep 2015 17:14
The Maidan "protestors" were the ones who broke the cease-fire, shooting at both the Berkut
and their own people. The forensic evidence proved it. Did you not listen to the Urmas Paet-Baroness
Ashton phone call?
The "impeachment" of Yanukovich was illegal under the Ukraine constitution, which required
a 75% vote. Even with the US-trained thugs forcing MPs to the floor at gunpoint, only 72% of the
Ukraine parliament was present for the vote. Poroshenko has no more business being President than
the burnt and raped corpses of the people his Azov Nazis butchered in Odessa and Mariupol do.
(Although the corpses would probably do a better job.)
bonhiver 2 Sep 2015 16:49
I wondered how long it would be for poroshenko to blame putin for the grenade attack. Russia
has been a convenient scapegoat for Ukraine to blame for its own failings since the overthrow
of yanukovic.
The right wing activists who carried out the grenade attack were at the heart of the maidan
protests which also involved violent confrontations with the police. They were also those who
tarrgetted ethnic Russians following the overthrow of yanukovic so their actions in opposition
to granting extra powers to eastern territories is hardly surprising.
ositonegro 2 Sep 2015 16:44
The Azov battalion also declared they would bring the war to Kiev if not sated in Dombass.
You make a fascist revolution and the next move is to institutionalize it. Hitler did this very
well, destroying the populist SA movement and assassinating their leaders and incorporating the
remainder into the regular army. Then fascism could move forward with the whole state support.
But in Ukraine the EU-US used fascism to make the coup then tried to reign it in. The fascists
however cannot be institutionalized. They are still a powerful street movement with the added
benefit of having been trained and armed and given military space to grow. Now they are pushing
for policy dominance over the regular bourgeois political forces and using bombs to do it. The
Azov Battalion always said they would take the war back to Kiev if they felt betrayed.
It has to be understood that Poroshenko is not a fascist, despite coming to power on the back
of their efforts. The EU-US do not want the fascists in power. How could Ukraine enter the EU
with an outright fascist government? But they are playing with fire, using these street forces
and then renouncing them. It will come a time when they do not have either the legitimacy of the
power to stop another coup against themselves, and this time with no restraints. Then what will
the EU do?
While Greece founders under unsustainable debt and Eurogroup dictatorship, Ukraine is given
sweeteners, relieving 20% of their debt - something unimaginable with Greece. But you can't stop
a tsunami with Canderel.
Seven decades ago, the US dropped one atomic bomb on Hiroshima and one on Nagasaki, Japan. The journalistic
hook of that nice, big 7-0 means that mainstream outlets had an excuse to look back and consider
the decision to use the nukes. The conclusion remains mixed. There's some (vital) uncomfortableness
with the idea that the grand old US remains the only nation to use such a weapon on human beings.
But it never feels like a true black mark on the US, because, well, we won't
let it be one.
It is true
some
people – and some
polls suggest – that the anti-nuke side of things wins out more and more when we look at the
passage of time. Yet, it doesn't feel that way when the subject is discussed. Perhaps if you directly
ask whether nuking was justified (a surprisingly low 56 percent say yes in a 2015 Pew Research Center
poll), you may get one type of answer. But even ostensibly neutral history books that most children
use in most schools reaffirm this constant narrative of justification. The bombing ended World War
II, and America did it, and Hitler lost, and so it must have been good and right. It's easy to believe
this, and easier still if you don't spend too much time thinking about it. I read a great deal of
history before I realized that some very war-friendly, establishment people like Gen. Dwight Eisenhower
disputed the necessity of the bombing.
Another, narrower aspect of the question of justification lies with the second bombing. "Hiroshima"
is historical shorthand for the use of atomic bombs on human beings, the way Waco is shorthand for
the tragedy with the Branch Davidians, and Columbine means (what was once) the most horrifying school
shooting. That's how humans talk about things. But when we say Hiroshima, what do we mean? Do we
mean the fact of both bombs? Or just the first one? The afterthought that is the bombing of Nagasaki
rather brilliantly sums up the lack of care on the part of the defenders of the act. Let us say –
though we are wrong – that the first bomb on August 6 is morally acceptable because because we
have a crystal ball that proves a land invasion is otherwise necessary and it will kill one million
people. (Presumably, our crystal ball also tell us unequivocally that horrifically punishing citizens
for the crimes of their government is all right if you really feel like it. )
Given all of that, what makes the bombing of Nagasaki on August 9 acceptable? Nagasaki was the
last minute replacement for Kokura, which had blessed smoke and haze cover preventing the dropping
of the bomb. Kyoto had previously been suggested as a target, but was too beautiful. A dozen and
a half other cities were on the list earlier that spring, and Nagasaki was taken off, and then later
hand written on the draft strike order in late July. A decision this momentous and horrifying was
borderline spur of the moment.
Now, the parody news site The Onion actually sums up the Nagasaki situation brilliantly
(except for a predictable French joke). Their headline reads "Nagasaki Bombed 'Just for the Hell
of it.'" The sub: "second A-bomb would have just sat around anyway, say generals." The entire faux
article is worth a read.
It's painfully damning.
Three days is the patience that the US had for killing 40,000 or not. Three days for the Japanese
government to surrender. Three days is how much the people of Nagasaki were worth. That speaks volumes
about priorities. You cannot argue that this was some cold math problem that cannot be regretted
or coo that the US was doing it to save everyone's lives when you read about the bumbling,
last minute journey to drop Fat Man on Nagasaki. This is brilliantly
relayed in a recent New Yorker piece written by nuclear historian Alex Wellerstein. The
whole piece is essential reading, but two details that stuck out to me were the following. The warning
leaflets that hawks point to even in casual debate about the issue as proof the US meant to preserve
some life? Those warnings of a terrible weapon to come? They came on August 10.
Also illuminating is a list of some of the closest targets to ground zero. Yes, Fat Man took out
a torpedo factory and a Mitsubishi plant. Nearby were also: "Nagasaki Prison, Mitsubishi Hospital,
Nagasaki Medical College, Chinzei High School, Shiroyama School, Urakami Cathedral, Blind and Dumb
School, Yamazato School, Nagasaki University Hospital, Mitsubishi Boys' School, Nagasaki Tuberculosis
Clinic, Keiho Boys' High School."
Wellerstein also has a blog post from two years ago which asks
"Why Nagasaki?"
In it he goes over theories not as to why the city was picked, but why another nuke was dropped at
all. "No really, we mean it" is the official version. But as Wellerstein wisely notes, this is silly.
Did the US expect the Japanese to think this impossible new weapon had been a fluke? Some kind
of magic incantation? That's a terrifyingly weak excuse for killing so many people – making sure
they EXTRA got the point. So indeed is one theory that both plutonium and uranium bombs needed to
have proven they were worth the Manhattan project's enormous cost. Wellerstein doubts that one, but
it certainly has a ringing confirmation bias for those against the military industrial complex.
Wellerstein suggests that though Nagasaki almost escaped unscathed:
"To stop the atomic bombing would have been the unusual position. Go back to that original
target order: the only distinction is between the "first special bomb" and the "additional
bombs," not a singular second special bomb." And in his New Yorker Piece, he
also notes that Truman appears to have been uncomfortable destroying another city full of "all those
kids."
So there you go. There were only two nukes dropped, and none since. It could have been worse.
But this was not a country weighing competing interests like stopping Imperial Japan and not slaughtering
people. This was "hit 'em again to make sure they're down." A week would be too long to wait? Ten
days? A month? It seems that even people willing to do something as horrific as nuke a city could
wait a little bit to see if they must do it again. But, no. Because if it is on the table – if you
have just done it – then you will do it again. The Onion wasn't kidding.
And so they say two nukes ended the war, but what if the US had stopped at one? How do we know
that wouldn't have worked? Or they had needed five, or ten, or twenty nukes, all of Japan in a rubble?
Would that have been just as necessary as two? That's the margin of error war works with: scores
of thousands of lives lost. Maybe we needed to do it once, maybe twice. One or two bombs. Three if
we can finish that last one. The lack of specificity which doomed Nagasaki is haunting, and it proves
that the hawks are guessing just as much as anyone else.
Lucy Steigerwald is a contributing editor for Antiwar.com and a columnist for VICE.com. She
previously worked as an Associate Editor for Reason magazine. She is most angry about police, prisons,
and wars. Steigerwald blogs at www.thestagblog.com.
A grenade was thrown at police defending Parlament buiding. One person was killed, 125
were injured, 12 people are being operated on and one soldier is in deep coma. Doctors have refused
to give any forecasts on the condition of another five people. Ukraine's Deputy Interior
Minister Vasily Paskal, journalists of Ukrainian TV channel 5 and channel 1+1 as well as a French
correspondent were also among the injured. According to the Ukrainian Health Ministry 21 people
received gunshot wounds. One died. And look how NYT cover the event. Compare with
coverage of
Charlie Hebdo.
The results of a fiercely contested parliamentary vote over autonomy for eastern Ukraine were
counted on Monday, partly in blood: 265 in favor, three major parties opposed and one dead
policeman.
About 120 other officers were also wounded in an attack during a protest that intensified after
Parliament approved a measure on constitutional changes that could grant autonomy to parts of the
Luhansk and Donetsk regions.
The authorities said a man later identified as a member of a nationalist party had thrown a
grenade at the police lines.
Old Nick, NYC
Shocking development -- Kievans hurting Kievans -- and can only give comfort to the enemies
of Ukraine. The fallout from this remains to be seen.
In any event, leadership demands that legislation be better explained to the people; there is
a good argument to be made for entirely abandoning the Eastern areas to their own devices,
even to the Russian exchequer.
Издание "Главком"
обнародовало фотографии, на которых в первых рядах митингующих, которые пошли на правоохранителей,
запечатлены Тягнибок и экс-нардеп от "Свободы" Юрий Сиротюк. При этом Сиротюк держит в руке
дубинку.
Около полудня в понедельник митингующие попытались прорваться ближе к зданию парламента сквозь
линию милиции. В ходе столкновения "свободовцы" вытащили из строя нескольких бойцов Национальной
гвардии. Их позже избили. Спустя полтора часа, уже после голосования в Раде, митингующие бросили
в правоохранителей взрывное устройство.
UPD 15:00 Як повідомили Громадському у прес-службі ГУМВС в Києві, особу, яка кинула гранату у правоохоронців
затримано. UPD 14:50 Один із правоохоронців помер. Про це Громадському повідомив голова КМДА Віталій Кличко. Як
стверджує джерело Громадського в МВС з місця подій, на місці вибухнуло дві гранати. За інформацією
співрозмовника, гранати кинули протестувальники від "Свободи". Двоє правоохоронців у критичному
стані.
"Около 90 раненых под Радой в том числе несколько человек в тяжелом состоянии. Это результат
брошенных нескольких взрывных устройств со стороны людей в футболках партии "Свободы", устроившими
драку с Нацгвардией под ВР. Источник:
http://censor.net.ua/n349911"
Никакой пощады уродам, которые на акции несогласия с политикой власти убивают ни в чем неповинных
сограждан.
Это не ргд 5. Взрыв этой гранаты дает меньше дыма и дым черно-серый, а не белый. Про Ф-1 молчу,
жертв было бы десятками. Что рвануло - х.з. Думаю самоделка с начинкой "очумелые ручки". Про гранату
- погорячились. Хотя при воздействии ргд 5, мог быть подобный сценарий по раненным и убитому.
Но думаю, что это не штатная граната-взрывное устройство.
Как вы уже заебали, ебаные майданутые твари!Идите нахер,на передовую, перед орками гавноросскими
,траяпаками своим помашите!!.,Косить всех нахер с пулемета,пока резиной ,потом если не поможет
на боевые перейти!Взяли убили ни в чем не повинного, 24ех летнего парнишку!
Обращаюсь к киевлянам - будьте бдительны и внимательны сегодня на вечерних и ночных улицах города.
Свободовские твари готовят несколько провокаций с целью "защиты своих "незаконно задержанных побратимов".
Не поддавайтесь на провокации - на кону стоит все. В бижайшее время против террориста Тягнибока
будет возбуждено уголовное дело, а деятельность ВО Свобода будет запрещена.
Сама партия будет признана террористической.
Guardianista with their classic British elite hypocrisy did not put this news on the front page...
Real number of casualties is unclear. Initially five killed officer were reported by Ukrainian
authorities. According to the Ukrainian National Guard about 50 officers sustained injuries.
Note how those neoliberal stooges report the grenade attack on police defending Parliament
Building (clearly a terrorist act) which as attack on Parliament is worse then Charlie Hebdo attack in Paris: "A Reuters TV cameraman at the scene said several police officers
were knocked off their feet by a grenade explosion."
A Ukrainian national guardsman has died and many more have been injured in clashes with nationalist
protesters outside parliament in Kiev, the interior minister said.
A Reuters TV cameraman at the scene said several police officers were knocked off their feet by
a grenade explosion. Two officers were treated for wounds at the scene and there were pools of blood
on the street, the cameraman said.
Clashes had erupted outside parliament in Kiev on Monday as politicians gave initial approval
to constitutional changes granting more autonomy to pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine.
The western-backed constitutional reforms are required under the terms of a peace deal signed
in February, which called for Kiev to implement "decentralisation" by the end of this year. But critics
have branded the reforms "un-Ukrainian".
A total of 265 politicians voted in favour of the reforms at a stormy session of parliament, with
protests both inside and outside the buidling.
Dozens of demonstrators scuffled with police, Agence France-Presse journalists said. Protesters
fired at least one grenade that sent up a cloud of black smoke outside the building. Teargas was
used by both sides, an AFP correspondent said.
An adviser for the interior minister, Arsen Avakov, said one person had died. "A soldier from
the National Guard has died of a gunshot wound in the heart," the adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, said.
"Apart from using grenades, the provocateurs were using firearms, fired secretly."
The controversial reforms have been sought by Kiev's western allies, who see them as a way of
trying to end the armed conflict in the east that has claimed more than 6,800 lives over the past
16 months.
The bill has sparked heated debate in Ukraine where opponents see it as an attempt to legalise
the de facto rebel control of part of Ukraine's territory.
The reform bill grants more powers to regional and local politicians, including in the eastern
areas currently under rebel control.
But contrary to separatists' expectations, it does not definitively hand the largely industrial
eastern region the semi-autonomous status that the insurgents are seeking.
According to the text of the draft legislation, the region's status needs to be defined by a separate
law.
Kiev and the west accuse Russia of backing the rebels militarily and deploying its troops to the
conflict zone, claims that President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have repeatedly denied.
A group of Ukrainian politicians had earlier on Monday disrupted the parliament to block the vote
on the constitutional reforms, which they condemned as "anti-Ukrainian" and "pro-Vladimir Putin".
Politicians from the Radical party – part of the pro-western coalition behind President Petro
Poroshenko – had also blockaded the speaker's rostrum in an attempt to halt the crucial session.
Members of the extreme-right Pravy Sektor group blocked traffic outside the parliament, while
several hundred activists from the nationalist party Svoboda rallied outside the building against
the western-backed reform.
At the weekend, Poroshenko met politicians from the pro-presidential coalition who oppose the
reform in an attempt to persuade them to change their minds.
Навіть якщо гранату під ВР кинув не якийсь дурнуватий фанатик, а це була спланована провокація,
ті політичні сили, що були там, мають нести відповідальність в першу чергу.
Виродка який кинув бойову гранату в правоохоронців повинно бути знайдено й покарано. Це не
політична боротьба, це тероризм. Свобода , за обставин, має бути зацікавлена в цьому найбільше.
После того, как "Свободу" прокатили в Верховну Раду Андрей Ильенко говорил: "Посмотри, как теперь
будет выглядеть парламент без нашей фракции и не захотят ли украинцы опять получить "Свободу"
в качестве инструмента для выполнения определенных заданий". Интересно какие такие "задания" он
имел ввиду, уж не подрыв ли гранаты в толпе? Думаю, что такую "Свободу" украинцы не захотят иметь...
свободка давно вже показала своє справжнє неадекватне жадібне до грошей обличчя, косячи під неонацистів
і продаючи землю у Львові і області. Чого тільки варті баньки тягнибакса і губи фаріонихи..
пукало:
А що ти пропонуєш? Перевибори президента? Є кандидатура? Що так дратує свободу у змінах до Конституції?
Що так дратує всіх інших? Як можна сьогодні таке витворяти?
Провокаторы Кремля - Правый Сектор , перешли уже межу. Это следовало ожидать, так как этим провокаторам
прошло безнаказанно провокация 19 января 2014 г., на Грушевского. И пока их не пересадить или
перестрелять, - ничего путнего в Украине не будет.
Following, as Reuters reports,Ukraine's parliament on Monday voted for
constitutional changes to give its eastern regions a special status that it hopes will blunt
their separatist drive...
At a rowdy session, a total of 265 deputies voted in favor in the first reading of
a "decentralization" bill, backed by President Petro Poroshenko's political bloc and
his government - 39 more than that required to go through.
But many coalition allies, including former prime minister Yulia Tymoshenko, spoke
against the changes and it is open to question whether Poroshenko will be able to
whip up the necessary 300 votes for it to get through a second and final reading later this
year.
Approval of legislation for special status for parts of Donetsk and Luhansk
regions, which are largely controlled by Russian-backed separatists, is a major element of a
peace agreement reached in Minsk, Belarus, in February.
Though a ceasefire is under pressure from sporadic shelling and shooting which government
troops and rebels blame on each other, Western governments see the deal as holding out
the best possible prospect for peace and are urging Ukraine to abide by the letter of
the Minsk agreement.
At least 50 Special Forces troops have been injured during clashes in front of the
parliament in Kiev, the Ukrainian National Guard said. Crowds of protesters came to oppose
amendments to the constitution that would provide for decentralization of the country.
Tweets from journalists at the scene said supporters of the radical group Right Sector were
brutally attacking police officers.
"A combat grenade has been thrown at the Ukrainian special forces. Some of the servicemen from
[Ukraine] National Guard have been seriously injured. Their life is in danger," Anton
Gerashchenko, an adviser to Kiev's Interior Ministry, wrote on his Facebook page.
Another video of the hostilities developing in Kiev:
https://youtu.be/rGciYFcVcaU
timeless21
soros must be mad
TeamDepends
It's blood sacrifice time, citizens. The lucies want chaos, and by Soros they are going to
get it!
wesson
1.5 years ago, Same groups, same people, same organisation, same methods. But it was
"freedom" and "the choice of European Union"
Latina Lover
Another country destroyed by the USSA, a CIA public works project, courtesy of Nudelman's
Building Democracy (tm) in Ukraine project.
realmoney2015
There are always reasons for the war hawks to lead are young men into war. That's why we
need a president in office that will uphold the Constitution. That means that he/she cannot
take our country to war. Congress was given that power.
If only there was a candidate who actually stands for that and the rest of Constitution! Oh
wait there is one candidate who does...
Latina Lover
My bet is on Azov and the Right Sector. The USSA needs to step up the game against Russia,
thus Porky and the Rat must be retired in favor of the Ukie Lunatic Nazi fringe.
Latina Lover
Post communism, the Ukie Oligarchs claimed that by receiving privatized state assets for
almost nothing, they would build a capitalist society similar to the US, bring prosperity,
European values and modernity to all citizens of the Ukraine.
It was, of course, a big lie. The Ukraine is now the worlds worst performing economy over the
last 24 years, with many Ukrainians looking back to the communist era with wistful eyes. The
truth is that most Ukrainians lived better under communism than oligarchic/crony capitalism.
Enki Anu
It's funny, Newland's husband name is Kagan ( Khaghan ).
Khaghans were supreme leaders in Khazaria's destroyed Empire.
Destroyed by Vikings ( Russians ).
Sushi von Gestern
Rewind back two Shemitas...
"Two men posing as press photographers, one of them a former Israeli Colonel and Mossad agent,
were arrested INSIDE the Mexican congress on October 10, 2001 armed with 9-mm pistols, nine
grenades, explosives, three detonators, and 58 bullets, but were released following intense
pressure from the Israeli Embassy. "We believe that the two Zionists terrorist were going to
blow up the Mexican Congress. The second phase was to mobilize both the Mexican and US press
to blame Osama bin Laden. Most likely then Mexico would declare war on Afghanistan as well,
commit troops and all the oil it could spare to combat Islamic terrorism."
I am sure demented "mass-murderer" Putin will get the blame even as the Nobel Prize Winner
continues to drone women and children and wedding parties.
The war in Ukraine may explode at any point. Just as the Neocons wanted.
Latina Lover
Of course Russian agents were behind the attack...perfect false flag to declare war on
Russia and ask for NATO's protection. Only problem is that the Eurowimps will definitely back
out, and the USSA pro american Ukies will suffer another humiliating defeat. Anyone who
thought they could beat Russia on her home turf deserves to eat the Nudelman cookies.
McCormick No. 9
The Ukraine is just a diversiinary tactic to distract Russia from Syria. The Iran nuke deal
is designed to neutralize Iran while the CIA backed ISIS forces weaken Assad. In this crazy
plan, the fanatcial ISIS forces will be defeated (after they defeat Assad) by moderate rebel
forces. Yeah, right.
Wile-E-Coyote
Putin's passport will be found in perfect condition inside the grenade crater.
Vylahkinnen
Now I get it! That Polish Minister - what a smart man! He told us that Poland expected
hundreds of thousands of refugees from the Ukraine. Now it makes perfect sense...yeah.
terry44
Well there's plenty of space there, half of the Poles have moved to England.
Vylahkinnen
I must admit that I never understood why they still call it England. Are there still
English people around? Have you seen one? Don't worry. I won't come over. It's already such a
crowded place. Density pop/km˛ = 262! I live as a mad hermit and I die as one.
beijing expat's picture
It's a marketing gimmick.
Freddie
+1
The Daily Mail had some more Putin hate yesterday. Putin would not let gangs of child
molesters like Jimmy Saville exist in Russia. Jimmy Saville dies but no one in his gang of
pedophile is arreested. This went on for decades with top people in govt and in power.
CHILDREN. This also happenes in western Europe including Belgium. These f**Kers need to be put
in wood chippers for harming children.
England has Islamic gangs of rapists attacking English CHILDREN and the English police do
nothing.
Cameron, Milliband, Clegg - all stooges for the Red Shield and the City of London Satanists.
And these evil Satanic shits have the nerve to call Putin a monster. Putin and the Russians
are (predominantly) Christians. The Bolsheviks were not. Same people in charge in Kiev.
Winston Churchill
Was the Reichstag badly damaged ?
silverer
Good excuse for the US to roll in more hardware.
OzViking
5 billion dollars spent on destabilizing Ukraine, the gift that keeps on
giving.......................
TeamDepends
But we got the gold, which is worth way more than 5 billion digidollars.
SMC
Reads like a false flag. Cui Bono.
beijing expat
Headline should read "Poroshenko's Thugs in brutal crackdown on peaceful democracy
protesters."
Insurrexion
Cui Bono is correct.
What about the fecking "Western" Separatists?"
Jorge Soros and Vicky "Cookie Snookums" Nudelman are on "The List" to receive the Ludovico
Technique amongst other pantry pleasantries.
No worries my droogs...
Love, from the Lorova Milk Bar.
Alexa
shovelhead
Right Sektors "Hand Grenades for Peace" Program is working splendidly.
No "decentralization" and no special status for Eastern provinces.
"Vote right or good night" is the message sent from Vicky & Co. with love.
Wer're buying ALL of Ukraine...not just the broke-ass parts, and don't you forget it.
Latina Lover
I was wondering when you would show up, with your false flag BS. The good news is no one
believes anything that comes from the Ukrainian ministry of Truth, ukies least of all.
BarkingCat
>>>> The good news is no one believes anything that comes from the Ukrainian ministry of
Truth, ukies least of all.
<<<<<
Are you sure about that statement?
Have you ever been to Ukraine?
Let me give you a comparative example: how many people in the US believe what NBC, CBC, ABC
CNN, MSNBC and Fox News tells them?
Yes Ukrainians, like most citizens of former Eastern Block countries are very skeptical, but
the propaganda is thick and plenty gets through.
Russia is an easy target in most of those countries. People there do not draw a distinction
between USSR and Russia.
...which is ironic, considering that at least 2 post WW2 leaders of the USSR came from Ukraine
and
the most brutal one was a Georgian.
Latina Lover
The latest opinion polls in the Ukraine give Porky and the Rat single digit positive
ratings, with most ukies rating corruption and a very badly perfoming economy more important
than the civil war against Donbass.
I wonder whether they too will be deemed "peaceful protesters" as they were presented in
2013, or will Porky use force against them. Actually, I wonder what will happen next. Throwing
a grenade can be characterized as an act of terrorism.
Will the so called "anti terrorist operation" expand to include Kiev too? What will Porky
do now? He can't play it down, and yet using force against the so called "patriots" (= ukie
nationalists/nazis) may not resonate well with the society, costing him vital support. I think
he's ready to call Putin and ask him for advice :-) Yeah, Porky's between a rock and a hard
place.
Latina Lover
l'll bet Porky is keeping his private jet fueled and ready to bug out to Tel Aviv.
Kina
Another creation of the CIA, a Ukrainian 'ISIS' gone rogue.
Moody's Investors' Service rates seven countries Caa1 or worse, several tiers lower than Ba1,
which still carries a significant credit risk. These countries are approaching or have narrowly escaped
bankruptcy. Ukraine is rated Ca, which is currently the lowest credit rating of any country reviewed
by Moody's.
... ... ...
Ukraine
> Moody's credit rating: Ca
> Moody's outlook: Negative
> 2015 Gov't debt (pct. of GDP): 94.1%
> 2015 GDP per capita (PPP): $8,278
Ukraine's conflict with Russia over its annexation of Crimea continues to fuel the country's financial
problems. While the IMF approved Ukraine's debt restructuring plan in March, Ukraine has the worst
credit rating of any country reviewed, downgraded this year from Caa3 to Ca, the second lowest possible
level. Creditors can expect a 35% to 65% recovery rate on loans issued by the country. According
to Moody's, "The likelihood of a distressed exchange, and hence a default on government debt taking
place, is virtually 100%."
The same day that Moody's issued the downgrade, the National Bank of Ukraine announced the establishment
of the Financial Stability Council. According to Governor of the National Bank of Ukraine Valeriia
Gonatreva, the Council's function will be to "take a comprehensive and systemic approach to identify
and mitigate the risks threatening the stability of the banking and financial systems of the country."
According to Markov, Kiev was only interested in the first part of the Minsk Accords, namely
in a panic to stop counter-offensive of Novorossiya army, after their debacle at Debaltsevo.
But they have zero interest in carrying out the rest of the accords.
Plus, according to Markov, Kiev is under instructions from their American masters, to continue
the war at all costs.
According to Markov, Kiev is actually carrying out a plan called the "Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan",
and I googled Gorbulin, but couldn't get any more information, so I don't know who this person
is.
But the main points of this Gorbulin-Poroshenko Plan are said to be:
1. Kiev does not take on any (Minsk) obligations which involve peace-making moves.
2. Full blockade (of Donbass).
3. Continue artillery shelling of residential areas of Donbass, kill as many civilians as possible.
4. This in order to make life unbearable in Donbass.
5. The goal is to turn the residents against their leaders, in DPR and LPR.
6. Weaken Russia with sanctions.
7. Planning a military blitzkrieg against Donbass, on the model of the attack of Croatian army
against Serbian Krajina.
8. NATO will station troops in Kharkov, Zaporozhie and Dnipropetrovsk.
9. NATO will beef up Ukrainian army and prepare for fatal strike against Donbass.
10. The police state/dictatorship in Ukraine will be strengthened.
marknesop, August 7, 2015 at 5:45 pm
Volodymyr (Ukraine has to spell it differently so they can all high-five each other, the way
the British deliberately misspell "tire") Gorbulin is the former National Defense and Security
Council (NDSC) Secretary, now a personal adviser to Poroshenko. Looks a right Himmler type.
Saker has interesting piece about the attempted alliance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis and Russian
fascist groups and individuals.
This was in reference to the July 25 demonstration of Right
Sektor, Azov, et al, in support of Russian "political prisoners".
A new group which promotes this "nationalist internationale" calls itself "Petr i Mazepa",
they favor a reconciliation between Ukrainian and Russian fascists, and claim to represent "Russian
nationalists" who also respect "Ukrainian nationalists".
Saker goes on to discuss how the annual "Russian March" (of Russian nationalists, on 4 November)
has a majority which is pro-Ukrainian junta.
This is, they sided with Ukrainian Junta against Novorossiya. There is also a video of that Russian
March, which shows that the majority of the parties taking part in it, had an anti-Novorossiyan
position . But that fact is not very rare position: one of the organizers of Russian March, Denis
Tyukin, said in 2014 that " all Russian nationalist youth is supporting Ukraine ". Tyukin, member
of the National-Socialist party "Russkie" had been also in the demonstration of 25th of July in
Kiev (image below).
And it is not only Tykin, the head of the Russkie movement, Dmitry Dyomushkin, has called in
the past for a "Slavic March" in Ukraine to express support for Ukrainian nationalists .
This is interesting development, because it shows that a goodly segment of the Russian nationalist
right, just like the liberals, are flocking to see Ukraine as their preferred model of nation-building!
"Like the majority of Ukrainian people, I think (the new leadership) is bad ... They steal
a lot. When Yanukovich was stealing, that was bad. But these people are clearing up when the country
is at war, so they are guilty on two counts. This is marauding."
Those are the words of Dmytro Korchynsky, the commander of "Saint Mary", a volunteer battalion
that, like Ukraine's official forces, is fighting to subdue the Russian- backed separatists who control
the eastern part of the country.
Korchynsky - who spoke to Reuters - shares his generalized disaffection for the Poroshenko government
with other Ukrainians who feel that little has changed since the ouster of Viktor Yanukovich.
"The (Maidan) revolution was interrupted by the aggression (in the east) and the patriots left
Maidan and went to the east to protect Ukraine. Only 10 percent of people in positions of power are
new; the rest are all the same, pursuing the same schemes they always did", says Serhiy Melnychuk,
an MP and volunteer battalion founder who also sat down with Reuters.
Over the course of the last year, Ukraine has become the battleground for a proxy war between
Russia and the West. It's one of several pieces currently in play on the geopolitical chessboard,
and its citizens, like those of Yemen and Syria (fellow pawn nations), have been forced to endure
a humanitarian crisis while more "consequential" countries sort out how the spoils will be divided
and how borders will be redrawn.
Some Ukrainian nationalists however, have chosen to take matters into their own hands, taking
up arms against the separatists and likening themselves to a "Christian Taliban" bent on ensuring
that "Moscow burns."
From a basement billiard club in central Kiev, Dmytro Korchynsky commands a volunteer battalion
helping Ukraine's government fight rebels in the east.
A burly man with a long, Cossack-style moustache, Korchynsky has several hundred armed
men at his disposal. The exact number, he said, is "classified."
In the eyes of many Ukrainians, he and other volunteer fighters are heroes for helping
the weak regular army resist pro-Russian separatists. In the view of the government, however,
some of the volunteers have become a problem, even a law unto themselves.
Dressed in a colorful peasant-style shirt, Korchynsky told Reuters that he follows orders
from the Interior Ministry, and that his battalion would stop fighting if commanded to do so.
Yet he added: "We would proceed with our own methods of action independently from state
structures."
Korchynsky, a former leader of an ultra-nationalist party and a devout Orthodox
Christian, wants to create a Christian "Taliban" to reclaim eastern Ukraine as well as Crimea,
which was annexed by Russia in 2014. He isn't going to give up his quest lightly.
"I would like Ukraine to lead the crusades," said Korchynsky, whose battalion's
name is Saint Mary. "Our mission is not only to kick out the occupiers, but also revenge. Moscow
must burn."
Most of Ukraine's almost 40 volunteer battalions grew out of squads of protesters who battled
the Berkut riot police during the protests on Kiev's Independence Square, or Maidan Nezalezhnosti,
which began in November 2013.
After the protests toppled President Viktor Yanukovich, pro-Russian separatists rose up
in the east of Ukraine in April, 2014, demanding independence from the new government in Kiev,
which they called a "fascist regime." In response, several leaders of the Maidan protests raced
east with fellow protesters to try to stop the rebel advance.
Numerous brigades and battalions formed haphazardly, with most leaders accepting anyone
willing to fight. Serhiy Melnychuk, who founded the Aidar battalion in eastern Ukraine and is
now a member of parliament, said he signed up people between the ages of 18 and 62 and "from the
homeless to pensioners."
Irregular though theses forces were, some acquired weapons from the Defense Ministry,
officials and battalion leaders said. Others received money and equipment from wealthy
oligarchs. They became powerful forces in the struggle against pro-Russian separatists.
In his billiard club headquarters, commander Korchynsky of the Saint Mary battalion made
his disdain for the government plain. "Like the majority of
Ukrainian people, I think (the new leadership) is bad ... They steal a lot. When Yanukovich
was stealing, that was bad. But these people are clearing up when the country is at war, so they
are guilty on two counts. This is marauding."
He said the revolution that began with the Maidan had been interrupted, but would one day
be completed. He did not say when.
If so, he will have to confront Poroshenko. On July 16, the president, decried the problems
posed by unspecified "internal enemies" of the country. He told parliament: "I will not
allow anarchy in Ukraine."
So in the end, we suppose the question is whether US weapons shipments to Kiev will be handed
out to Ukraine's "Christian Taliban" and whether they, like their namesake, will one day turn those
weapons back on the US once the Russians have been expelled.
Cold wars freeze despotism in place, and thaws in foreign relations melt it away
by Dan Sanchez, July 28, 2015
Print This | Share This
Iran Great Satan
The recent Iran nuclear deal represents a thaw in the American cold war against that country. It is a welcome sequel to the Obama
administration's partial normalization with Cuba announced late last year.
Hardliners denounce these policies as "going soft" on theocracy and communism. Yet, it is such critics' own hardline, hawkish
policies that have done the most to ossify and strengthen such regimes.
That is because war, including cold war, is the health of the state. Antagonistic imperial policies - economic warfare, saber-rattling,
clandestine interventions, and full-blown attacks - make the citizens of targeted "rogue states" feel under siege.
This activates what Randolph Bourne called their "herd mind," inducing them to rally around their governments in a militaristic
stampede so as to create the national unity of purpose deemed necessary to defend the homeland against the foreign menace. When you
lay siege to an entire country, don't be surprised when it starts to look and act like a barracks.
Rogue state governments eagerly amplify and exploit this siege effect through propaganda, taking on the mantle of foremost defender
of the nation against the "Yankee Imperialist" or "Great Satan." Amid the atmosphere of crisis, public resistance against domestic
oppression by the now indispensable "guardian class" goes by the board. "Quit your complaining. Don't you know there's a cold war
on? Don't you know we're under siege?"
Moreover, cold wars make it easy for rogue state governments to shift the blame for domestic troubles away from their own misrule,
and onto the foreign bogeyman/scapegoat ("bogeygoat?") instead. This is especially easy for being to some extent correct, especially
with regard to economic blockades and other crippling sanctions, like those Washington has imposed on Cuba, Iran, etc.
Imperial governments like to pretend that affairs are quite the reverse, adopting the essentially terrorist rationale that waging
war against the civilian populace of a rogue state will pressure them to blame and turn against their governments. In reality, it
only tends to bolster public support for the regime.
The imperial "bogeygoat" is an essential prop for the power of petty tyrants, just as rogue state bogeymen are essential props
for the power of grand tyrants like our own. Thus, it should be no surprise that the staunchest opponents to the Iran nuclear deal
include both American and Iranian hardliners. Just as there is a "symbiosis of savagery" between imperial hawks and anti-imperial
terrorists (as I explain here), there is a similar symbiotic relationship between imperial and rogue state hardliners.
The last thing hardliners want is the loss of their cherished bogeygoat. Once an emergency foreign threat recedes, and the fog
of war hysteria lifts, people are then more capable of clearly seeing their "guardians" as the domestic threat that they are, and
more likely to feel that they can afford to address that threat without exposing themselves to foreign danger. This tends to impel
governments to become less oppressive, and may even lead to their loss of power.
Thus after Nixon normalized with communist China and belatedly ended the war on communist Vietnam, both of those countries greatly
liberalized and became more prosperous. Even Soviet reforms and the ultimate dissolution of the Soviet Union only arose following
American detente.
Simultaneously, as the American cold wars against communist Cuba and communist North Korea continued without stint for decades,
providing the Castros and Kims the ultimate bogeygoat to feature in their propaganda, the impoverishing authoritarian grip of those
regimes on their besieged people only strengthened.
Similarly, ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution overthrew the puppet dictator that the CIA had installed over Iran in a 1953
coup, the Ayatollahs have been able to exploit ongoing hostility from the American "Great Satan" to retain and consolidate their
repressive theocratic power.
All this is an object lesson for US relations with Putin's Russia, Chavista Venezuela, and beyond. Disastrously, it is being unheeded.
Even while thawing relations with Iran, the Obama administration has triggered a new cold war with Russia over Ukraine. This has
only made Russian President Vladimir Putin more domestically popular than ever.
And even while normalizing relations with Cuba, Obama recently declared Venezuela a national security threat, imposing new sanctions.
As journalist Alexandra Ulmer argued, these sanctions "may be godsend for struggling Venezuelan leader," President Nicolas Maduro.
As Ulmer wrote in Reuters:
"Suddenly, the unpopular leader has an excuse to crank up the revolutionary rhetoric and try to fire up supporters, copying a tactic
used skillfully for more than a decade by his mentor and predecessor, the late socialist firebrand Hugo Chavez.
A new fight with the enemy to the north may also help unite disparate ruling Socialist Party factions and distract Venezuelans from
relentless and depressing talk about their day-to-day economic problems."
"...Attitude of the population to the government is clear: the Prime Minister's approval rating isn't
just the size of a molehill - a molehill compared to his rating is Mount Everest. The "Narodny Front"
party is going down in flames, and they are stealing as much as they can while they still can. " . "...So, for the sake of American ambitions, EU bit itself in
the penis." . "...Ever since last November the wartime economics has taken hold of Ukraine. If a country goes on
wartime economy even for a couple months, it takes hold – and it's like a hard drug addiction, an
addict can only be saved by chaining him to a lamppost and not giving him any drugs. The first time
I went to East Ukraine, our bus, which was packed with poor locals that took a day to make
the trip that used to take mere hours, was stopped and extensively searched by both sides, 6 or 7
times. But through the windows we could see columns of semi-trucks going through both UAF and NAF
checkpoints without any delays." . "...< But the fun thing is that> all the nationalists were screaming "Glory to Ukraine", "Ukraine for
Ukrainians", and now we have Georgians, <Americans and Latvians> in top government positions. They
even no longer have a law that a government official has to speak Ukrainian in official capacity.
" . "...<It takes about $10,000 per semi truck to get through the "blockade" > - it depends on the price
of the goods in the truck . For example, I heard that to be allowed to control a checkpoint you have
to pay the military bosses a million dollars a month. So if you pay a million dollars just to stand
at the checkpoint, you can imagine how much people are making. As for who physically controls those
checkpoints - it's not clear. When I was getting out of the DPR, with a smuggler, we were driving
through a rural checkpoint and I'm not even sure which side it was on, but there was a guy who lives
in Kiev in my neighborhood, he even recognized me and let me through without paying. So I have no
idea who manages those things - I told you, in the morning it could be one set of guys, and in the
evening somebody can come up, kill them and take over the checkpoint. I don't exclude the possibility
that at some checkpoints it can even happen more than once per day. You know how they say - "In the
bad part of Kiev, an iPhone can change hands several times a day, and outlive a quite few owners".
That's how it is. " . "...And the people are being conscripted, sixth wave of it already - people being caught literally on
the city buses, students are caught in universities... People are running away - I was asked what
is the journalist Kotsaba is in jail for - he's there for protesting illegal forced conscription,
because he was protesting against the government grabbing all those people, stealing the food they
are supposed to get, stealing the ammo and weapons they are supposed to have and selling them to
the DPR and LPR... And the people obviously have realized all this by now, and have no desire to
die in some encirclement to fill the oligarch's wallets. "
... ... ...
Interviewer:
Almost a year and a half after the coup in Kiev, a lot of details have already come to light, so
what do you think were the aims of the people who engineered it and people who carried it out? Go
as high up the ladder as you can.
Montyan:
< Major oligarch> Firtash already said everything, completely cynically and honestly, under oath
in a court in Vienna:
Of course, there was a group of oligarchs that wanted the EuroAssociation to be signed for their
commercial interests. But the greedy and stupid Europeans gave completely unacceptable economic conditions
- and Putin offered Yanukovich a ton of money for free, so Yanik changed his mind. The oligarchs
decided "we need to do something about this", and it started...
Maybe they didn't to want to destroy the country quite so much, but then Americans joined in with
Nuland's cookies, McCain and the whole circus - as always, they thought fighting a proxy war with
Russia to the last Ukrainian is a splendid idea!
Putin was also completely happy to fight Americans - and also to show the entire world that Ukrainians
are completely unable of running a country, that Ukraine is a totally "failed state". And of course,
compared to our idiot usurpers, even Putin and his bunch of crooks can be made to look like extremely
competent managers. Not to mention that our current president can be controlled through his factory
in Lipetsk, Russia.
So everybody's happy - Putin even recognized Poroshenko as the legitimate president - even though
he didn't have to, <Poroshneko is unconstitutional>, but he did because it's beneficial to him. Not
to mention Crimea, which was given up for two and half billion < cash>, as we now know.
So now Crimea is being dismantled**, similar to what Americans did to Latvia - they turned that country
into a border checkpoint, and Putin will turn Crimea into a military base.
I think that all these pointless Ukrainian checkpoints at the entrance are intentional, because they
block traffic, they block tourists, and core of Crimean economy was random tourists - because the
people who come there on organized tours don't spend money in local economy and they don't buy local
food, they have everything included in the resorts. So the plan is very simple, especially since
the Crimean channel bringing water for agriculture has been blocked by our government. The Tatars
will probably leave to Turkey, because all the businesses, restaurants and all that stuff aren't
going to be viable anymore. The retired will slowly die out naturally. So what will be left are shipbuilding
facilities, the big resorts which now look cute and have really been restored - unlike Ukraine that
has never invested local infrastructure - so it will be much like what America did with the Baltics,
where for example in Latvia only the center of Riga is still buzzing, the rest is completely dead,
and the schoolchildren leave abroad as entire classes the moment they graduate.
So everybody's happy, except Ukrainians.
Well, and most Europeans are starting to ask questions - "Why do we need this?". Officially, they
lost a hundred billion due to sanctions, really, much more, and Russians are laughing at them - "Okay,
Spaniards, we make our own ham now, where you going to sell yours?". And of course, the worse the
situation Ukraine gets, the sooner crowds of our criminals will start running across the border to
EU, and what are they gonna do with em? So, for the sake of American ambitions, EU bit itself in
the penis. And I think they deserve everything their greed has caused - if they gave us even somewhat
acceptable deal, Yanik might have taken it.
So I don't think what happened has been really planned by anybody. The process has gone completely
out of control from the very beginning - because you can't start a fire in your common home! You
never know what's going to catch fire first! It's dumb to start chopping down a tree that you are
all sitting on! But turns out we had plenty of degenerates who thought that they won't get hurt when
the country goes down. So oligarchs have devalued their own factories, and their own country.
And the main beneficiary is China! Because America forced Russia into China's arms. And I think China
will eventually engulf and assimilate Russia now.
By the way, last April, "Xinhua" - the official press agency of the Republic of China, has voiced
the opinion of the Chinese Communist Party on the issue. It says, roughly : "America and Europe have
destroyed the Ukrainian state and plunged the country into civil war. Of course, they will not help
Ukrainians fix the mess caused by their meddling, because they are bankrupt both financially and
morally. Their "democracy" is only empty talk, and in practice all the "progressive" attempts to
export it lead to untold human suffering." The Chinese already said this over a year ago.
= On Russian government
<interesting part so moved to top; others are more or less in order> Interviewer:The Russian government it doesn't seem to be very homogeneous, not as much
as people think. Do you see, in Russian government, some forces that are benevolent?
Montyan:I know some people who are reasonable, but I won't say their names, because they're
waiting until Putin would naturally die or get pushed away from power. They think it's easier to
let Putin and his gang steal for ten more years than to destroy the country like we did in the Maidan.
And they're completely right.
=About the change of heart in Ukrainian society:
…
The attitude in society is changing, even the most brainwashed now understand that there is something
wrong with this war. Fewer and fewer people are willing to go volunteer - to die and get eaten by
dogs in some encirclement. Fewer and fewer people donate money and food to private organizations
supplying the Army. And of course, things like the Military Prosecutor General talking live on air
above the
police battalions raping and killing people in the warzone does not encourage people to go join
<the good fight>. Basically, people that didn't understand it with their brains finally started understanding
it through their empty wallets and empty fridges.
… ... ...
Ever since last November the wartime economics has taken hold of Ukraine. If a country goes on
wartime economy even for a couple months, it takes hold – and it's like a hard drug addiction, an
addict can only be saved by chaining him to a lamppost and not giving him any drugs. The first time
I went to East Ukraine, our bus, which was packed with poor locals that took a day to make
the trip that used to take mere hours, was stopped and extensively searched by both sides, 6 or 7
times. But through the windows we could see columns of semi-trucks going through both UAF and NAF
checkpoints without any delays.
So that was complete "proof in the pudding" for me that this war is a sham. This is "wartime economy"
will continue until both sides run out of people who still believe that they are fighting for a cause,
and not for their bosses wallets.
Attitude of the population to the government is clear: the Prime Minister's approval rating isn't
just the size of a molehill - a molehill compared to his rating is Mount Everest. The "Narodny Front"
party is going down in flames, and they are stealing as much as they can while they still can.
Journalist Boyko recently described very nicely how the Police Minister Avakov and Co. set fire to
that oil depot by Kiev in order to take over the poor gas station chain - and by the way, the idiot
Head of State Security Nalivaichenko has accused the Prosecutor General even though the Prosecutor
General's men were actually trying to save that chain.
Not because of any respect for the law, of
course, but because of their own financial interests, but anyway. So the head of State Security has
spoken against the Prosecutor General, made it clear to everybody that he is completely retarded,
so they voted in the Parliament to remove him. Moreover, some people even managed to get something
for voting – for example, <head of Samopomosh' fraction> Sadovoi, who supposedly has bargained for
a permission to put his men as the head of the local customs service and the Prosecutor's office.
So in general, that's how it is.
... ... ...
= On Ukrainian politics
Interviewer:
So the current Ukrainian regime has two large groups centered around the Prime Minister and the president…
Montyan: They aren't really "centered" - those crooks don't have friends, they have interests. Groups are
constantly rearranged based on who managed to screw over whom, and everybody's planning to screw
over each other all the time. For example, Firtash decided to blab his mouth in an Austrian court,
and the President decided that's enough to kick Firtash's people out of government - because they
had an agreement not to talk about the agreement they had. <Nalivaichenko was one of these men. Also
he was fired for snitching to Americans about corruption in the President's faction>. The next rearrangement
is going to happen after the elections...
= On Jewish domination of Ukrainian government, media and business
Interviewer:
In the Ukraine currently, the government, business, mass media - it's all dominated by Jewish people,
and not the nicest representatives of that ethnicity. And they are less than 1% of the total population.
What do you think of this disproportional representation?
Montyan:
I have nothing against Jews, nothing at all. I don't think I'm dumber than them. It's an old quote,
attributed to Churchill - "Why aren't Englishmen anti-Semitic? They do not consider themselves to
be dumber than the Jews".
Also, the Jews themselves don't think Poroshenko and all those other guys are Jews - they consider
them a-holes, Yid traitors, etc. Read what our prominent Jewish people are writing.
Yes, of course, a nation that for many years - millennia, even, needed to develop their brains and
their solidarity, of course that's an advantage. But if anybody thinks that Jews are any different
from other ethnicity - they are much the same. Look at Israel - they have much the same disagreements
that we have over here. So, in Ukraine, they have better education,have their social capital, so
that's what happens - < they get to the top>. This isn't because somebody's naturally superior or
inferior, it is not good or bad, that's just how it is.
< But the fun thing is that> all the nationalists were screaming "Glory to Ukraine", "Ukraine for
Ukrainians", and now we have Georgians, <Americans and Latvians> in top government positions. They
even no longer have a law that a government official has to speak Ukrainian in official capacity.
= On the reasons for Donbass rebellion, the current situation, and the huge difference between
DPR/LPR
I think the situation in Donbass was initially fueled by the local oligarchs to blackmail the Kiev
government, saying –"If you pressure us, we will split". And Russia immediately thought - "How awesome
and very convenient!"
By now, Plotnickiy is controlled from Russia, and I think Zaharchenko as well. DPR and LPR are similar
in that respect – although they are completely different types of government, there are now checkpoints
and customs between them, so they are two very different republics that are not administratively
connected. You know, Donetsk always considered Lugansk their inferior younger brothers.
The situation in the DPR is much more organized - back in April 4th, that was the point where all
the non-organized armed bands had to either disband or integrate into the DPR Army. After that all
the bands were forcibly disarmed, those caught on rapes, robberies, drug dealing etc. were sent to
remove minefields where most of them died, or shot on the spot. In the LPR, the situation is much
different - the territories controlled by various bands are still present. For example, Mozgovoi
has been killed, but his group still controls territory, there are other groups like Dremov, <Kozityn's
men>, etc. Plotnickiy is mostly sitting in Lugansk, being accused of stealing humanitarian aid. And
that's how LPR exists.
Russia helps both republics to survive, of course, <with aid and currency>. So the situation is frozen
for now. People are making a ton of money on various checkpoints, there is a whole smuggling business
all around there, so you can get into the DPR and LPR without any ID because there are "stalkers"
who know how to get through the minefields, know how to get around checkpoints. The large checkpoints
make money on large convoys, and there are tons of small checkpoints on country roads that are controlled
by anybody who can. There are even horror stories of a car coming up to a rural checkpoint, "peasants"
getting out, killing everyone and taking over the checkpoint, and taking bribes instead of those
killed. So that's how they live. As I said, wartime economy will not stop by itself, just like a
drug addict will not stop taking drugs, so it can only be stopped by USA, Russia or Europe, but they
don't want to do it for now.
Interviewer:
Do you consider the national elites the organizers, the oligarchs?
Montyan:
How can you consider our oligarchs to be independent? Of course they are controlled from abroad,
much like the DPR/LPR government controlled by Russia. It's a fight between Russia and US to the
last Ukrainian.
Interviewer:
Why do you think Donetsk and Lugansk have not unified all the past year?
Montyan:
I say again - those are completely different entities ruled by a completely different people with
completely different interests. I'd been to both - they are different countries, different continents
even. The people are wrong to confuse them, there is nothing in common in any way. Both are controlled
by Moscow, but the situation is different ... there is even a different mentality. In DPR - they
got centralized, very quickly organized, exterminated or exiled those who could not be controlled,
and in LPR all that is still going on.
Interviewer:
So how "People's" are the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk?
Montyan:
Somewhat more "People's" than here, that's actually true.
They got rid of some of the oligarchs - actually the only big one left is Ahmetov, and they also
make him pay up. In the DPR , I was talking on the Oplot TV channel that they took from Ahmetov,
I was given a ride by a their minister on a car they took from the oligarch Kluev, and they told
me they took the Starobeshevo Power Plant from Yanukovich - as a result they pay half the price for
electricity that we do!
And the funniest thing is that I'm being accused of riding in the car taken from an oligarch, by
the same people who took over Yanukovich's house and Pshonka's properties in Kiev! Do these people
think at all?
Interviewer:
Do the governments of the People's republics and the Kiev government work together?
Montyan:
Of course! They are just stealing whatever they can. By now, everybody talks about giant cargo shipments
going between DPR and LPR and Kiev, while people are fighting each other the frontlines. Of course,
this is impossible without the governments on both sides being complicit - I do not quite know who
specifically is involved, I doubt we'll ever find out, but it's clear they work together because
otherwise they wouldn't be making such huge shipments.
<It takes about $10,000 per semi truck to get through the "blockade" > - it depends on the price
of the goods in the truck . For example, I heard that to be allowed to control a checkpoint you have
to pay the military bosses a million dollars a month. So if you pay a million dollars just to stand
at the checkpoint, you can imagine how much people are making. As for who physically controls those
checkpoints - it's not clear. When I was getting out of the DPR, with a smuggler, we were driving
through a rural checkpoint and I'm not even sure which side it was on, but there was a guy who lives
in Kiev in my neighborhood, he even recognized me and let me through without paying. So I have no
idea who manages those things - I told you, in the morning it could be one set of guys, and in the
evening somebody can come up, kill them and take over the checkpoint. I don't exclude the possibility
that at some checkpoints it can even happen more than once per day. You know how they say - "In the
bad part of Kiev, an iPhone can change hands several times a day, and outlive a quite few owners".
That's how it is.
= About Mozgovoi and his murder:
He was a non-typical commander. He was charismatic, played a local Che Guevara, really tried to pass
justice in the area he controlled... He was confiscating drugs by the pound and burning them on the
central square of Alchevsk. He personally came to resolve conflicts - almost down to family squabbles.
He was playing Robin Hood, and people loved him. This is shown by the number of people who came to
his funeral - the people now saying bad things about him, I don't think such a number of people would
even bother coming to spit on their graves if they die.
But Mozgovoi was very inexperienced at running a city, and running any sort of government, really.
The maximum he could do is deliver humanitarian aid, organized by him for the population. He had
four free canteens running for the people. When I was there, he was arguing with the Russian customs
because they weren't letting through food, and he was shouting - what will I feed my soldiers, my
civilians, children in our kindergartens... He didn't much care for the elections or stuff like that
- non-typical.
Anybody could have killed him - from local drug dealers for burning all the drugs, to anybody else,
he did not fit in there and did not have powerful backers. There is only one road there - plant an EID, sit and wait for him to come. And that's that's how it happened. As far as Moscow's backing,
he was due to go there, but did not make it in time.
= About future plans of the oligarchs and direction of the country:
I have no idea what the oligarchs think. I don't think they think far - the are just stealing what
they can, while they can.
And the people are being conscripted, sixth wave of it already - people being caught literally on
the city buses, students are caught in universities... People are running away - I was asked what
is the journalist Kotsaba is in jail for - he's there for protesting illegal forced conscription,
because he was protesting against the government grabbing all those people, stealing the food they
are supposed to get, stealing the ammo and weapons they are supposed to have and selling them to
the DPR and LPR... And the people obviously have realized all this by now, and have no desire to
die in some encirclement to fill the oligarch's wallets.
So obviously conscription isn't going very well - people understood that they are being basically
used as cattle for slaughter.
Interviewer: If Donbass completely leaves Ukraine, and after Crimea, could that trigger a process
like in Yugoslavia, could Ukraine split into several fragments?
Montyan: Where will Donbass go? Russia clearly stated they don't want Donbass.
How will DPR, LPR survive independently? I have no idea. As unrecognized states? Kiev under the control
of the nationalists, and DPR and LPR by themselves - they are not capable of surviving. They will
slowly rot, the fabric of the state would keep on failing and degrading further, so without external
interference, without some reformatting, this situation cannot be resolved. This situation cannot
be solved from the inside - by people inside the cage. Only the people who set it up can stop it,
and for now they have no desire to do so.
= On fixing the mess:
Fixing the country is not that hard, and wouldn't take that long, but for now, nobody wants it. I
could fix it in a couple years, probably. The mechanisms are commonly known, they had been used successfully
multiple times - as long as you have the desire to do it, it's not hard. But nobody wants to do it!
The elite needs to be at least minimally interested in not just robbing the country for its resources,
but thinking about the future. For now, the people who are getting to the top are those looters
from the checkpoints - because, for now, that's the most profitable business. When it becomes less
profitable, then things may change - that's basic economics. In Ukraine, we can see how capital takes
over the people and the state, the judiciary, the executive... All the branches of government and
all the the state-owned corporations are being taken over by oligarchs, . Now they're talking about
actually handing over the Customs Service to a private corporation. Thus, state monopolies are being
replaced by oligarch monopolies.
…
District governments are a sham, local governments are a sham - because every "state-owned" local
government service is actually being controlled by specific people who get money.
…
When there's no open mechanisms showing where the money comes into the state and how it gets out,
then the game turns into "King of the Hill" - whoever climbs to the top steals as much as he can
before he gets kicked off, then he runs away to another country with the stolen money and laughs
those he left behind.
= On Russian government (originally here, moved to top)
= On demonizing Putin:
Putin is just some guy. What's the difference who is the talking head at the top? He's just a <product
of a system>. Here, Poroshenko is already the exact same thing as Yanukovich, exactly. There are
cartoons - you take Yanukovich, curl his hair, you get Poroshenko!
It doesn't matter who "Putin" is, doesn't matter what the name is. They are determined by what the
country is. Don't like Yanukovich? Look in the mirror.
The president is the same as the country, as the people. I ask them - you don't like Yanukovich?
Is it him putting trash in your yard? Are the oligarchs making penis drawings all over your elevator?
Which government official urinated by your door? It is done by the population, by you, and because
you are like that - Yanukovich is like that. It's like that in every country.
If you don't find any compassion for journalists who are put in jail just for voicing their opinion,
why do you ask for justice for yourself? If you are ready to throw homemade grenades at police, why
do you think cops should not beat you up? That's so weird - <those people don't understand> that
justice has to be for everybody, not just "justice for us and injustice for our enemies".
= On civilians suffering in Donbass and Russian army:
What do you mean I don't talk about civilians in warzone? I pity all civilians in the warzone,
because they being shot at by all sides. They are stuck there, in this zone of chaos, they're being
screwed over by everybody.
I do have to say people don't believe me, <and that's scary>.
When I came back from my first trip to the East, I told them Ukrainian Army nearly killed me at the
Alchevsk cemetery, but people tell me "It's Mozgovoi". He was standing right next to me!
"Then it's Dremov" - he was on the phone telling us to run!
"Then it's Kozitsyn" - he was in a complete different direction, look at the maps! Still, nobody
believes me.
In the end, after I showed pictures of all the gravestones damaged with shrapnel and maps of the
area, some did... But people were really convinced <separatists are shelling themselves>.
But yes, both sides are shooting. Armies don't much care for civilians. In Lugansk, for example,
UAF were standing at the Metallist and shelling the city with unguided rockets - I was where they
landed, even visited local businessman Aleksandr Nigoves, found Grad pieces by his destroyed house,
there's plenty of videos and all... Eventually UAF hit something - either in Russia, or right on
the border, so Russian Army came in through Izvarino and crushed them, went through the positions
<UAF set up in towns> Khryaschevatoe and Novosvetlovka, and wiped them off the face of the earth.
Chased the UAF into an encirclement, and left 5 days later. In Novosvetlovka, 300 out of 600 houses
are destroyed, around 600 locals perished.
And who are the good guys here? That's how it is. That's war. It doesn't have a good and a bad side
- it's murder, horror and suffering.
Inteviewer:
Do you think something similar could happen in Kiev?
Montyan:
How can I know what's going to happen in this madhouse? What goes through the sick mind of some heavily
armed idiots somewhere? Anything can happen.
In the near future, more people will come back from a from the warzone and join street gangs, especially
when the standard of living goes down. Even now, they are shooting cops with AKs to rob a gas station
for $40, what's going to happen next?
= About "de-Sovietization" law:
Yes, they have nothing better to do than rename everything. Let's destroy the factories and highways,
because the damn communists built them.
Everything we see here, everything in Ukraine, was built by the Soviet Union. And a lot of it is
on the edge of the physical collapse. 70 to 90% of infrastructure - various sewerage, heating, power
lines - they're starting to fall down. Since "independence", they were patched up when they failed,
but no investments in replacement or renewal. And when the communist-built houses start falling down
- that's going to be real hell... But for now, the <dark Soviet legacy> still stands.
= About role of history in politics:
I'm completely amazed by the people who let the past affect their present and future. History
is for historians, for professional historians! I would personally prohibit using history in propaganda
- because history already happened, <it's over and done with>! The historical figures being put on
the posters that marchers run with - those people are gone! They lived their lives, in their conditions,
and bringing them into the present is completely retarded!
Live your own lives, here and now, and don't try to use historical figures in your propaganda
- because the vast majority of those historical figures, if you met them face to face, would chop
off your head as soon as you started spouting your drivel!
= About the nature of a "nation":
Interviewer:
Russian, Ukrainian and Belarusian nations - is it one nation that's been divided, or no?
Montyan:
No. I don't think a nation exists as a separate entity. For me, an African from Papua New Guinea
who believes in civil rights is closer than nationalist extremists beating people in Kiev. I refuse
to think I'm part of the same nation as them, and they probably don't think I'm part of "their" nation
either.
But that said, we can live in the same country, as long as it has laws and they do not have the right
to attack people. They can have their views, if they don't have the capacity to make their sick fantasies
a reality. As long as we have a decent civil and criminal law, and have the capability to punish
those who violate it, that's all we need for people to coexist.
Take Jews - they are so different! Some of them have gay parades in Jerusalem, run around in latex,
and others walk around in complete black garb and pray constantly. And they live together in the
same country, don't kill each other, because they have decent civil law, all the questions had been
solved, each millimeter of land has a clear established owner, and there's nothing to argue about.
They can talk about their views on TV and newspapers but that's it.
= On Ukrainian sovereignty:
What kind of sovereignty are you even talking about? Ukraine's territory is broken into pieces controlled
by various foreign powers. <The "revolution" only made it worse>: if you break apart a crappy shed,
you will only be able to build several smaller and crappier sheds out of the fragments. So now they
built Kiev shed, DPR and LPR sheds in place of what once was a decent country.
VIDEO (English voiceover)
< I recommend clicking the gear symbol on the bottom-right of the video and increasing playback speed
to 1.5x, that will save you 30 minutes and is completely understandable).
** About Montyan's points on Crimea: Crimea saw
over twice the amount of airport traffic this year compared with the last, so the economy is
gaining traction. Yes, I bet the economy still suffers overall with the peninsula being in a complete
blockade by Ukraine (not only people and goods but also water and often power), and only joined to
Russia by a ferry. Still, "littlehirosima" is currently in Crimea and tells me life is good there
for now. And once a bridge gets built, or nationalists get chased out of Kiev, it should get a lot
better.
*** "Homemade firecracker grenades" - Ukraine has no laws against selling extremely powerful firecrackers.
They are almost at hand grenade level, and can definitely kill or maim, especially with nails&bolts
taped as fragments. Here's a video of such a "big firecracker" shredding a toilet (common pastime
in East Europe, heh). The firecracker is actually far from the biggest one, but the video is just
hilarious:
**** I cut out the part of the big video where Montyan talks about gay rights because, first of all,
it has nothing to do with the Novorossiya war or Ukrainian politics, and second, because her genetics
arguments are wrong, although she may be right about human rights aspect.
KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - Hundreds of Ukrainian right-wingers were rallying in Kiev on Tuesday to protest
against government policies in the wake of a deadly stand-off between radical nationalists and police
in the country's west.
The radical Right Sector group was one of the most militant factions in the massive protests in
Ukraine's capital that prompted pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country in February
2014. Since the war broke out in eastern Ukraine between government forces and pro-Russia separatists
several months later, the Right Sector has fought on the government side.
However, Right Sector militants keep running into disputes with local Ukrainian authorities and
Amnesty International has accused the group of holding civilians as prisoners and torturing them.
The activists claim they are trying to clamp down on corruption and nepotism but Ukrainian authorities
accuse Right Sector of using violence to reach its goals.
Speaking Tuesday at the national Right Sector congress, group leader Dmytro Yarosh called for
a referendum to impeach President Petro Poroshenko and his government.
Yarosh also called for the recognition of volunteer battalions and their right to carry arms as
well as introducing martial law, which he said, will help defeat the rebels in the east.
Right Sector supporters gathered on Tuesday evening on Kiev's main square to support Yarosh's
motion. Most of them were civilians and appeared to be unarmed, although some young men wore camouflage.
Yarosh told the supporters at the square that the new government that replaced Yanukovych's regime
was only about "changing names" but not the political system.
"We are an organized revolutionary force that is opening the new phase of the Ukrainian revolution,"
he told the rally.
The Right Sector leader garnered about 1 percent of the vote in the May 2014 presidential election.
His radical anti-Russian stance prompted the Kremlin to dismiss the uprising in Kiev as a neo-Nazi
coup.
The Ukrainian government has attempted to rein in the volunteer battalions who often took frontline
positions in eastern Ukraine where soldiers were reluctant to go by encouraging them to join the
National Guard and police forces. In reality, hundreds of men in government-controlled eastern Ukraine
still carry arms without any authorization.
Two Right Sector members were killed earlier this month after the group attacked police in the
western city of Mukacheve with gunfire and grenades. Police responded and then surrounded some gunmen
in a wooded area of Mukacheve and have been trying to negotiate their surrender since then.
Right Sector insists that the men were trying to confront local policemen who he said were involved
in a major smuggling business in the region.
Yarosh accused the government of deploying troops and weaponry to hunt down the Right Sector members
instead of focusing on the war in the east: "Our guys were spilling their blood (in the east) but
now they are being punished behind the lines."
In a sign that he does not control the men in Mukacheve, he said Tuesday he did not know for sure
how many men were still out there but said it was likely to be nine. He also dismissed reports that
Right Sector fighters are roaming the country with the arms they were given to fight the rebels in
the east.
The stand-off in Mukacheve has caused a split in Right Sector with several dozen fighters quitting
the battalion to join other battalions in protest.
The march on Kiev is coming. Old enemies and new allies are getting closer and closer day after
day. The time of Poroshenko is running out, falling to the same corruption as the former Yanukovych.
Corruption increased ten fold buy selling off Ukrainian Business to foreign investors. Poroshenko
is a world puppet running the Ukraine like a world business with him being the CEO responsible
for increasing the profits of the world before the Ukraine. Is it too much to ask for a united
Ukraine against corruption?
Blood was spilled, lives lost, all because a government fired upon its own people in protest.
Now those very same protesters have been led down the same path again marching on Kiev against
corruption. They have discovered corruption doesn't go away because you change the name of your
government, and indeed it gets worse when in secret the new government in power has been murdering
and torturing more Ukrainians than its predecessor whom also was corrupt to the point of murdering
and torturing Ukrainians.
The Ukraine must indeed be united as one Ukraine. It must become independent of West or East
as it is the last great front where West and East ideology meet upon mutual terms. For this reason
it is of vital importance to both West and East alike and that is a wealth like no other nation
currently has. Even America is divided West and East, North and South, but it is still one America.
Groups such as the Right Sector only exist because they have suffered under the corruption of
others, and have taken it upon themselves to fight corruption at the highest levels with only
one Ukraine, united West and East as a global front where West and East meet as equals, partners
to solve world conflicts from West to East or East to West.
The Ukraine is now the keeper of World Peace capable of going forward with hope. Protesters
all share one thing in common, they have lived under inhumane and harsh conditions, many have
given their lives for a better way, many more will continue to give their lives for the same.
Government has failed in the Ukraine, it is failing again dividing the Ukraine causing Civil War.
Ukrainian killing Ukrainian, simply because the Ukraine can't form a unified government bringing
West and East together in peace. Peace must be achieved, many lives are being lost, the people
of the Ukraine are suffering and corruption is still the rule of law in the Ukraine.
All Ukrainians must take a good look at themselves, at what they are becoming. They must decide
their futures as their governments continue to fail influenced by East and West. It is the Ukraine
that should influence the East and West, the Ukraine that should be one nation united where difference
and opinion come together for the best the Ukraine has to offer the world on a grand scale. The
future awaits the Ukraine, will it be divided because Ukrainians could not negotiate with Ukrainians
of Russian descent? Lives have been lost, many have died and suffered, many still are and it is
sure to get worse before better. In the American Civil War, neither side really won, one side
just decided it was best for America and the people to end the killing so it gave up in peace.
From that moment forward America became a greater nation.
The Ukraine and the many peoples of the Ukraine are far more important than any amount of profit,
corruption or greed, and it's time the Ukraine start acting like it by achieving its own world
independence through peaceful negotiations. It's time the Ukraine regain it's independence and
set aside its difference for the sake of the people who have died and continue to suffer. The
dying and suffering must end, and if it should end in Civil War then it's time for the war to
commence to end the dying and suffering at all cost in every part of the Ukraine. The past is
over, the future is waiting, the world is watching, drawing lines in the sand, rallying armies
to march across the Ukraine, foreign armies ready to kill Ukrainians over the failure of Ukrainians
to achieve their own peace and independence.
To Be
Here are some very true facts about WW2 they don't teach you....
The bankers and industrialists and royal families were all concerned after what happened in Russia
after the revolution that killed czar and his family (who were related to almost every other royal
family) and the industrialists and bankers didn't want to lose their assets to the communist revolution.
So they took things into their own hands.
Bankers and top corporations tried to take over America in the 1930's. Heinz, Colgate family,
Dupont family, Birdseye family, Rockefellas and more. Major General Butler warned FDR in time
to stop it.
Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush ran the Union bank and loaned Hitler extremely large sums of
money to fund the war. Henry Ford was awarded the highest Nazi medal by Hitler (who also kept
a life size painting of Ford) for his part in building the tanks and such for Germany.
The president of AT&T personally flew to Germany after the start of the war to hook up a state
of the art communications for Hitler. Coke sold millions of bottles of soda to Germans during
the war. Rockefella's supplied oil, and the list goes on.
This is no joke... these men and more quite literally built the Nazi party and got off scott free
with more power and money then ever.
They treated Germany as an "investment". The use of concentration camps was much more widespread
then they make you think. They used them as sources of slave labor to try and recoup their investment
in the Nazi war machine. Over 15 thousand were used.
If all this seems far fetched or made up then I urge you to use the internet you have at your
disposal. These same families control our media and our education too.
Of course you wont find direct links but the info is certainly there. Knowledge is our best weapon
if we want to save our country.
Christopher Harrison
Agreed , more and more info is now coming out about what really happened during WW2 thanks
to the internet and You Tube. Go to You Tube and check out the video series The Best Enemies Money
Can Buy with Professor Anthony Sutton form the Hoover Institute talking in 1964. It will blow
your mind how much US corporations were working with Hitler through subsidiaries and the German
company IG Farben. And yes it was the Rockefellers and the Rothschild and the Bushes
G.
You are brave T/To be. You forgot the headmaster Rothschild who said ( Let me issue and control
a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws)
b
This article says hundreds protested but the Ukranian paper (KyivPost) says it was thousands...
this story/problem is bigger than what our own media wants us to know.
Christopher Harrison
Why is it not being considered that it was these fascists that shot down MH-17 as another false
flag? After all, it was they who shot people at the 1stMaidan from the Hotel Ukraine where they
were headquartered. The BBC captured them shooting at the BBC's own film crew. They also are on
film burning 45 people alive in Odessa and beating them with baseball bats as they jumped from
windows. They also shot people point blank on camera in Mariupol. Their Neo-Notzee battalions
have been shooting artillery at civilians towns for a year and even Human Rights watch has said
they commit atrocities. Hence the reason 1.3 million refugees fled TO RUSSIA. This stuff isn't
that difficult to understand, here they are again and this time they are going after the new government.
No one is safe, even in Europe, while these guys are around. It's time to get rid of them once
and for all before they shoot down another airliner or gain access to nuclear fuels rods.
Madeski
Most Western media tried hard to ignore this story thinking it would just go away, but because
many of us also read and watch the Russian news also especially RT, we knew the true situation
in Ukraine and that things will soon get out of hand and snowball into an armed confrontation
between the western backed Govt and their militia who have a different ideology but are together
in the fight in the east only because the 2 parties view the East as Pro-Russia that most be crushed.
Michael
More violent thugs. What a mess the CIA and NATO have caused for Ukraine, Russia, and European
security.
BrainPick
Any place where instability can be implemented NED/CIA will be there.
OdessaFile
BrainPick --They arrived long before it.
Stephen
Another fine mess the stupid US government has created. These thugs of the Ukrainian far right
are N@zi lovers. Their Fathers & Grandfathers fought for Hitler & ran the death camps on behalf
of Hitler & N@zi Germany in WW2. This is what many Americans do not understand & it's very clear
the foolish American government was not expecting this. Just like Iraq & Taliban central the US
went into the Ukraine & put a weak leader in charge who would be a lap puppy to the US government
but also will fail because the US puppet cannot lead & control his own country.
james 8
If Kololmsky is involved in subversive activities that compromise the National security of
Ukraine than Nationalize all his assets in Ukraine and later sell them off to the private sector
of the economy . These assets need to be broken down so that they do not continue to be a monopoly
and a threaten national security . In this way Ukraine can also break the Oligarch control on
the country . Drastic measures are needed . The country can not be sacrificed for the benefit
of a few billionaires that enriched themselves by stealing from the Ukrainian people .
Fvok Yo
Buk missle explodes above an airplane, and 50 to 150 yards above it. How can you possibly explain
the
focal schrapnel damage to the mh17 with a Buk. You cant. Moreover, a Buk strike would instantly
depressurize the aircraft, resulting in immediate incapacitation of the pilot and crew. The pilot
was alert after the initial (not a BUK ) strike, and contacted ATC, but the Ukraine has refused
to release that communication. Of course for the hollywood drama to play out, the missle absolutely
has to be a Buk. An air to air missle would have had to be done by the Ukranians, or outside forces
assisting the Ukranians.
maxcrusader
"...but Ukrainian authorities accuse Right Sector of using violence to reach its goals."
I'm sure they had no problem when the same Right Sektor helped the junta government get into power
through a coup.
Eye Of Horus
The US orchestrated coup in Kiev has guaranteed the collapse of the US. The world is no longer
willing to fund a govt that's gone insane by continuing to use the dollar in trade settlement
and to buy treasuries. It's only a matter of time until we get to that tipping point where there's
a stampede for the exits and the US manifests into the 3rd world sh|thole that it already is.
Parts of the country is already there. The rest will follow.
Gary and Minge
"The radical Right Sector group was one of the most militant factions in the massive protests
in Ukraine's capital that prompted pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych to flee the country
in February 2014. "
and here we were fed all this garbage about "peaceful protest" and "evil president" . In fact
US "NGO's" created this organization training most of them in Baltic states.
US treatened then president Yanukovich with sanctions "and more" if he so much "try to disperse
this peaceful protest" .
McCain was taking pictures at maidan with this neo-na_zies between anti government speeches, Nuland
fed them cookies, Pyatt [US ambassador and man who really in charge in Ukraine] called them "will
of the people"
McCain made sure they get weapons, they were coming to US visiting McCain among other US congressman
telling how bad "Russians" are showing picture of "invasion" , using Georgia 2008 pics.
No one cared, no one paid attention of Amnesty international reports of tortures of civilians
in war zone. They been called 'true patriots" by most US media outlets.
Now that the monster no longer needed lets call them "Ukrainian al quida "
Here is more examples of what those "volunteer battalions" up to
google search : " Ukrainian volunteer battalions | meet heroes from "Tornado" battalion. [English
Subtitles]
Video with English Subtitles
Commenter
I'm waiting for evidence to appear that would link Yarosh and Right Sector to the snipers on
Midan. That would take away any public support they may currently have and allow the government
to crack down on them hard. I would venture to say that we have not seen this yet because there
is still a hot war in the East but if they remove themselves from the front line there, Right
Sector will quickly outlive it's usefulness.
John
Another pogrom in Kiev will be more devastating! Watch the real Ukraine, Ukraine is Europe!
Let gay Europe witness all the brutality!
Government of Ukraine is instructed by CIA chief of station in Kiev what to do next!
Here is possible scenario: Poroshenko will order troops to "pacify" "Right Sector"-those troops
trained by US. "Right Sector" has combat experience and would out power freshly trained "boy scouts".
By the way, Porosehnko's family is not in Ukraine, he is not an idiot to have his children in
the middle of total chaos!
Gabriel
The combination of Oligarchs and Neo Nazi troops could be very dangerous for the future of
Ukraine, if any.
Pynk
Manipulated by, used by, and then betrayed by the corrupt elite power brokers?
SAY IT AIN'T SO!
Rick Harner
Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Ukraine has been on a steady path
to imploding. Corruption, mass demonstrations in 2004, revolution in 2014, Crimea seized, civil
war in the east, neo-fascist groups in the west... How much more can this country withstand before
it completely comes apart?
Commenter
The Right Sector members till the rest of their live will be on the run from justice. No government
needs them. Just today NYT published a story on some Cilian junta policeman sentenced for killing
people half a century ago. The burning in Odessa of people will never be forgotten too. So better
look for your ratholes starting right now.
Madeski
Since Last year Yahoo has been calling them 'revolutionaries, freedom fighters, nationalists'
Today Yahoo is calling them 'Right Wingers, radical Right Sector group and one of the most militant
factions' in this article, what happened? Can somebody please explain to us?
Yachob
US state dep and our spin doctors have been "refining" the image of provincial #$%$ Bandero-stan
Right Wing for more than a year. Clear signs of progress: all have clean hair cut, clean uniform,
no signs of swastika, no Confederate flags: a striking difference from rabid bidlo on Maidan.
Now Ukrainian %nazi% seemed to be under control. and this is just a theater, a show of political
diversity but foremost a warning of the Kiev regime to those, who really oppose Parashenko and
%nazism%.
Dana
Most analysts indicate that The Right Sector and other Ultra-Nationalists are supported by
only a small percentage of Ukrainians. The same thing was said about the National Socialists with
respect to Germany in the 1920s. It is very important that the central government in Kiev not
underestimate the threat represented by Ultra-Nationalists.
Glenn
This is media hype. There are major parts of the story that were not included. Those things
were not included so readers would be left with an image of fascists marching in Kiev in the hundreds
calling for Poroschenko's ouster and the imposition of martial law, because that will look scary
to readers who don't know that much about what is going on in Ukraine recently.
Two weeks ago in Mukacheve, an upstart smuggling gang got entangled with local authorities
and did not want to pay them off with bribes. The well-established smugglers were pressuring the
local police to demand newcomer prices, because their new competition was unwanted. So the new
kids on the block decided not to pay the bribes, and called in fellow militia strongmen from across
the country for a show of force to intimidate the local cops into backing down. It turned into
a violent confrontation and a gunfight at the ok corral. The Ukraine federal authorities responded
rapidly with superior force, and the majority of militiamen scattered for the provinces. The remaining
two dozen militia stayed because they were close family relations withe the smugglers still held
in jail. This has caused an uproar in the militia's national leadership, because the majority
interest - nationalist politics - has been undermined by an attempt by a small faction to enforce
a new smuggling business venture by using militia men to assert power over local police. Corruption
is plain on both sides. Right Sector's rally in Kiev is their attempt to re-assert their political
message and call for unity. Meanwhile, several chapters of Right Sector have walked out in disgust
- somewhere close to 20% of their membership is on the way out because they did not sign up for
smuggling and armed enforcement gangs. They signed up to kill Russians, and to kill Russians only.
This news piece is not telling you anything much about all of that, and that is what is going
on. There is no violent mob calling for the government to step down. It is just a fascist rally
to try to stem the loss of membership after one faction inside Right Sector with ties to organized
crime did some very stupid and damaging things to their nationalism image.
A pro-government Ukrainian militia accused of neo-Nazism has fought a gun battle with the
country's security forces that left at least three dead and several police vehicles destroyed by
rocket-propelled grenades.
The fighting marks the first clash between Kiev and one of the country's "volunteer battalions"
who have led the fight against pro-Russian separatists.
The fierce confrontation in the city of Mukachevo, near Ukraine's western border, involved
members of Right Sector, a controversial nationalist group. Three policemen were among six
injured, officials from the Ukrainian interior ministry said.
A stand-off with Ukrainian police continued yesterday while Right Sector announced that
"...This negotiation is quite impossible because Kiev, even if you wanted to negotiate
honestly, is pushed by the nationalist forces, all those Right Sectors, "volunteers" and "heroes of
Maidan." Poroshenko has to please the nationalistic crowd so the honest negotiations is just a
dream. Besides, all those "volunteer battalions" had declared from the first day that the Minsk
agreement would apply to them. They've been having major marches in Kiev over the last couple of
weeks, menacing marching in full fatigues and face masks and demanding resumption of the war in the
East." . "...Madam "F*ck the EU" Nuland's engineered coup is not going according to plan. She used Ukrainian
nationalism as a cause, enticing Ukrainian Nationalists and supposed Ukrainian NAZIs (the right
sector) both of whom hate Russians as dupes to aid her coup. Now that the illegitimate IMF and
Soros funded Kiev junta has consolidated their hold on government, they dare not have any
Ukrainian Nationalists or anyone who would care and honestly work on behalf of Ukrainian citizens
any role in the new government. Instead, foreign IMF collaborators are given instant Ukrainian
citizenship and posted in important ministerial jobs. No doubt, the nationalists were promised a
part in the government if they aided in the coup. Now that madam Nuland is ignoring them, they
no doubt aren't very happy, posing a threat the the Poroshenko junta. Poroshenko's remedy, on
advice of madam Nueland no doubt, seems to purposely create tension with the nationalists so
that they could be classified as terrorist and either jailed or killed. " . "...Madam Nuland is the classic intelligent, over educated idiot. Knows nothing about Ukraine
but because of her education, her high position in the state department (no doubt by connection) and
her arrogant demeanor has led her to believe she could do no wrong. Thus far, her civil war in
Ukraine has resulted in more than 6000 dead Ukrainians, mostly civilians including children. Not
only that, madam Nuland has destroyed what was a united Ukraine and it will never be whole again.
Eastern Ukrainians will never reconcile with those who waged war against them for no reason at all.
Her chocolate oligarch, Poroshenko, on her advice chose to intentionally bomb and shell civilians.
Killing civilians is a war crime. This puts Porosenko in the same league as Hitler and other war
criminals of history." . "... Ha, moderate rebels. Reminds me of Syria. Ukraine may be heading the same way. . "...Well, it is, of course, hard to tell what's going on there, what kinds of deals are
being made, but indeed it sound like Poroshenko is trying to rein neonazis in a little bit, while
Yatsenyuk, the PM and a Nuland's stooge, is betting on them. What a mess, what a shame." . "...Maidan raised expectations and shrunk resources. The inevitable disillusionment and
bloody struggle for remaining resources will destroy Ukraine. The people in the West who aided the
violent overthrow of the elected government, who over-promised and played geo-political games, they
should be held accountable. From State Department to EU busy-bodies (Sikorski and Bildt), to media
cheerleaders, to human rights professionals - all of them must explain what gave them the right to
meddle and unravel a relatively prosperous country of over 40 million." . "...What was bound to happen is happening. There is a long story of the good guys turning
bad but they never learn. This is no exception, it could have been avoided in due time by not
accepting these groups as units into the military for they have dangerous ideologies incompatible
with democracy. What is more amazing though is that the EU supported these guys all along by
remaining silent. As long as they were killing in the east of the country it was fine and that tells
a lot about the whole Ukraine situation which is politically driven." . "...No, Kiev doesn't struggle with armed nationalist groups. It encouraged, organized and
armed them. It even came up with the patriotically sounding name for them, "volunteers," so now they
are pretty legitimate." . "...Finally western media are starting to report the fact that Poroshenko and his government
have absolutely no control of the far right militia that got them in poeer and fought in East
Ukraine. No peace deals or Minsk agreements will be implemented while there are out of control and
armed to the teeth people fighting in the east for either side. They do not care about agreements." . "...Not all unicorns and rainbows in Nulandistan it appears."
"I suppose this is the end of the Right Sector, since the government machine is much
stronger than a small organisation. "
It is not necessarily at all. They were promoted into "heroes defending Ukraine" and
there is simply not enough political will to squash them. They will have to come up with some
sort of a pact, just as they did last year during their elections and when they formed the
Right Sector into "National Guards." They will essentially split the spheres of
influence.
As for the government machine, Ukrainian army doesn't want to fight. They are ill prepared
and lack motivation to fight, especially inside their country. Right Sector, on the other hand
is more seasoned, organized, and more aggressive. It has advantage over the army. Poroshenko
doesn't have strength to squash it either by force or politically.
vr13vr -> ilyasilyas 14 Jul 2015 15:16
This negotiation is quite impossible because Kiev, even if you wanted to negotiate
honestly, is pushed by the nationalist forces, all those Right Sectors, "volunteers" and
"heroes of Maidan." Poroshenko has to please the nationalistic crowd so the honest
negotiations is just a dream. Besides, all those "volunteer battalions" had declared from the
first day that the Minsk agreement would apply to them. They've been having major marches in
Kiev over the last couple of weeks, menacing marching in full fatigues and face masks and
demanding resumption of the war in the East.
Debreceni 14 Jul 2015 15:09
Mission accomplished. The German-dominated EU and the US turned Ukraine into a failed state. The
new Russophobic regime alienated the only country, which cared about the Ukrainian people and
which was ready to help: Putin's Russia. Their wish has been granted: now they are part (and a
colony) of Europe and never will be free again. Ukraine is Europe' Mexico ruled by drug lords,
mafia bosses, soldiers of of fortune, adventure capitalists, outsiders and common criminals.
Feel sorry for them.
SHappens -> Havingalavrov 14 Jul 2015 15:07
I understand from what Ukraine has face by Russia's armed and led war against its people, that it
didn't have many options of who could help them.
Oh come on, they could have refrained from the ATO. Ukraine doesn't need to defend themselves they
just have to stop attacking the east and make a reconciliation, how does that sound? You seem to
advocate a full war.
VictorWhisky 14 Jul 2015 15:07
Madam "F*ck the EU" Nuland's engineered coup is not going according to plan. She used Ukrainian
nationalism as a cause, enticing Ukrainian Nationalists and supposed Ukrainian NAZIs (the right
sector) both of whom hate Russians as dupes to aid her coup. Now that the illegitimate IMF and
Soros funded Kiev junta has consolidated their hold on government, they dare not have any
Ukrainian Nationalists or anyone who would care and honestly work on behalf of Ukrainian citizens
any role in the new government. Instead, foreign IMF collaborators are given instant Ukrainian
citizenship and posted in important ministerial jobs. No doubt, the nationalists were promised a
part in the government if they aided in the coup. Now that madam Nuland is ignoring them, they
no doubt aren't very happy, posing a threat the the Poroshenko junta. Poroshenko's remedy, on
advice of madam Nueland no doubt, seems to purposely create tension with the nationalists so
that they could be classified as terrorist and either jailed or killed.
It seems
madam Nuland and her Zionist collaborators had no problem getting in bed with the
Ukrainian NAZIs, who were the major force and contributed to the success of the coup. Now madam
Nuland has turned against the Nationalists and the Right Sector. Sasha Biley, a right sector
leader appeared on video claiming he would be arrested by the Kiev junta police and assassinated
or sent to Russia to have them do it. The next day, the was shot dead by the Kiev junta's police
in a shout out. Why would they want him dead? He was one of the major leaders who helped in
madam Nuland's coup. In fact, he was one of the most violent leaders. Did he know who hired the
snipers on the Maidan and promised to spill the beans if he was not given a government post? Dead
men tell no tales.
As corrupt as Yanukovich was he never ordered the Ukrainian army to bomb and shell their own
people. Poroshenko has ordered the Ukrainian army to bomb and shell Eastern Ukrainian civilians
whose only crime is to refuse to recognize madam Nuland's illegitimately installed Kiev junta. It
was not the Eastern Ukrainians that mobilized and advanced on Kiev, it was the Ukrainian army
that was mobilized and ordered to advance on Eastern Ukrainians. Madam Nuland is the classic
intelligent, over educated idiot.
Knows nothing about Ukraine but because of her education, her high position in the state
department (no doubt by connection) and her arrogant demeanor has led her to believe she could
do no wrong. Thus far, her civil war in Ukraine has resulted in more than 6000 dead
Ukrainians, mostly civilians including children. Not only that, madam Nuland has
destroyed what was a united Ukraine and it will never be whole again. Eastern Ukrainians will
never reconcile with those who waged war against them for no reason at all. Her chocolate
oligarch, Poroshenko, on her advice chose to intentionally bomb and shell civilians. Killing
civilians is a war crime. This puts Porosenko in the same league as Hitler and other war
criminals of history.
Tee7467 -> vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:58
Ha, moderate rebels. Reminds me of Syria. Ukraine may be heading the same way.
JoePope 14 Jul 2015 14:54
Its hard to feel any sympathy for Kiev government and their Western sponsors- they brought
this on themselves.
A joke photo was doing rounds on twitter this weekend with desperate looking Poroshenko
holding up a sign which reads "Putin bring the army!"
That would be poetic justice.
ilyasilyas 14 Jul 2015 14:48
Interestingly, the western media did touch this topic despite the fact that it does not go
along with the anti-Russia line. Let's see how this incident ends.
I suppose this is the end of the Right Sector, since the government machine is much
stronger than a small organisation. Moreover, the Ukrainian media started to talk a lot about
the RS, writing all sorts of crimes they committed and etc.
Maidan heroes are no longer heroes but criminals.
I just hope the country will climb out of the shithole it got in. I'm sure people of the
Western part of Ukraine do not want war as well as people in the East. The whole thing just
got out of control. Everybody shoot freeze and then start negotiating. It's very hard to
negotiate when people shoot each other.
geedeesee 14 Jul 2015 14:40
These guys have no qualms about killing police officers - we saw that on Maiden - they
haven't suddenly changed.
MaoChengJi 14 Jul 2015 14:37
Well, it is, of course, hard to tell what's going on there, what kinds of deals are
being made, but indeed it sound like Poroshenko is trying to rein neonazis in a little bit,
while Yatsenyuk, the PM and a Nuland's stooge, is betting on them. What a mess, what a shame.
vr13vr -> SHappens 14 Jul 2015 14:17
But remember, these armed nationalists were viewed as "moderate rebels." They were helping
to overthrow the previous government and they were eager to fight in the East of the country.
But then again, we've heard the story about the good and moderate rebels before.
Beckow 14 Jul 2015 14:16
Maidan raised expectations and shrunk resources. The inevitable disillusionment and
bloody struggle for remaining resources will destroy Ukraine. The people in the West who aided
the violent overthrow of the elected government, who over-promised and played geo-political
games, they should be held accountable. From State Department to EU busy-bodies (Sikorski and
Bildt), to media cheerleaders, to human rights professionals - all of them must explain what
gave them the right to meddle and unravel a relatively prosperous country of over 40 million.
Poroshenko orders police "to disarm illegal groups", and one wonders why that has to be
"ordered", why was post-Maidan tolerating armed groups? These are the wages of engaging in an
armed street uprising, of Nuland giving cookies to armed demonstrators, EU politicians posing
with assorted mobs as they were fighting police. Imagine any of this in any European country,
imagine how quickly and brutally it would be suppressed, look at everything from Occupy,
Frankfurt, kettling in London. So why was street uprising supported by EU in Kiev? And what
can EU do now?
vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:15
"Right Sector grew in popularity after it played a lead role in the tumultuous mass
protests that overthrew president Viktor Yanukovych in 2014"
So, after all the back and force, we finally agree that the infamous Maidan was led by the
armed nationalist militia rather than peace loving democratic people who wanted to join EU?
Ouch, that's the first step.
Pterinochilus 14 Jul 2015 14:15
That´s exactly what happens when you arm, encourage and embed yourself with armed neo-nazis.
SHappens 14 Jul 2015 14:11
What was bound to happen is happening. There is a long story of the good guys turning
bad but they never learn. This is no exception, it could have been avoided in due time by not
accepting these groups as units into the military for they have dangerous ideologies
incompatible with democracy. What is more amazing though is that the EU supported these guys
all along by remaining silent. As long as they were killing in the east of the country it was
fine and that tells a lot about the whole Ukraine situation which is politically driven.
vr13vr 14 Jul 2015 14:11
"[The event] highlights Kiev's struggles with ... armed nationalist groups who have
helped it fight pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. "
No, Kiev doesn't struggle with armed nationalist groups. It encouraged, organized and
armed them. It even came up with the patriotically sounding name for them, "volunteers," so
now they are pretty legitimate.
thenewstranger 14 Jul 2015 14:05
Oh, interesting. I suppose those guys are peacefull, democratic protesters from Maidan. Or
maybe dictator Yanukovich masked in Right sector again kill it's own citizens.
IvanYur 14 Jul 2015 13:39
Finally western media are starting to report the fact that Poroshenko and his
government have absolutely no control of the far right militia that got them in poeer and
fought in East Ukraine.
No peace deals or Minsk agreements will be implemented while there are out of control and
armed to the teeth people fighting in the east for either side. They do not care about
agreements.
goatrider 14 Jul 2015 13:35
Not all unicorns and rainbows in Nulandistan it appears.
"...Sherr is the archetypal think tank expert. The most interesting part in that biographical sketch
– was reading that he was born in New York and holds dual US-UK citizenship. " . "...The self-delusion, hypocrisy and deceit of Western leaders, policy makers and analysts has
no limits. This panel exemplifies this.
" . "...Whenever I see his name, though, I'm reminded of a piece he wrote on Ukraine years ago, long
before Maidan. ... it's called "Realism About Ukraine Part I – Internal Conditions. James Sherr, Conflict Studies
Research Centre, UK Defence Academy". Read it over carefully; this dates from June 2005, and
I found his assessment of the competitors for power to be frank and realistic, especially that
on Tymoshenko. " . "...I have no idea who this guy actually is but, just from that statement I would say
he's an empty vessel in moral terms."
I think Russia and the west are quits for good as far as any hope of alliances is concerned, because
the west is just too untrustworthy. However, it is my personal opinion that much of the demonization
of Putin is intended to make him respond in kind with bellicose rhetoric which will allow him
to be cast as an unstable, ranting dictator. Moreover, he seems to see the trap or for whatever
reason is avoiding it, choosing instead to keep his criticism mild, measured and slightly mocking.
So if that is the strategy, it's failing pretty badly, and it is the western media which looks
unhinged.
Published on 15 Jun 2015
What You Need To Know:
✓ Russia needs to win a conclusive victory fairly quickly because this conflict is not economically
sustainable for them;
✓ Since the post-Cold War order was established Russia has wanted to discuss the new world
order with the West;
✓ Some in the West now understand that this is long term struggle, but it is unclear how much
longer some EU members states will support the sanctions;
✓ It is unlikely that Russia will target Georgia next, rather, the next two countries will
be Moldova and Belarus because they are more vulnerable;
✓ Things are being achieved in Ukraine primarily because of the civil society which is increasingly
strong and self-confident.
"The appearance of a stalemate is deceptive. If the West's sanctions
remain in place and the oil price remains low it will be very difficult for the Russian state
to function in the way it does now," James Sherr, associate fellow of the Russia and Eurasia
programme at Chatham House told Hromadske. The current occupation regime in Donbas is not sustainable
economically and Russia no interest in subsidizing it, said Sherr, the situation, therefore,
will not remain frozen forever.
"They [Russia] need to win a conclusive victory fairly quickly or time starts to work against
them. This creates a dangerous situation because they are under pressure to do something more
here," said Sherr. "It might not mean they will take Mariupol but it might mean the kind of
military offensive that produced Minsk 1 and 2".
Since the post-Cold War order was established Russia has wanted to discuss the new world
order with the West, said Sherr. Russia does not see this as conflict with Ukraine, it views
as a conflict in Ukraine but with the West. According to Sherr, the solution from Russia's
perspective is to have that conversation with the West, not only about Ukraine but about elsewhere
in the former Soviet space, central and eastern Europe.
Some in the West now understand that this is long term struggle, said Sherr. In 2015, the
West has been more realistic about what it is facing compared to 2014, when many were talking
about the 'Ukraine Crisis' – as if it was something short term. However, the West is also more
tired now than it was last year, explained Sherr. Several EU states who imposed sanctions on
Russia at the cost of their own economies thought that they would have an effect within a few
months. It might take a couple of years and thus it is questionable whether or not they will
continue to support the policy, Sherr told Hromadske.
In terms of developments in the rest of the region, according to Sherr, it is unlikely that
Russia will target Georgia next. Firstly, the Georgians are very astute and secondly, NATO
has a much higher profile there so there is more certainty that they will respond. The next
two countries will be Moldova and Belarus because they are more vulnerable. Nobody wants to
see Putin defeated more than Alexander Lukashenko because he knows if he is not defeated in
Ukraine, he will be next, said Sherr.If Moldova is attacked it is far from certain if the EU
or NATO will respond. Romania would respond but it is unclear how. At the moment Russia is
doing everything to make Moldova dysfunctional, said Sherr. In the Baltic region, furthered
Sherr, one of the dangers is miscalculated accident. It is unclear what could happen if a Russian
military plane collided with an SAS Boeing, for instance.
Sherr also discussed the question of Ukraine's energy dependence. According to him, steps
have been taken towards making Ukraine more energy efficient. Ukraine is now surviving with
a very low level of imports from Russia compared to what it was. However, there is still work
to be done improving investor confidence.
One of the worst realities for Ukraine, according to Sherr, is that the system and the culture
of power has survived 2 revolutions and is now surviving a war. Things are being achieved in
Ukraine primarily because of the civil society which is increasingly strong and self-confident.
The state, however, is still a major problem for people "so far much more talk about change
than real change.
Hromadske International's Nataliya Gumenyuk spoke with James Sherr on May 28, 2015.
Published on 21 Apr 2015
Lecture by James Sherr about Russia's Challenge to the West' organized by Center for Security
and Strategic Research, March 4, 2015.
James Sherr is one of top experts on Russia in the United Kingdom. He is an associate fellow
and former head of the Russia and Eurasia programme at the Royal Institute of International
Affairs "Chatham House".
He was a fellow of the Conflict Studies Research Centre of the UK Ministry
of Defense from 1995 to 2008. He has published extensively on Soviet and Russian military,
security and foreign policy. He has spent last weeks in Kiev.
Sherr is the archetypal think tank expert. The most interesting part in that biographical sketch
– was reading that he was born in New York and holds dual US-UK citizenship.
Sherr and Lucas are the most erudite and loquacious Russophobes in the Anglosphere.
Whenever I see his name, though, I'm reminded of a piece he wrote on Ukraine years ago, long
before Maidan. I never had any success linking it because it was an odd document, and the link
always led to the wrong story, about an air show in Lvov. Let me see if I can find it again.
Yeah; it's still a weird one, it opens in a new window, so you'll have to google it yourself;
it's called "Realism About Ukraine Part I – Internal Conditions. James Sherr, Conflict Studies
Research Centre, UK Defence Academy". Read it over carefully; this dates from June 2005, and
I found his assessment of the competitors for power to be frank and realistic, especially that
on Tymoshenko.
He describes her as "an electoral ally [of Yushchenko] but a personal
rival, is not averse to confrontation and seems determined to exercise authority without limit.
If Yushchenko has confused leadership with inspiration, she has confused it with control and,
to the astonishment of many in Ukraine's business sector, these controls are taking the form
of Soviet style 'administrative measures' which extend to the micro economy.". Later he
opines (unclear whether this was Tymoshenko's decision or Yushchenko's, but I believe the former),
"But this defence cannot be stretched to justify price controls on meat or subsidies on
electricity, and the decision to increase public sector salaries by almost 57 per cent flies
in the face of economic reality". You go, James.
Might return but only got as far as 4:49 where his nibs suggested that ALL the EU wants is
a "borderlands" – oh, the irony – that is, what was it?… "quiet, stable and prosperous" while
the inscrutable Russians positively YEARN for a humanitarian disaster on its, you know, ACTUAL
border.
I have no idea who this guy actually is but, just from that statement I would say
he's an empty vessel in moral terms.
Give it a few years at this rate, and you'll be able to get gobbled by your boyfriend on the
sidewalk and people will surround you and applaud while the police do a burlesque pantomime
beside you in their rainbow vinyl uniforms. I am curious in an academic sort of way to see
how far the pendulum will swing as the western democracies vie with one another to see who
can be the most gay and hedonistic. This has all happened before, for anyone who never studied
history – it was called the Roman Empire. And it will end in tears; you'll see.
The acceptance of homosexuality is the most potent example of a civilisation that is decadent.
Tolerating and indulging in such degeneracy and perversion, demonstrate that such a civilisation
no longer cares for its future and no longer has any morals.
I am absolutely fine with the acceptance of it, because it is not a "problem" for society like
alcoholism or chainsaw juggling or diabetes. Healthy homosexuals pay taxes and consume products
and laugh and drink and have fun like all the rest of us.
Although I am liberal in my politics
I am a social conservative in that I do not care for overt sexual displays in a public setting
unless it is a strip club, where presumably you knew what you were getting into when you came
in and that's your choice. I do not want to know how you and your partner do it, and I don't
want to be forced into thinking about it by having to run down an endless rainbow tunnel surrounded
by prancing boys in pink jockstraps.
Just keep it to yourself and confine your lust to significant
glances exchanged with one another, and we'll be just fine. Being forced to play gooseberry
to overt gay displays is embarrassing and uncomfortable for me, and just when we were beginning
to internalize the lesson that thinking about your fellow citizens' feelings was important,
the tolerance train pulled into the station and the rule book was thrown away in favour of
celebrating homosexuality.
I don't have anything against it – I'm just not interesting in being
dragged into a neverending boogie of celebration of it. I'm even less interested in it just
so my country can thumb its nose at other countries and say "Beat that, you anti-gay
brute!"
The Canadian embassy in Kiev was used as a haven for anti-government protesters during
the uprising that toppled the government of former President Viktor Yanukovych, Canadian media
reported.
Former Maidan Activists Start Fighting Against Ukrainian Police - Reports
"It began, according to several sources in Kiev and Ottawa, when one of the protesters being
chased by riot police waved a Canadian passport at embassy security. Once the door was open, the
individual was quickly followed by other demonstrators armed with sticks and paving stones," The
Canadian Press reported on Sunday.
Roman Waschuk, the current Canadian ambassador in Kiev, confirmed the account in a recent
interview with The Canadian Press.
He acknowledged the protesters were camped in the main lobby for at least a week, which is
something neither the country's Foreign Minister nor the government of Prime Minister Stephen
Harper has ever publicly stated.
"I understand there was a Canadian passport holder associated in some way with the group,"
Waschuk noted adding that opening of the embassy doors was "a gesture designed to react and to
reach out to the people suffering in the turmoil."
But some of Canada's European allies, speaking on anonimity because of the sensitivity of the
subject, said the fact protesters were allowed to stay for so long and operate freely made it
appear Canada was an active participant in regime change, and not just lending morale support.
"... Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with
all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical and
only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a say." . "...this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement
Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like Victoria
'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor Ukrainian people.
This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists were used as a proxy
force to oust Gaddafi."
The Georgian authorities have asked Interpol to put a Red notice on Mikheil Saakashvili as the
request to Ukraine to return him for trial in Georgia was refused.
ww3orbust PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 20:22
That does not detract from the fact that the Ukranian cabinet has been chosen by the US state
department. Natives of the US, Georgia and Lithuania were hastily granted Ukrainian citizenship
in order to maintain an iron grip on Ukraine, while accusing Putin of appointing majors or governors
- in his capacity as head of state?
ww3orbust 13 Jul 2015 20:16
Amazing, nothing at all mentioned by the BBC. It does not fit in to their narrative to see the
country descend into a new stage of anarchy, between the people who murdered police and protesters
on Maidan square, and the US state department installed cabinet. Presumably if Right Sector refuse
to disarm and continue torturing civilians and murdering police, the BBC will continue to ignore
it and focus instead on its Russo-phobic narrative, while accusing Russia of propaganda with the
self-righteous piety that only the BBC are capable of. Or god forbid, more stories about what
colour stool our future king has produced this week.
The thing is, Ukraine is unique in allowing their Nazi thugs to be armed and have some semi-official
status. Everywhere else (including Russia), governments are looking to constrain the activities
of Nazis and prosecute them where possible.
jgbg Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 18:26
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
Them and Svoboda. If it had just been Orange Revolution II, with a simple change of Jewish
oligarchs in charge, there might have been some complaints but little more. It is the Russian-hating
far right that has brought about the violence and everything that has happened since.
PrinceEdward GreatMountainEagle 13 Jul 2015 18:22
Last I heard, Ukraine owes China billions for undelivered Grain.
HollyOldDog gimmeshoes 13 Jul 2015 18:11
But the Euro maidan press is just an Ukrainian rag that invents stories to support its corrupt
government in Kiev.
jgbg PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 17:54
I forget the article, but in the comments I mentioned that multiple Georgians were being
appointed to high level positions by Kiev, and some Russophobe called me a liar.
Not a few days later, Shakashvilli was appointed governor of Odessa. An ex-president of another
country, as governor of a province in another one! Apparently, none of the millions upon millions
of Ukrainians were qualified for the job.
Sakashvilli's former Minister of Internal Affairs in Georgia, Eka Zguladze, is First Deputy
Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine. Of course, the Georgian people removed these chumps from
power the first chance they got but the Ukrainian electorate haven't had any say in the appointments
of foreigners in their country.
Well ... when it comes to Ukraine, the need to stock up on popcorn. This bloody and unpredictable
plot is not even in the "Game of Thrones." And this is only the middle of the second season.
Today Speaker of the "RS" Andrew Sharaskin, said: Sports Complex in Mukachevo where the shooting
occurred, was used as the base of the separatists DNR.
- A place 1,000 kilometers from Donetsk! But it's a great excuse to murder the guard in the café
and wounded police officers.
I think tomorrow will say that there have seen Russian Army tanks and Putin - 100%
"Ukraine is part of Europe" - the slogans of the Maidan in action...
Pravyi Sektor were not wrong. However, you cannot have armed groups cleaning up corruption
outside the law...that only works in Gotham City.
Right Sector weren't trying to clean up corruption, they were simply trying to muscle in on
the cigarette smuggling business. If Right Sector cared about crime and public order, they wouldn't
be driving around, armed to the teeth, in vehicles stolen in the EU. (In the video linked in the
article, all of their vehicles have foreign number plates. At least one of those vehicles is on
the Czech police stolen vehicle database:
http://zpravy.idnes.cz/pravy-sektor-mel-v-mukacevu-auta-s-ceskymi-spz-fqj-/zahranicni.aspx?c=A150713_102110_zahranicni_jj)
The EU and the US have stated on many occasions that there are "No Right Wing Nationalists" operating
in Ukraine and its simply propaganda by Putin.
So there shouldn't be anything to worry about should there ?
Stas Ustymenko hfakos 13 Jul 2015 15:15
Yes, yes. You seem to tolerate Medvedchuk and Baloga mafias way better, for years.
Transcarpathian REgion is the most corrupt in all of Ukraine (which is quite a fit). What we see
here is a gang war in fatigues.
tanyushka Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 15:14
sorry i posted the same above... i was just to hasty.. sorry again...
in the main picture of the same article it's interesting to notice the age of most of the conscripted
soldiers... they are in their 30's, theirs 40's and even in their 50's... it's forced conscription,
they are not volunteers... while all the DPR & LPR soldiers are real volunteers...
an uncle, the father of a cousin, was conscripted in Kherson... my cousin had to run away to South
American to say with an aunt to avoid conscription... many men are doing it in Ukraine nowadays...
not because they are cowards but because they don't want to kill their brothers & sisters for
the benefit of the oligarchs and their NATO masters (and mistresses...)
did you know that all the conscripts have to pay for their own uniforms and other stuff, while
in the National Guard and the oligarchs batallions everything is top quality and for free... including
bulletproof vests and other implements courtesy of NATO
Demi Boone 13 Jul 2015 15:13
Well finally they reveal themselves. These Ukraine Nationalists are the people who instigated
the anarchy and shootings at Maidan and used it as an excuse to wrongfully drive out an elected
President and in the chaos that followed bring in a coup Government which represents only West-Ukraine
and suppress' East-Ukraine. You are looking at the face of the real Maidan and not the dream that
a lot of people have tried to paint it to be.
Stas Ustymenko MartinArvay 13 Jul 2015 15:11
Many Right Sector members are indeed patriots. But it looks like the organisation itself is,
sadly, much more useful for providing thugs for hire than "justice".
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:20
But seriously, the naval base is probably the reason, it is too important for some interests
to have a less-reliable (Ukrainian) in charge, this is a job only for the most trusted poodles.
If things had gone differently, the tie-eatimng chap would have been appointed Mayor of Sebastopol.
BMWAlbert PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 14:15
There appears to be a Quisling-shortage in Ukraine at present.
Stas Ustymenko obscurant 13 Jul 2015 13:32
More accurately, Kolomoyskiy is Ukrainian oligarch. Who happens to be ethnically, culturally
and, by all accounts, religiously, a Jew.
Stas Ustymenko Kaiama 13 Jul 2015 13:24
Ukrainian Volunteer Corps of the Right Sector fighting in Donbass is two battalions. How is
this a "key organization"? They are a well-known brand and fought bravely on some occasions, but
the wider org is way too eager to brandish arms outside of combat or training. They will be reigned
in, one way or another, and soon.
GameOverManGameOver Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 12:02
Shh shh shh. This news does not exist yet in the western media, therefore it's nothing but
Russian propaganda.
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 11:54
It gets worse - soldiers from the UA are now refusing to follow orders in protest against the
total anarchy sweeping the chain of command, and their lack of rest and equipment.
Tensions have been rising between the government and the Right Sector militia that has
helped it fight pro-Russian separatists in the east of the country.
Finally, the Guardian decided to report the actual new after satisfying itself with ample discussion
of the quality of Russian cheeses. Right sector "helped" to fight "separatists"? Really? Does
Alec Luhn know that there are currently two (!) RS battalions at the front and 19 (!) inside Ukraine?
They are some warriors. Now they are occupying themselves fighting as criminals they are for the
control of contraband.
At the ATO zone, they help consists of plundering, murdering and raping the local population.
They enter a village, take everything of value from houses and then blow them up. They rape women
and girls as young as 10 years old. They've been doing this for more than a year, and we've been
telling you that for more than a year. But apparently in the fight against "pro-Russian separatists"
everything is good. These crimes are so widespread, even the Ukrainian "government" is worried
this will eventually becomes impossible to deny. Some battalions such as Shakhtersk and Aidar
have been officially accused of crimes and ompletely or partially reformed.
Examples: http://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/EUR50/040/2014/en/ http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfb_1413804655
Ukraine, what a mess. As though it was ever about the people. It was a grab for resources,
19-century style. But with 21st-century stakes. You can see what the West is after when you look
at the US-Ukraine Business Council. It bring NATO, Monsanto and the Heritage Foundation under
one roof:
You'd be surprised, but I like Bandera (controversial as he was) way more than I trust some
people who wrap themselves in his red-and-black Rebel banner. Yarosh included. Banderite rebellion
ended 60 years ago. Its major goal was establishing a "united, free Ukrainian state"; by contrast,
stated ultimate goals of the Right Sector are way murkier; I'm not sure even most of the movement's
members are clear on what these are.
With present actions, Right Sector has a huge image problem in the West. If it will come to all-out
conflict, no doubt the West will back Poroshenko government over a loose confederation of armed
dudes linked by the thin thread of 30ies ideology (suspect even then). And the West will be right.
Stas Ustymenko Nik2 13 Jul 2015 11:03
Methinks you're way overselling a thug turf war as "major political event. Truth is, the region
has been long in the hands of organized crime. The previous regime incorporated and controlled
almost all organized crime in the country, hence no visible conflict. Now, individual players
try to use temporary uncertainty to their advantage. Right Sector claims they were trying to fight
the smuggling, but this doesn't sound plausible. The word is, what's behind the events is struggle
for control over lucrative smuggling between two individuals (who are both "businessmen" and "politicians",
members of Parliament). Both are old-school players, formerly affiliated with Yanukovitch party.
One just was savvy enough to buy himself some muscle under Right Sector banner. Right Sector will
either have to straighten out its fighters (which it may not be able to do) or disappear as a
political player. I fail to see how people see anything "neo-Nazi" in this gang shootout.
PaddyCannuck Cavirac 13 Jul 2015 10:21
Nobody here is an apologist for Stalin, who was a brutal and cruel despot, and the deportations
of the Crimean Tatars were quite indefensible. However, a few observations might lend some perspective.
1. Crimea has been invaded and settled by an almost endless succession of peoples over the
millennia. The Crimean Tatars (who are of Turkic origin) were by no means the first, nor indeed
the last, and cannot in any meaningful sense be regarded as the indigenous people of Crimea.
2. The Crimean Tatars scarcely endeared themselves to the Russians, launching numerous raids,
devastating many towns, including the burning of Moscow in 1571, and sending hundreds of thousands,
if not millions of Russians into slavery in the Ottoman Empire.
3. The deportations took place in 1942 - 1943 against the backdrop of World War II, when a lot
of bad stuff happened, including -
4. The American (and also Canadian) citizens of Japanese ethnicity who had their property confiscated
and were likewise shipped off to camps. Their treatment, if anything, was worse.
Sevastopol, Pearl Harbor. What's the difference? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
meanwhile last night & this morning, just to distract the people of what is going on in the West,
Kiev launched a massive shelling over Donetsk and other places in Donbass using weapons forbbiden
by the Minsk agreements, including Tor missiles, one of which fell at a railway station but didn't
explode... it was defused by emergency workers but the proof is there if you care to see... it
was thesecond biggest attack since the cease fire...
Nik2 6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:53
Not exactly. By now, BBC has made good coverage of these events in Ukrainian and Russian languages,
but not in English. It looks like BBC considers that Western public does not deserve the politically
sad truth about armed clashes between "champions of Maidan Revolution" and "new democratic authorities,
fighting corruption". Western public should not be in doubt about present-day "pro-European" Ukraine.
And "The Guardian" still has only one article on the issue that could be a turning point in Ukrainian
politics. This is propaganda, not informing about or analyzing really serious political events.
VictorWhisky 13 Jul 2015 09:51
This is the IMF hired guns now going after the very people who helped the Wall Street IMF shysters
in the illegitimate coup and the set up of the illegitimate Kiev junta, a mix of half Ukrainian
and non-Ukrainian mongrels. Furthermore, instead of bringing in the people who helped overthrow
Janukovich into the government fold, the IMF is placing it's foreign collaborators in ministerial
positions by making them instant Ukrainian citizens, while keeping the right wing, without whose
help the coup would not have succeeded, out of government and slowly trying to eliminate them
with their private foreign mercenary force. Madame "F*ck the EU Nuland from the US state department
bordello, a devout Zionist, enticed these supposed Ukrainian NAZIs to help her in her dirty deeds,
no doubt with promises of power sharing. So madame Nuland was perfectly willing to get in bed
with the Ukrainian NAZI devils (her Jewish friend should be proud) and when the dirty deed was
done, she is now turning against Ukrainian nationalists in the attempt to have outside forces
in control of Ukraine. Madame Nuland is not as intelligent or capable as portrayed, because if
she was, she would have known Ukraine has a very delicate and very complicated political structure
and history with nearly half the country speaking Russian and more loyal to the Russians than
to the US. An intelligent person familiar with Ukrainian history would know any attempt of placing
a US stooge in Kiev would certainly result in a civil war. She no doubt got her position not by
intelligence but by connections. More than 6000 Ukrainians, human beings, innocent men women and
children, have died in madame Nuland's engineered coup, putting her in league with her mentor,
Henry Kissinger, aka the butcher of Vietnam. That intelligent idiot's policies resulted in the
death of 3 million Vietnamese and 50,000 young Americans. Does madame Nuland intend to sacrifice
that many Ukrainians to prove her ultimate stupidity?
Jeremn Luminaire 13 Jul 2015 09:51
The conscripts didn't want to shoot their fellow Ukrainians. The nationalists don't believe
the people in the east are their fellow Ukrainians.
Because they were lovely guys, evidently, and their "popularity" has nothing to do with armed
thugs beating you up if you say anything against them (or the state prosecuting you for denying
or questioning their heroism).
Jeremn jezzam 13 Jul 2015 09:35
Ukrainian media, reporting Ukrainian government official:
12 police dead in two days, 180 wounded with gunshot wounds.
Still Kremlin lies?
Jeff1000 13 Jul 2015 09:30
Thank God Ukraine is finally free and democratic. The old autocratic regime actually had the
gall to make running street battles illegal - but those dark days are in the past. In the liberated
Ukraine you are free spend the dollar a day you get paid on a bullet proof vest so the rampant
Nazi street gangs don't kill you.
Jeremn SHappens 13 Jul 2015 09:26
You'd be surprised, there are Bandera-lovers in the UK too. There's a Bandera museum. And there
is this lot, teaching Christian values to children. And telling them that Bandera was a hero.
Future Right Sector supporters being crafted as we type.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:24
The Ukrainian sub-saharan African minimum wage is now being accompanied by Somali-style politics.
Luckily, the Russians have liberated Crimea so piracy on the high seas isn't an option for
the Ukrainians.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:18
Apparently, UAVs generously supplied to Ukrainians by the Canadian taxpayers are being put
to good use smuggling cigarettes into Slovakia.
6i9vern 13 Jul 2015 09:12
The BBC are bravely sticking to their decision not to report this story. Congratulations are
in order for such dedication.
The graun protected its readership from this confusing information for 24 hours and then caved
to the temptation to report news. Too bad.
aucontraire2 13 Jul 2015 08:36
Can we officially congratulate Nuland for a crappy job and also for providing Putin with
all the tools he needed to bring back Ukraine under his wing.
False flag operations for American private interests must stop now. They are immoral, unethical
and only bring death and destruction to otherwise stable societies. The UN should have a
say.
SomersetApples 13 Jul 2015 08:25
The country is bankrupt; the Kiev putschists are selling off the country's assets to their
New York allies, the oligarchs and Nazis are at war against each other and the illegal putschist
government and now toilet mouth Nuland is back on the scene. Looks like a scene form Dante's Inferno.
todaywefight Polvilho 13 Jul 2015 07:54
Which Russian invasion will this be the of he approximately 987 mentioned by Poroshenko and
our man Yatz...or are you referring to the people of the AUTONOMOUS REPUBLIC OF CRIMEA's (yes
that was what was called after the 1994 referendum) massive wishes to (like Donbass) go against
a government who illegally dismissed an elected president a wish that was reflected on a referendum
which was allowed by their constitution 18(7)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 13 Jul 2015 07:38
Yes. Most of the protesters are good people who just want a better deal in life.
monteverdi1610 13 Jul 2015 06:54
Remember all those CIF threads when those of us who pointed to the neo-Nazis in Ukraine were
immediately called ' Putinbots ' ?
PS/ Apologies would be the order of the day , perhaps ?
Sturney 13 Jul 2015 06:49
Apparently this conflict is over. Temporarily over. Anyway in ever-contracting economy, in
a Mariana trench between Russia and EU, in the most totalitarian country in history, such conflicts
will continue. Since Nuland tossed yeast in the outhouse nobody can stop fermentation of sh*t.
Help yourself with some beer and shrimps. I am looking forward when these masses splash out to
EU, preferably to Poland. Must be fun to watch. (Lipspalm)
Justin Obisesan 13 Jul 2015 06:33
In the run-up to the Euro 2012 football tournament, jointly hosted by Poland and Ukraine, I
remember how the media in this country worked themselves into a frenzy harping on about the presence
of violent neo-Nazi groups in Ukraine. After the removal of Mr Yanukovych from office, the same
media organisations changed their tune by describing any talk of neo- Nazis in Ukraine as "Russian
propaganda". The Western media coverage of the Ukrainian crises has been so blatantly pro-Kiev
and anti-Donbass that their claims of impartiality and objectivity cannot be taken seriously anymore.
Jeremn jgbg 13 Jul 2015 06:16
It is fine when they are shooting at Donetsk, but not so good when they use the same tactics
in western Ukraine.
Azov are the same, violent neo-Nazi thugs given authority, and this article notes that PrivatBank
is the bank that services requests for donations to the Azov funds, using J P Morgan as intermidiary.
Neither Azov nor Right Sector want peace. On 3 July 4,000 men from these units protested in
Kiev, calling for resumption of the war against the eastern provinces.
They favour ethnic cleansing.
Jeremn William Fraser 13 Jul 2015 06:10
The people who support Bandera are in western Ukraine. They are the ones who say Stalin starved
the Ukrainian people.
Trouble is, in the 1930s, western Ukraine belonged to Poland.
It was the Russians, eastern Ukrainians and other Soviet people who starved, not the western
Ukrainians.
Kefirfan 13 Jul 2015 06:02
Good, good. Let the democracy flow through you...
Pwedropackman SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:53
It will be interesting to see which side the US and Canada will support. Probably Poroshenko
and the Oligarchs because the Right Sector is not so happy about the ongoing sales of Ukraine
infrastructure to US corporates.
SHappens 13 Jul 2015 05:14
Harpers' babies are out manifesting, supporting the good guys:
"Supporters of Ukraine's Right Sector extremist group rallied in Ottawa Sunday amid the
radicals' ongoing standoff with police in western Ukraine."
The rally outside the Ukrainian embassy was organized by the Right Sector's representative
office in the Canadian capital, 112 Ukraine TV channel reported, citing the Facebook account of
the so-called Ukrainian Volunteer Corps.
careforukraine 13 Jul 2015 05:09
I wonder how long it will be before the us denounces nazi's in ukraine?
Kind of seems like we have seen this all before.
Almost like how ISIS were just freedom fighters that needed our support until ?.....
Well we all know what happened there.
Pwedropackman 13 Jul 2015 05:04
If it was not for the right sector, Ukraine would still be one united nation.
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 04:41
Yes, I agree, they do wreck the economy. That was my point. Russia want's strong economies
to do business with, not broken economies that only ask for financial aid.
Like I said, no evidence of Russian troops in Donbass and South Ossetia asked for the presence
of Russian troops to deter the Georgian government from trying another invasion.
And organisations like CIS are meant to expand economic ties. Just like the EU I suppose. They
function in pretty much the same way with everyone getting a chance to lead. So I don't know why
that should be a bad thing. Since the EU is not interested in admitting Russia why can't Russia
go to other organisations?
VladimirM Dmitriy Grebenyuk 13 Jul 2015 04:26
It's a poisonous sarcasm, I think. But I've heard that RS accuse the Ukrainian government of
being pro-Putin as the govermment accuse them of being Russian agents. Surreal a bit.
stewfen FOHP46 13 Jul 2015 04:24
The west would not have dialogue with Russia because it was not what Washington wanted. Washington
wanted to push a wedge between Russia and EU at any cost even 6500 lives and unfortunately they
succeeded
GameOverManGameOver Chris Gilmore 13 Jul 2015 03:54
I'll admit that frozen conflicts could be useful to Russia. But only from a security point
of view. And why not, exactly? NATO is Russia's biggest threat, so it would make sense for the
government to want to avoid it expanding any further. I understand your misgivings since you're
speaking from the position that NATO should expand to deter Russi…I mean 'Iran', but surely you
understand that Russia wanting to prevent that makes logical sense? Sure, it's at someone else's
expense but let's not pretend that big countries doing something at someone else's expense is
a new and revolutionary concept reserved only to Russia. And the Georgian conflict dates back
to the very early 90's.
From an economic point of view though, no sense at all. Frozen conflicts usually bring economic
barriers. Believe it or not Russia's priority isn't expansion, but the economy. And trade with
it's neighbours is an important element of the Russian economy. It's very hard to trade with areas
that are in the middle of a frozen conflict. So in that sense the last thing Russia would want
are profitable areas in a frozen conflict around it's borders hampering it's economic growth.
And none of this has anything to do with Marioupol.
Debreceni 13 Jul 2015 03:38
The Right Sector does not exist, or if it does, it has been created by Moscow. The crisis in
Greece is also the work of Russian agents. The ISIS is financed and trained by Putin. Ebola was
cooked up in a laboratory in Saint Petersburg. Look for the Russian!
Kaiama PrinceEdward 13 Jul 2015 02:50
We don't know if PS were also doing it as well or just poking their noses into someone else's
business. Who started it? I doubt the correct answer will ever be known. Two unsavoury groups
arguing about an illegal business. The problem is that the MP is an MP whereas PS is a national
organisation.
"neo-Chekists" That's new to me.... Are you sure they are not "Just doing their jobs" ?
Did you read the Nafeez Ahmed piece someone linked ? Here (if you didn't)
It's never the US....it's never the West.....
(you know, to balance things) : )
todaywefight 13 Jul 2015 01:53
If any one on the other side, the dark side, ever thought that these lot will hold hands with
any one, lay down their arms and sing Kumbaya, uou are either utterly naive or willfully ignorant.
Apparently, these lot have 23 battalions, armed to their teeth, the added bonus for the Privy
Sektor is that , due to expedience and cowardice , they have just made legal and incorporated
into the Ukrainian army, Kyiv is in a highway to nowhere.
Incidentally, unlike the maidan demonstrations which essentially were only in Kyiv there are
demonstrations in more than a dozen cities, and have established dozen of check points already
and Yarosh a member of the VT. have clearly instructed them to fight if necessary.
GameOverManGameOver Omniscience 13 Jul 2015 01:35
So? Yes there are nationalists in Russia, just like everywhere else. You get a gold star for
googling. Shall I get some articles with European and American nationalists to parade around to
make a vague point? If you want I can get you an article of Lithuanians dressed up as the Waffen
SS parading around Vilnius. That's Lithuania the EU and Nato member. Funny how EU principles disappear
when it's one of their own violating them.
You seem to be missing the point entirely. While all countries have their nationalists, those
nationalists are a very small minority, have no power, have no popular support, have no seats
in government, usually derided by the majority of the population and they certainly aren't armed
to the teeth roaming around the country killing, torturing and kidnapping people with the blessing
of their government
HollyOldDog Joe way 13 Jul 2015 00:09
The Right Sector were / are Ukrains Storm Troopers who have had more advanced training by the
Americans. If the Right Sector turn on the Kiev Government they will be difficult to defeat, and
who knows if the civilian population of Ukraine may join in the 'fun' by ousting the current unpopular
Ukrainian government.
sorrentina 12 Jul 2015 23:35
this is what happens when you play with fire: you get burned. Using Neo-Nazi's to implement
Nato expansionist policies was always a very bad idea. It's just a shame it is not people like
Victoria 'fuck the EU' Nuland who will have to suffer the blowback consequences- it is the poor
Ukrainian people. This is not that different to what has happened in Libya- where Islamic extremists
were used as a proxy force to oust Gaddafi.
annamarinja jgbg 12 Jul 2015 23:31
The threshold has been guessed impatiently by the US neocons (while the provocateur Higgins/
Bellingcat fed the gullible the fairy tales about Russian army in Ukraine). The US needs desperately
a real civil war in Ukraine, the Ukrainians be damned. Just look what the US-sponsored "democracy
on the march" has produced in the Middle East. Expect the same bloody results in eastern Europe.
annamarinja obscurant 12 Jul 2015 23:25
perhaps you do not realize that your insults are more appropriate towards the poor Ukrainians
that have been left destitute by the cooky-carrying foreigners and their puppets in Kiev. The
Ukrainian gold reserve has disappeared... meanwhile, the US Congress has shamed the US State Dept
for collaborating with Ukrainian neo-nazis. Stay tuned. But do not expect to hear real news from
your beloved Faux News.
annamarinja quorkquork 12 Jul 2015 23:14
the jihadists in Ukraine are the integral part of Iraqization of Ukraine. The lovers of Nuland's
cookies are still in denial that Ukraine was destined by the US plutocrats to become a sacrificial
lamb in a fight to preserve the US dollar hegemony.
Bud Peart 12 Jul 2015 22:59
Well we always knew it would end this way. With a stalemate in the war with the East the Right
wing paramilitaries and private oligarch militias (whom the west funded and trained) have gone
completely feral and are now in fighting directly with whats left of the Ukrainian National Army.
This is pretty much the rode to another breakaway in Galacia which would effectively end the Ukraine
as a functional state.
The government should move as fast as possible to get a decent federal structure (copy switzerland)
in place before the whole of the West goes into revolt as well.
DelOrtoyVerga LostJohnny 12 Jul 2015 22:38
That is what you get when you put fascists in your government.
I rather reword it to
That is what you get when you enable and rely on thugish pseudo-fascist radical para-military
groups to impose order by force and violence against dissident segments of your own population
(which is armed to the teeth probably by Russia)
Bosula Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 22:37
What do you think it is?
There were several people identified directly or indirectly in this BBC story whose stories should
have been formally pursued by legal authorities in Kiev.
If you lived in the West you would understand that we call these references as possible 'leads'
- you follow these 'leads' and see where they take you. That is what Western police do.
The story says that Kiev didn't want to follow up any of these points. Why? What harm could this
do?
You state that you do not understand the point that this BBC journalist was making. But I have
in a fair way tried to to explain the point that the BBC was making.
This story caused quite a stir went it came out - and the BBC chose to stick with it and support
their British reporter. In an edited and shorter form the story is still on the BBC - the editing
is also acknowledged by the BBC.
Do you think the BBC should have blocked or not published this investigative piece?
If so - why?
And why hasn't Kiev followed up these issues?
Have I addressed your point yet?
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 21:34
I am just watching a program recorded earlier. Hiroshima: The Aftermath. I have got past the
part when the Japanese 'survivors' had to drink from the pools of Black Rain ( highly radioactive)
and watched the part when American Army Tourists visited the city to take a few photos ( no medical
help though) while gawking at the gooks. In fact the Japanese civilians recieved no medical assistance
at all from the Americans. The commentator just said that they were just there to study the effects
of nuclear radiation on a civilian population. These nuclear bombs were just dropped on Japan
to save One Day of the surrender of the Japanese forces.
The next documtary I will watch another day is the sinking of the Tirpitz by the RAF using
Tallboy bombs. At least this had a useful pupose in helping to stop the destruction of the North
Atlantic convoys, sending aid to Russia. That aid along with the rebuilding of the Soviet Armies
helped the Soviet Union to destroy the invading Nazi forces and provided a Second Front to the
Western Allies to invade Normandy. A lot of good can be achieved when the East and West work together
- maybe avoiding the worst effects of Global Warming but the Americans only seem to want to spend
Trillions $ building more powerful nuclear weapons. Is this all that America has now, an Arms
Industry - I can see it now, cooling the planet with a Nuclear Winter.
HollyOldDog Scepticbladderballs 12 Jul 2015 20:33
The USA caused the chaos in Ukraine so they must pay the billions of $ to fix it then leave
Ukraine alone.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:29
One of the amusing features of the Soviet media was the long silences it maintained on possibly
embarrassing breaking news until it became clear what the Party Line was.
Eventually, a memo would go out from Mikhail Suslov's office to various media outlets and the
silence would be broken.
At least everyone knew exactly how that system worked. What is happening with the British media
is much more murky.
The beeb/graun seem to be the Pravda/Izvestia, whilst the torygraph is a sort of Trybuna Ludu
- ie real news very occasionally appears in it.
6i9vern 12 Jul 2015 20:08
So, after a mere 24 hours the Graun ran a story on Mukachevo. The Torygraph actually had the
nerve to run the AFP wire report more or less straight away.
The BBC are still keeping shtum.
The Beeb/Graun complex have well and truly had the frighteners put on them.
PrinceEdward Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 20:07
There's no doubt. I agree that the MP was probably running cigarettes, but also Right Sektor
was going to muscle in.
If you asked somebody 3 years ago if Ukraine would be rocked by armed bands with RPGs and Light
Machine Guns fighting in towns, they would have thought you were crazy.
This isn't Russia, this is the Ultranats/Neo-Nazis.
PrinceEdward obscurant 12 Jul 2015 20:05
Right, it's the people in Donbass who bury 14th SS Division veterans with full honors, push
for full pensions to surviving Hiwi and SS Collaborators... not those in Lvov. Uh huh.
BMWAlbert 12 Jul 2015 20:04
11 months of investigations by the newKiev regime, attempting to implicate the the prior one
for the murder of about 100 people in Kiev early last year was unsuccessful. There may be better
candidates here.
fragglerokk ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 19:55
It always amazes me that the far right never learn from history. The politicians and oligarchs
always use them as muscle to ensure coup success then murder/assasinate the leaders to make sure
they dont get any ideas about power themselves. Surprised its taken so long in ukraine but then
the govt is barely hanging onto power and the IMF loans have turned to a trickle so trouble will
always be brewing, perhaps theyve left it too long this time. Nobody will be shedding any tears
for the Nazis and Banderistas.
Why, don't you know? They infiltrated Ukraine, the CIA (and NATO and the EU somehow) created
Maidan, their agents killed the protesters, then they overthrew a legitimate government and installed
a neo-nazi one, proceeded to instigate a brutal oppression against Russian speakers, then started
a war against the peaceful Eastern Ukrainians and their innocent friends in the Kremlin, etc etc.
Ignorant question that, by now you should know the narrative!
Kaiama gimmeshoes 12 Jul 2015 19:53
If you think Pryvi Sektor want to "clean up" then yes, but not in the way you imagine - they
just want the business for themselves.
Geordiemartin 12 Jul 2015 19:51
I am reminded of AJP Taylor premise that Eastern Europe has historically had either German
domination or Russian protection.
The way that the Ukrainian government had treated their own Eastern compatriots leaves little
reason to believe they would be welcome back into the fold and gives people of Donbass no reason
to want to rejoin the rest of the country.
If government is making an effort to reign in the likes of Right sector it is a move in the
right direction but much much more will be needed to establish any trust.
Some Guy yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:45
just because they are nazis doesnt mean they are happy about doing any of this... now. look
at greece and the debacle that has unfolded over the past week has been . the west ukraine wanted
to be part of the euro zone and wanted some of that ecb bail out money. now they are not even
sure if they could skip out on the bill and know they are fighting for nothing . russia gave them
14 bil dollars . the west after the coup only gave the 1 bil
Andor2001 Kaiama 12 Jul 2015 19:44
According to the eyewitnesses the RS shot a guard when he refused to summon the commanding
officer. It was the beginning of the fight.
Andor2001 yataki 12 Jul 2015 19:41
Remember Shakespeare "Othello"? Moor has done his job, Moor has to go..
The neo-Nazis have outlived their usefulness.
Bosula caaps02 12 Jul 2015 19:39
The BBC investigative reported earlier this year that a section of Maidan protesters deliberately
started shooting the police. This story was also reported in the Guardian. Google and you will
easily find it.
The BBC also reported that the Prosecutors Office in Kiev was forbidden by Rada officials from
investigating Maiden shooters.
Maybe the BBC is telling us a lie? The BBC investigation is worth a read - then you can make up
your own mind.
Bosula William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 19:29
Kazakhstan had the highest percentage of deaths from Stalin's policies in this period when
he prevented the nomad herders moving from the mountains to the planes to take advantage of the
benefits of seasons and weather.
Stalin forced the nomads to stay in one area and they perished in the cold of the mountains or
the heat of the summer plains (whichever zone they were foced to stay in).
Some of my family is Ukrainian and some recognise that Stalin's policies weren't specifically
aimed at Ukrainians - the people of Kazakhstan suffered the most (as a percentage of population).
Either way, there is no genetic difference between Slavs or Russian or Ukrainian origin in Ukraine
or Russia - they are all genetically the same people.
This information should be better taught in Ukraine.
The problem is that it would undermine the holy grail story of right wing nationalism in Ukraine.
quorkquork annamarinja 12 Jul 2015 19:27
There are already jihadist groups fighting in Ukraine!
It's been one of the biggest mistakes ( although Ukraine's military started in a desperately
poor condition ) , to allow militia groups to get so powerful. Right sector should not have arms
and guns... The national Ukraine military should, If members of Right sector want to fight , they
should leave Right sector and join the army.
This was and will happen if they don't disband such armed groups.
annamarinja silvaback 12 Jul 2015 18:18
have you ever studied geography? If yes, you should remember the proximity of Ukraine to Russia
(next door) and the proximity of Ukraine to the US (thousands miles away). Also, have you heard
about the CIA Director Brennan and his covert visit to Kiev on the eve of the beginning of the
civil war in Ukraine? This could give you an informed hint about the causes of the war. Plus you
may be interested to learn about Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (Ms. Nudelman), her cookies, and her foul language.
She is, by the way, a student of Dick Cheney. If you were born before 2000, you might know his
name and his role in the Iraq catastrophe. Mrs. Nuland-Kagan (and the family of Kagans she belongs
to) finds particular pleasure in creating military conflicts around the globe. It is not for nothing
that the current situation in Ukraine is called Iraqization of Eastern Europe.
Bev Linington JJRichardson 12 Jul 2015 18:10
Ukrainians shot down the plane. East, West does not matter as they were all Ukrainians before
the government overthrow. Leaders of the new government could not look past some Ukrainian citizens
ethnicity, instead of standing together united, they decided to oppress which lead to the referendum
in Crimea and the rise of separatists in the East.
jgbg Chirographer 12 Jul 2015 17:53
And for the Pro-Russian posters the newsflash is that could also describe the situation
inside the Donbass.
It certainly describes the situation in Donbass where Right Sector or the volunteer battalions
are in charge. In Dnepropetrovsk, Right Sector would simply turn up at some factory or other business
and order the owner to sign document transferring the enterprise to them. In other cases, they
have kidnapped businessmen for ransom. Some people have simply disappeared under such circumstances.
The Ukrainian National Guard simply break into homes left empty by people fleeing the war and
steal the contents. Such was the scale of looting, the Ukrainian postal service have now refused
to ship electrical goods out of the ATO area unless the senders have the original boxes and receipts.
jgbg AlfredHerring 12 Jul 2015 17:45
Maybe Kiev just needs to bomb them some more.
Putin promised to protect the Russian speaking people in Ukraine - but he hasn't really done
that. His government has indicated that they would not allow Kiev to simply overrun or obliterate
the people of Donbass. Quite where their threshold of actual intervention lies is anyone's guess.
The "pro-Russian" government that you refer to was only elected because it promised to sign
the EU trade agreement. It then reneged on that promise...
Yanukovych's government was elected the previous one was useless and corrupt.
Yanukovych wanted to postpone the decision to sign for six months, while he attempted to extract
more from both the EU and Russia. Under Poroshenko, the implementation of the EU Association Agreement
has been delayed for 15 months, as the governments of Ukraine, the EU and Russia all recognised
that Russian trade (with the favourable terms which Ukraine enjoys) are vitail to Ukraine's economic
recovery. Expect that postponement to be extended.
.... severely and brutally curtailing freedom of speech and concentrating all power in the
hands of Yanukovich's little clan...
As opposed to sending the military to shell the crap out of those who objected to an elected
government being removed by a few thousand nationalists in Kiev.
There was no "coup".
An agreement had been signed at the end of February 2014, which would see elections in September
2014. The far right immediately moved to remove the government (as Right Sector had promised on
camera in December 2013). None of the few mechanisms for replacing the president listed in the
Ukrainian constitution have been followed - that makes it a coup.
The maidan protesters were not armed
This newspaper and other western media documented the armed members of far right groups on
Maidan. One BBC journalist was actually shot at by a Svoboda sniper, operating from Hotel Ukraina
- the video is still on the BBC website.
....the interim government that was put in place by the parliament in late February and
the government that was elected in May and Oct. of 2014 were and are not fascist.
The interim government included several ministers from Svoboda, formerly the Socialist Nationalist
Party of Ukraine. These were the first Nazi ministers in a European government since Franco's
Spanish government that ended in the 1970's. In a 2013 resolution, the EU parliament had indicated
that no Ukrainian government should include members of Svoboda or other far right parties.
pushkinsideburn vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 16:45
There has been a marked change in rhetoric over the last few weeks. Even CiF on Ukraine articles
seems to attract less trolls (with a few notable exceptions on this article - though they feel
more like squad trolls than the first team). Hopefully a sign of deescalation or perhaps just
a temporary lull before the MH17 anniversary this week?
pushkinsideburn calum1 12 Jul 2015 16:38
His other comments should have been the clue that arithmetic, like independent critical thinking,
is beyond him.
normankirk 12 Jul 2015 16:19
Right sector were the first to declare they wouldn't abide by the Minsk 2 peace agreement.Nevertheless,
Dmitry Yarosh, their leader is adviser to Ukraine's Chief of staff. Given that he only received
about 130,000 votes in the last election, he has a disproportionate amount of power.
As predicted the real civil war in ukraine is still to happen. The split between the east and
the ordinary ukrainian was largely manufactored . In the long term no body would be able to live
with the right sector or more preciselly the right sector cant share a bed with anyone else.
sashasmirnoff RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 15:44
"When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as
it is, in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules
all Western mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at
that time?"
This may be why:
"The CIA owns everyone of any significance in the major media." - former CIA Director William
Colby
Alexander_the_Great 12 Jul 2015 15:43
This was so, so predictable. The Right Sector were the main violent group during the coup in
2014 - in fact they were the ones to bring the first guns to the square following their storming
of a military warehouse in west Ukraine a few days before the coup. It was this factor that forced
the Police to arm themselves in preparation.
Being the vanguard of the illegal coup, they then provided a useful tool of manipulation for
the illegal Kiev government to oppress any opposition, intimidate journalists who spoke the truth
and lead the war against the legally-elected ELECTED governments of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Having failed in the war against the east, western leaders have signalled the right sector
has now outlived its usefulness and has become an embarrassment to Kiev and their western backers.
The Right Sector meanwhile, feel betrayed by the establishment in Kiev. They have 19 battalions
of fighters and they wont go away thats for sure. I think one can expect this getting more violent
in the coming months.
SHappens jezzam 12 Jul 2015 15:40
Putin is a Fascist dictator.
Putin is not a dictator. He is a statist, authoritarian-inclined hybrid regime ruler that possesses
some democratic elements and space for opposition groups.
He has moderate nationalist tendencies in foreign affairs; his goal is a secure a strong Russia.
He is a patriot and has a charismatic authority. Russians stay behind him.
ploughmanlunch samuel glover 12 Jul 2015 15:31
'this notion that absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master script drawn up
in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome'
Agreed.
As is everything is Russia's fault.
ConradLodziak 12 Jul 2015 15:26
This is just the latest in a string of conflicts involving the right sector, as reported by
RT, Russian media and until recently many Ukrainian outlets. The problem, of course, is that Porostinko
has given 'official' status to the right sector. Blow back time for him.
CIAbot007 William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:06
Yes, Russia (USSR) from the USSR foundation had been forcing people of the then territory of
Ukraine to identify themselves as ukrainians under the process of rootisation - ukrainisation,
then gave to Ukraine Donbass and left side Dniepr and Odessa, Herson and Nikolaev, and then decided
to ethnically cleane them..It doesn't make sense, does it? Oh, wait, sense is not your domain.
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 15:05
let me help you with arithmetics: 72 years ago Europe was inflamed with the WWII.
There was a considerable number of Ukrainians that collaborated with Hitler' nazis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14th_Waffen_Grenadier_Division_of_the_SS_(1st_Galician)
Now moving to the present. The US-installed oligarchs in Kiev have been cooperating closely with
Ruropean neo-nazis (the followers of the WWII scum): http://rt.com/news/155364-ukraine-nazi-division-march/
In short, your government finds it is OK to glorify the perpetrators of genocide in Europe during
the WWII.
Nik2 12 Jul 2015 15:04
These tragic events, when YESTERDAY, on Saturday afternoon, several civilians were unintentionally
wounded in gun battles in previously peaceful town near the Hungary and Slovakia borders, vividly
exposes Western propaganda. Though mass media in Ukraine and Russia are full of reports about
this from the start, The Guardian managed to give first information exactly 1 day later, and BBC
was still keeping silence a few minutes ago. Since both sides are allies of the West (the Right
Sector fighters were the core of the Maidan protesters at the later stages, and Poroshenko regime
is presumably "democratic"), the Western media preferred to ignore the events that are so politically
uncomfortable. Who are "good guys" to be praised? In fact, this may be the start of nationalists'
revolt against Ukrainian authorities, and politically it is very important moment that can fundamentally
change Ukrainian politics. But the West decides to be silent ...
annamarinja William Fraser 12 Jul 2015 14:59
Do your history book tell you that the Holodomor was a multiethnic endeavor? That the Ukrainians
were among the victims and perpetrators and that the whole huge country had suffered the insanely
cruel policies of multiethnic bolsheviks? The Holodomor was almost a century ago, whereas the
Odessa massacre and the bombardments of civilian population in east Ukraine by the neo-nazi thugs
(sent by Kiev), has been going during last year and half. Perhaps you have followed Mr. Brennan
and Mrs. Nuland-Kagan too obediently.
foolisholdman zonzonel 12 Jul 2015 14:58
zonzonel
Oops, the presumably fascist govt. is fighting a fascist group.
What is a poor troll to do these days??
Antiukrainian copywriting just got more difficult, perhaps a raise is needed? Just sayin.
What's your problem? Never heard of Fascist groups fighting each other? Never heard of the
"Night of the Long Knives"? Fascists have no principles to unite them. They believe in Uebermenschen
and of course they all think that either they themselves or their leader is The Ueberuebermensch.
Anyone who disagrees is an enemy no matter how Fascist he may be.
samuel glover ploughmanlunch 12 Jul 2015 14:55
Y'know, I'm no fan of the Russophobic hysteria that dominates English-language media. I've
been to Ukraine several times over the last 15 years or so, and I'm sorry to say that I think
that in time Ukrainians will regard Maidan's aftermath as most of them view the Orange Revolution
-- with regret and cynicism.
That said, this notion that everything, absolutely everything Kiev does follows some master
script drawn up in DC and Brussels is simplistic and tiresome. Most post-revolution regimes purge
one end or the other of the current ideological wings. Kiev has already tangled with the oligarch
and militia patron Igor Kolomoisky. So perhaps this is another predictable factional struggle.
Or maybe, as another comment speculates, this is a feud over cigarette tax revenue.
In any case, Ukraine is a complex place going through an **extremely** complex time. it's too
soon to tell what the Lviv skirmish means, and **far** too soon to lay it all on nefarious puppetmasters.
TheTruthAnytime ADTaylor 12 Jul 2015 14:49
The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country,...
Is the CIA their country? So far they've only seemed to serve the interests of American businesspeople,
not Ukrainian interests. Also, murdering eastern Ukrainians cannot really be considered such a
great service to Ukraine, can it?
annamarinja ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:44
Maidan was indeed a popular apprising, but it was utilized by the US strategists for their
geopolitical games. The Ukrainians are going to learn hard way that the US have never had any
interest in well-being of the "locals" and that the ongoing civil war was designed in order to
create a festering wound on a border with the Russia. The Iraqization of Ukraine was envisioned
by the neocons as a tool to break both Russia and Ukraine. The sooner Ukrainians come to a peaceful
solution uniting the whole Ukraine (for example, to federalization), the better for the general
population (but not for the thieving oligarchs).
vr13vr 12 Jul 2015 14:38
"Couple of hundred Right Sector supporters demonstrated in Kiev?" Come on! Over the last week,
there have been enough of videos of thousands of people in fatigues trying to block access to
government buildings and shouting rather aggressive demands. The entire battalions of "National
Guard." This is much bigger than just 100 people on a peaceful rally. Ukraine might be heading
towards Maidan 3.0.
ID075732 12 Jul 2015 14:26
The situation in Ukraine has been unravelling for months and this news broke on Friday evening.
The Minsk II cease fire has not been honoured by Poroshenko, who has not managed to effect
any of the pledges he signed up to. The right sector who rejected the cease-fire from the start
are now refusing the rule of their post coup president in Kiev.
Time for Victoria Nuland to break out the cookies? Or maybe it's too late for that now. The
country formerly know as Ukraine is turning out to be another outstanding success of American
post -imperial foreign policy.
Meanwhile in UFA the BRIC's economic forum is drawing to a close, with representatives from
the developing world and no reporting of the aspirations being discussed there of over 60% of
the world's population. It's been a major success, but if you want to learn about it, you will
have to turn to other media sources - those usually reported as Russian propaganda channels or
Putin's apologists.
The same people who have been reporting on the deteriorating situation in Kiev since the February
coup. Or as Washington likes to call it a popular up rising.
'The only thing that makes me reconsider is their service to their country'
Don't get me wrong. I detest the fascist militias and their evil deeds.
However, despite their callousness, brutality and stupidity, they have been the most effective
fighting force for Kiev ( more sensible Ukrainians have been rather more reluctant to kill their
fellow countrymen ).
Deluded ? Yes. Cowardly ? No.
Even more reprehensible, in my opinion are the calculating and unprincipled Kiev Government
that have attempted to bully a region of the Ukraine that had expressed legitimate reservations,
using those far right battalions, but accepting no responsibility for the carnage that they carried
out.
mario n 12 Jul 2015 12:52
I think it's time Europe spoke up about dangers of Ukrainian nationalism. 72 years ago Ukrainian
fascists committed one of the most hideous and brutal acts of genocide in the human history. Details
are so horrifying it is beyond imagination. Sadly not many people remembers that, because it is
not politically correct to say bad things about Ukraine. Today mass murderers are hailed as national
heroes and private battalions and ultranationalist groups armed to the teeth terrorise not only
Donbas but now different parts of the country like Zakarpattia where there is strong Hungarian,
Russian and Romanian minority.
How many massacres and acts of genocide Europe needs before it learns to act firmly?
SHappens 12 Jul 2015 12:49
Kiev has allowed nationalist groups including Right Sector to operate despite allegations
by groups like Amnesty International, that Right Sector has tortured civilian prisoners.
You know what, you dont play with fire or you will get burnt. It was written on the wall that
these Bandera apologists would eventually turn to the hand that fed them. I wonder how Kiev will
manage to blame the russians now.
RicardoJ 12 Jul 2015 12:33
Of course the Guardian doesn't like to explain that 'Right Sector' are genuine fascists - by
their own admission!
These fascists, who wear Nazi insignia, were the people who overthrew the elected government
of Ukraine in the US / EU-supported coup - which the Guardianistas and other PC-brainwashed duly
cheered on as a supposed triumph of democracy.
Since that glorious US-financed and EU-backed coup, wholly illegal under international law,
Ukraine's economy has collapsed, as has Ukrainians' living standards.
The US neocons are losing interest in their attempted land grab of Ukraine - and the EU cretins
who backed the coup, thinking it would be a nice juicy further territorial acquisition for the
EU, are desperately looking the other way, now that both the US and EU realize that Ukraine is
a financial black hole.
When the Guardian claims to be a fearless champion of investigative journalism - as it is,
in some areas - why did it obey the dictats of the US neocon media machine which rules all Western
mainstream media over the Ukrainian land grab, instead of telling the truth, at that time?
jgbg 12 Jul 2015 12:15
The move came after a gunfight broke out on Saturday, when about 20 Right Sector gunmen
arrived at a sports complex controlled by MP Mikhail Lano. They had been trying to stop the
traffic of cigarettes and other contraband, a spokesman for the group said.
Put another way, one group of gangsters tried to muscle in on the cigarette smuggling operation
of another group of gangsters. Smuggling cigarettes into nearby EU countries is extremely lucrative.
Note the registration plates driven by both Right Sector and the other gangsters i.e. not Ukrainian.
In all likelihood, these cars are all stolen.
Right Sector and fighters from "volunteer battalions" have become accustomed to muscling in
on other people's activities (legal or not) in Donbass. This sort of thuggery is routine when
these folk come to town. It is only when since they have continued such activities on their home
turf in west and central Ukraine that the authorities have taken any notice.
Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism:
Rada Deputy Boris Filatov, who
belongs to Igor Kolomoisky's party, was outraged when he read some blogposts written by Trans-Carpathians.
Who claimed that Trans-Carpathia was unjustly taken away from Slovaks and Hungarians in the 1950's.
Some of the Rusyns there say they are not Ukrainians, and never have been.
Filatov was outraged at some of this loose talk on blogs. He retorted on his own blog with
the following proposed remedy to these separatist inclinations:
"Можете почитать, что публично пишут в своих бложиках некоторые местные деятели. Врачи!
Жечь падаль каленым железом. Сажать и лишать имущества", - написал Филатов на своей странице в
соцсети.
"You cannot even imagine what some of these local activists are scribbling in their blogs.
I would brand these scum with a heated up iron. I would throw them in jail and confiscate their
property."
yalensis:
Recall that Filatov made similar threats against Crimeans.
Which just scared them even further into escaping from the tender embraces of Ukrainian nazis.
I am betting most Rusyns also wish they could opt out of this Ukrainian "prison of nations" and
become part of Slovakia or Hungary. Unfortunately, they don't have that option, so they are stuck
in this abusive relationship.
They just love fighting with guns and the thrill of shooting to kill. The front is boring right now,
shooting artillery into cities does not have the same gratification. The only way for Ukraine to
purge itself of Right Sector is to kill them all. So long as any are left alive they will cling to
their guns – which nobody seems to be able to make them give up – and foment armed insurrection.
The Ukrainian state is disintegrating and Washington smiles beatifically, having created another
Libya, this time on Russia's doorstep.
karl1haushofer , July 12, 2015 at 5:27 am
"Yarosh hates Avakov even more than he hates the Russians."
Aren't they both Russians themselves? Yarosh does not even speak Ukrainian and Avakov is a Russian
name.
Pavlo Svolochenko, July 12, 2015 at 5:37 am
Yarosh, yes. Avakov (Avakian?) is an Armenian from Baku.
…"If you want to talk about a nation that could pose an existential threat to the United States,
I'd have to point to Russia," Dunford said. "And if you look at their behavior, it's nothing short
of alarming."
U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner said Kerry did not share the assessment, even though
Russia's actions in Ukraine posed regional security challenges.
"The secretary doesn't agree with the assessment that Russia is an existential threat to the United
States, nor China, quite frankly," Toner told a regular news briefing when asked about Dunford's
remarks.
"You know, these are major powers with whom we engage and cooperate on a number of issues,
despite any disagreements we may have with them," he said. "Certainly we have disagreements with
Russia and its activities within the region, but we don't view it as an existential threat."…
####
The problem with ignorant blowhards like Dunford is that if their words are to be taken seriously,
then seriously needs to be funded with cold, hard dollars. Resources daarlings. The USA has pinned
its flag to the Asia Swivel (aka fk China!) as its fundamental future military posture.
That is an expensive proposition.
To then start bivolating (sp?) about Russia means some cash going to contain China would have
to go instead to containing Russia, which so far, the USA has been doing on the very cheap by using
Ukrainians as willing (or not so) canonfodder and the Europeans paying the economic consequences.
To mix a metaphor or three, the US Gorilla shits in an European chinashop and still expects fawning
applause for the performance*. Instead, by amping up the rhetoric via NATO and bigging up the
Russia threat, the USA is trying to get Europe to pay (new UK budget promises 2% GDP on weapons)
for the US' own mess and aggressive anti-Russia policy, squaring the military budget circle if you
will. Except, it is not working. Europe as a whole will still not pick up the military tab
US wants it to. This is the de facto recognition by Europe that the Russia threat is total bullshit,
in total contradiction of all the mass propaganda to the opposite by the pork pie news networks.
* "It's like a jungle some times it makes me wonder how I keep from going under" – Rapper's Delight
Warren, July 12, 2015 at 7:50 am
The Europeans need to free themselves from American yoke, the Americans must have serious leverage
on European leaders to explain their servility to the US.
* "It's like a jungle some times it makes me wonder how I keep from going under"
That line comes from Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five – The Message
marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 11:06 am
All that notwithstanding, Kerry is out of favour and the State Department has the bit in its teeth.
It likes the cut of Dunford's jib and his willingness to help imprint brand "Russian Aggression".
Kerry's demurrals are not going to mean anything in the great scheme of things, and it is much too
late for him to assuage his conscience now for all the lies he told and partisan bullshit he spread.
He deserves to ride his doomed state down nearly as much as the rest of his government.
Jeremn, July 12, 2015 at 5:06 am
Just looking at who funds the ECFR.
http://www.ecfr.eu/about/donors
George Soros is the primary funder, and the European Commission also supplies money. Then there's
a whole slew of banks, oil firms and foundations. Interesting reading.
marknesop, July 12, 2015 at 11:20 am
It would of course be a generalization, but just about everywhere you find a western agency fomenting
revolution and stirring up unrest in the names of freedom and democracy, you will find George Soros's
money. It's a wonder Obama has not awarded him the Presidential Gong of Freedom.
Do they, or don't they?
Some people say, that Right Sektor is withdrawing all their battalions from
Donbass and moving them West, back towards Kiev.
Right Sektor denies this, and says, no, all their guys are still in place at
the ATO, valiantly fighting the Colorados.
Basurin reports that the Right Sektor guys truly are leaving, thus
providing some blessed relief to the people of Donetsk. Resulting in fewer
incidents of shelling, etc.
yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 3:54 am
Ukry starting to get worried about Trans-Carpthian separatism:
Rada Deputy Boris Filatov, who belongs to Igor Kolomoisky's party, was outraged when he read some
blogposts written by Trans-Carpathians. Who claimed that Trans-Carpathia was unjustly taken away
from Slovaks and Hungarians in the 1950's.
Some of the Rusyns there say they are not Ukrainians, and never have been.
Filatov was outraged at some of this loose talk on blogs. He retorted on his own blog with the
following proposed remedy to these separatist inclinations:
"Можете почитать, что публично пишут в своих бложиках некоторые местные деятели. Врачи! Жечь
падаль каленым железом. Сажать и лишать имущества", - написал Филатов на своей странице в соцсети.
"You cannot even imagine what some of these local activists are scribbling in their blogs. I
would brand these scum with a heated up iron. I would throw them in jail and confiscate their
property."
yalensis:
Recall that Filatov made similar threats against Crimeans.
Which just scared them even further into escaping from the tender embraces of Ukrainian nazis.
I am betting most Rusyns also wish they could opt out of this Ukrainian "prison of nations"
and become part of Slovakia or Hungary. Unfortunately, they don't have that option, so they are
stuck in this abusive relationship.
yalensis, July 13, 2015 at 4:13 am
And what's the plan, once the Right Sektor battalions reach Kiev?
According to this piece, Right Sektor is organizing a massive meeting on the Maidan this
coming Sunday, July 19.
Right Sektor spokesperson Dmitry Pavlichenko announced the following:
-He urges everybody to swarm to Kiev on Sunday. The meeting ("veche") will start promptly at
noon.
-The purpose is to form "organs of power" to replace the current government.
-A priority will be also to form a "people's court".
Right Sektor has issued ultimatum to Ukrainian government: They want Avakov's head on a
platter.
There is constant picket of around 100 persons around President Poroshenko's office building.
The picketers wear insigna for parties such as "OUN", "Freedom or Death", and "Right Sektor". The
building is protected by around 30 National Guards troops, and there has been a stand-off up
until this point.
Exclusive: Ukraine's post-coup regime is now melding neo-Nazi storm troopers
with Islamic militants – called "brothers" of the hyper-violent Islamic State – stirring up a hellish
"death squad" brew to kill ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, on Russia's border, reports Robert
Parry.
In a curiously upbeat account, The New York Times reports that Islamic militants have joined with
Ukraine's far-right and neo-Nazi battalions to fight ethnic Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. It
appears that no combination of violent extremists is too wretched to celebrate as long as they're
killing Russ-kies.
The
article by Andrew E. Kramer reports that there are now three Islamic battalions "deployed
to the hottest zones," such as around the port city of Mariupol. One of the battalions is headed
by a former Chechen warlord who goes by the name "Muslim," Kramer wrote, adding:
"The Chechen commands the Sheikh Mansur group, named for an 18th-century Chechen resistance
figure. It is subordinate to the nationalist Right Sector, a Ukrainian militia. … Right Sector
… formed during last year's street protests in Kiev from a half-dozen fringe Ukrainian nationalist
groups like White Hammer and the
Trident of Stepan Bandera.
"Another, the
Azov group, is openly neo-Nazi, using the 'Wolf's
Hook' symbol associated with the [Nazi] SS. Without addressing the issue of the Nazi symbol,
the Chechen said he got along well with the nationalists because, like him, they loved their homeland
and hated the Russians."
As casually as Kramer acknowledges the key front-line role of neo-Nazis and white supremacists
fighting for the U.S.-backed Kiev regime, his article does mark an aberration for the Times and the
rest of the mainstream U.S. news media, which usually dismiss any mention of this Nazi taint as "Russian
propaganda."
During the February 2014 coup that ousted elected President Viktor Yanukovych, the late fascist
Stepan Bandera was one of the Ukrainian icons celebrated by the Maidan protesters. During World War
II, Bandera headed the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-B, a radical paramilitary movement
that sought to transform Ukraine into a racially pure state. At times coordinating with Adolf Hitler's
SS, OUN-B took part in the expulsion and extermination of tens of thousands of Jews and Poles.
Though most of the Maidan protesters in 2013-14 appeared motivated by anger over political corruption
and by a desire to join the European Union, neo-Nazis made up a significant number and spearheaded
much of the violence against the police. Storm troopers from the Right Sektor and Svoboda party seized
government buildings and decked them out with Nazi insignias and
a Confederate battle flag, the universal symbol of white supremacy.
Then, as the protests turned bloodier from Feb. 20-22, the neo-Nazis surged to the forefront.
Their well-trained militias, organized in 100-man brigades called "sotins" or "the hundreds," led
the final assaults against police and forced Yanukovych and many of his officials to flee for their
lives.
In the days after the coup, as the neo-Nazi militias effectively controlled the government, European
and U.S. diplomats scrambled to help the shaken parliament put together the semblance of a respectable
regime, although four ministries,
including national security, were awarded to the right-wing extremists in recognition of their crucial
role in ousting Yanukovych.
At that point, virtually the entire U.S. news media put on blinders about the neo-Nazi role, all
the better to sell the coup to the American public as an inspirational story of reform-minded "freedom
fighters" standing up to "Russian aggression." The U.S. media delicately stepped around the neo-Nazi
reality by keeping out relevant context, such as the background of national security chief Andriy
Parubiy, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine in 1991, blending radical Ukrainian nationalism
with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy was commandant of the Maidan's "self-defense forces."
Barbarians at the Gate
At times, the mainstream media's black-out of the brown shirts was almost comical. Last February,
almost a year after the coup, a New York Times
article about the government's defenders of Mariupol hailed the crucial role played
by the Azov battalion but managed to avoid noting its well-documented Nazi connections.
That article by Rick Lyman presented the situation in Mariupol as if the advance by ethnic Russian
rebels amounted to the barbarians at the gate while the inhabitants were being bravely defended by
the forces of civilization, the Azov battalion. In such an inspirational context, it presumably wasn't
considered appropriate to mention the Swastikas and SS markings.
Now, the Kiev regime has added to those "forces of civilization" - resisting the Russkie barbarians
- Islamic militants with ties to terrorism. Last September, Marcin Mamon, a reporter for the Intercept,
reached
a vanguard group of these Islamic fighters in Ukraine through the help of his "contact in Turkey
with the Islamic State [who] had told me his 'brothers' were in Ukraine, and I could trust them."
The new Times article avoids delving into the terrorist connections of these Islamist fighters.
But Kramer does bluntly acknowledge the Nazi truth about the Azov fighters. He also notes that American
military advisers in Ukraine "are specifically prohibited from giving instruction to members of the
Azov group."
While the U.S. advisers are under orders to keep their distance from the neo-Nazis, the Kiev regime
is quite open about its approval of the central military role played by these extremists – whether
neo-Nazis, white supremacists or Islamic militants. These extremists are considered very aggressive
and effective in killing ethnic Russians.
The regime has shown little concern about widespread reports of "death squad" operations targeting
suspected pro-Russian sympathizers in government-controlled towns. But such human rights violations
should come as no surprise given the Nazi heritage of these units and the connection of the Islamic
militants to hyper-violent terrorist movements in the Middle East.
But the Times treats this lethal mixture of neo-Nazis and Islamic extremists as a good thing.
After all, they are targeting opponents of the "white-hatted" Kiev regime, while the ethnic Russian
rebels and the Russian government wear the "black hats."
As an example of that tone, Kramer wrote:
"Even for Ukrainians hardened by more than a year of war here against Russian-backed separatists,
the appearance of Islamic combatants, mostly Chechens, in towns near the front lines comes as
something of a surprise - and for many of the Ukrainians, a welcome one. … Anticipating an attack
in the coming months, the Ukrainians are happy for all the help they can get."
So, the underlying message seems to be that it's time for the American people and the European
public to step up their financial and military support for a Ukrainian regime that has unleashed
on ethnic Russians a combined force of Nazis, white supremacists and Islamic militants (considered
"brothers" of the Islamic State).
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many
of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections
to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's Stolen Narrative. For
details on this offer,
click
here.
The Yatsenuk government
actually came out and declared that UNA-UNSO Party (=the core of "Right Sektor") collaborated
with Nazis in WWII.
This is a change from their usual b.s. about how UNA-UNSO fought AGAINST the German invaders.
This rewriting of history went to ludicrous extremes, when Ukies claimed the Banderites should
be designated as "victors" of WWII, along with England, France, etc.
Instead of the losers that they actually were.
But anyhow, what happened yesterday was that Minister of Justice in Ukraine refused to register
UNA-UNSO, stating that "this political party fought on the side of the fascists in 1942″.
Pundits see this strange (strange for Ukies, not strange for normal people) step as part of
a plan to discredit Dmitry Yarosh and push him out of public life.
"...Russian-backed aggression, relentless propaganda and meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics
have pushed many Ukrainians to adopt a deeply polarized worldview, in which constructive criticism,
dissenting views, and even observable facts are rejected out of hand if they are seen as harmful to
Ukraine. This phenomenon might be termed the new Ukrainian exceptionalism, and it is worrisome because
it threatens the very democratic values Ukrainians espouse, while weakening Ukraine's case for international
support." . "...The same goes for the country's far right political forces. Cite the rise of Praviy Sektor,
or Right Sector, during and after the Euro-Maidan, and many Ukrainians will point to the radical right
movement's poor performance in last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Point to the resurgence
of symbols and slogans of the Second World War ultra-nationalist Union of Ukrainian Nationalists, OUN,
or the newly passed laws banning "Soviet symbols," canonizing controversial Ukrainian nationalist figures
Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and they will say that Ukraine has every right to define its own
history, even if it does so with blatant disregard and disrespect for that of millions of its citizens
now living under Russian occupation or otherwise not fully represented in the government. The new Ukrainian
exceptionalism makes it possible for undercurrents of intolerance and extreme nationalism to cohabit
with stated commitments to pluralism and democracy." . "...These steps set a dangerous precedent for limitation of human rights without wide public
discussion. Exceptionalism effectively gives carte-blanche to the government to act in the name of Ukraine's
security"
Ukrainian leaders, under siege from Russian and separatist forces, resist constructive criticism
Russia on the dock, Ukraine not without blemish: Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko, left, walks
past Russian President Vladimir Putin during an international gathering (top); bellicose Ukrainian
Semen Semenchenko grandstanding
WASHINGTON: The slow boiling war in Southeastern Ukraine is by now well known to the world. It has
been projected in stark moral and political terms and in gruesome detail by the international press,
Ukrainian and Western political leaders, and ordinary Ukrainian citizens. Indeed, it is no exaggeration
to say that Ukraine is engaged in a struggle not only for its sovereignty, but for its very survival
as a nation-state.
In this hour of need, every Ukrainian citizen and every self-described friend of Ukraine in the international
community should not only speak but act in support of Ukraine. But speaking out and taking action
in support of Ukraine have become increasingly fraught in recent months. Russian-backed aggression,
relentless propaganda and meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics have pushed many Ukrainians
to adopt a deeply polarized worldview, in which constructive criticism, dissenting views, and even
observable facts are rejected out of hand if they are seen as harmful to Ukraine. This phenomenon
might be termed the new Ukrainian exceptionalism, and it is worrisome because it threatens the
very democratic values Ukrainians espouse, while weakening Ukraine's case for international support.
The new Ukrainian exceptionalism comes at a high price for Ukrainian civil society and for the international
community focused on helping Ukraine. There have already been cases in which prominent Ukrainian
thought leaders have been threatened and even attacked for expressing views critical of the government,
nationalist politicians, or volunteer militias. Likewise, among Ukraine's friends abroad there is
precious little tolerance for views that dissent from the dominant party line that Ukraine's current
government is the best it has ever had, and that the West must provide not only political and financial
support, but also supply it with lethal weapons to fight the Russians in Donbas.
There is little tolerance for views that dissent from the dominant party line in Ukraine.
This exceptionalist worldview is nowhere more evident than in the discourse around Ukraine's President
Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko is a billionaire confectionary baron who also owns banking and agricultural
assets, and several influential media platforms, most notably Ukraine's Fifth Channel, and who served
in high government posts, including as Yanukovych's minister of economic development and minister
of foreign affairs under Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Today, Poroshenko presides over a state
and a government that has committed to a reform campaign it styles as "de-oligrachization."
Yet when queried about whether, as an oligarch himself, Poroshenko can be effective in removing
oligarchic influence from Ukraine's politics and economy, many Ukrainians feel compelled to defend
their wartime leader by denying that he is, in fact, an oligarch in the first place. Or if he is
one, they say, he's a different kind of oligarch, certainly the best of the bunch. After all, they
reason, he has used his wealth and influence to help Ukraine and fight Russia, and anyway, his business
interests are more transparent and of more value to the country than those of his rivals. Instead
of selling his businesses, as he promised to do during last year's presidential campaign, Poroshenko
has held onto them, demonstrating that even in the new Ukraine, politics and the private sector remain
inseparable.
Exceptionalists argue: While oligarchy in general might be bad, Ukraine's patriotic oligarchs
are not.
The exceptionalism does not stop with Poroshenko. In fact, the same tortured logic extends to
support for other "good" oligarchs: Lviv's mayor Andriy Sadovyi, who has run that city for nearly
a decade, owns major media, electrical utility and financial assets, and has backed his own party
in the national parliament, is described as having made Lviv a "lighthouse" for Ukrainian reform,
on the model of neighboring Poland. Even Dnipropetrovsk's Ihor Kolomoiskiy, who himself embraces
the oligarch moniker, has spent millions in defense of Ukraine against Russian aggression, served
as governor of a vulnerable frontline region and held it together, and besides, his Privat Bank group
is a pillar of Ukraine's financial stability. So, while oligarchy in general might be bad, Ukraine's
most patriotic oligarchs, the exceptionalists argue, are not.
The same goes for the country's far right political forces. Cite the rise of Praviy Sektor,
or Right Sector, during and after the Euro-Maidan, and many Ukrainians will point to the radical
right movement's poor performance in last year's presidential and parliamentary elections. Point
to the resurgence of symbols and slogans of the Second World War ultra-nationalist Union of Ukrainian
Nationalists, OUN, or the newly passed laws banning "Soviet symbols," canonizing controversial Ukrainian
nationalist figures Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych, and they will say that Ukraine has every
right to define its own history, even if it does so with blatant disregard and disrespect for that
of millions of its citizens now living under Russian occupation or otherwise not fully represented
in the government. The new Ukrainian exceptionalism makes it possible for undercurrents of intolerance
and extreme nationalism to cohabit with stated commitments to pluralism and democracy.
New Ukrainian exceptionalism: Undercurrents of intolerance cohabit with commitments
to democracy.
The Euro-Maidan was dubbed a Revolution of Dignity because it represented the victory of the people
in defense of basic human rights and human dignity. But a year after that victory, the parliament
has approved a decree limiting Ukraine's obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights
and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. So far, the decree applies only to
portions of the two oblasts, or regions, of Donetsk and Luhansk where the war is going on, but it
has been accompanied by allegations of torture and unlawful detention by Ukrainian authorities.
These steps set a dangerous precedent for limitation of human rights without wide public discussion.
Exceptionalism effectively gives carte-blanche to the government to act in the name of Ukraine's
security, while it fragments and diminishes the human rights activist community that was once
a bulwark of the new Ukraine.
Finally, raise the problem of private armies in Ukraine, and one is told that the famous "volunteer
battalions" are actually completely legal and legitimate police, interior ministry or army units
that have been integrated under a single, responsible national command. This would be a reasonable
position and an extremely important step to constrain possible future internecine violence, corporate
raiding and other abuses in Ukraine, if only it were true.
The same goes for so-called soldier deputies, commanders of the volunteer battalions elected to the
parliament last October, many of whom still appear in uniform and demonstrate scant regard for the
boundaries between civilian and military authority. Dashing but bellicose figures like Serhii Melnychuk,
Semen Semenchenko and Dmytro Yarosh, we are told, are not really soldiers any more, their grandstanding
is just a PR exercise. Maybe so, but their message hardly confirms Ukraine's commitment to rule of
law, civilian control of the military, and national reconciliation. With prominent exceptions like
these in the new Ukraine, it is increasingly difficult to identify the rule.
Without a doubt, Ukraine now faces its most severe crisis of the post-1991 period. In the face of
attacks by Russia and its separatist allies, Ukraine deserves the support of its citizens and the
wider world. Yet the enthusiasm of the world to help Ukraine will be diminished and the damage from
Russian aggression magnified if Ukrainians succumb to the kind of exceptionalism described above.
Instead, Ukrainians should seek to preserve what have actually been their most exceptional characteristics
– a rare and genuine commitment to pluralism, civic freedom, and human dignity that make Ukraine
a cause worth fighting for.
Matthew Rojansky is director of the Kennan Institute at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington,
DC; Mykhailo Minakov is associate professor/docent in philosophy and religious studies at the National
University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, and was a Fulbright-Kennan Scholar in 2012-13.
Selected Skeptical Comments
Western Educated Russian, my 5 cents, 28 June 2015
That is not today Ukrainians decided to find a way to differentiate themselves from Russians.
That is the way how ethnic genesis works. So in the situation when multinational state (USSR)
collapsed, Ukrainian national elites became interested in doing so even more. What could be a
difference to strong order of Moscow, the answer is illusory freedom.
Consequentially, Ukrainian mass media and even academic sources such as Yale draw a picture
of Russia as a place where there is a fallout of human rights, corruption, and democracy and at
the same time whitening Ukrainian far right guys as a fighters against "double evil" of communists
and fascists.
The reality of course is different. Russia is just a powerful player that is emerged after
collapse of Soviet Union while Ukraine failed to do so. Russians respect Ukrainians and Ukrainian
language, and what is more important overall have more freedoms that even Westerns do. The only
thing Russians care about is comparative advantage. Ukrainian politics is irresponsible, and thus
destabilize the whole region of Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union.
It is actually not so funny because the US thinks about itself as a warrant of stability. In
reality stability of many Eurasian territories in the hands of Russia. We should not forget civil
war in Tadjikistan, war between Georgia and Ossetia, Armenia and Azerbaidjan. All those conflicts
were stopped because of Russia's actions. If Ukraine won (= lose anyway), there will be hundreds
of different uncontrolled conflicts, economic downfall and millions of additional immigrants to
Europe.
Whether Europeans like it or not, it is better to have strong Russia with good relationship
that can guarantee stability over many territories than one more Africa with nuclear weapon on
the backyard and Greece (sorry Ukraine).
Jim Kovpak , OUN, 28 June 2015
The OUN thing pisses me off when they say Ukraine has the right to define its own heroes- excuse
me, but when did these "heroes" represent Ukraine? The OUN and UPA never attracted more than a
fraction of Ukrainians even in the region where it was most popular, and even then many people
were conscripted into its ranks. Later, many of them deserted in droves, including a large number
who switched to the Soviet side.
But it is not simply to appease the population in the East that these organizations should
be condemned. They have a clear connection to the Holocaust via the role the OUN-B played in organizing
the militia and Ukrainian police who took part in pogroms that killed thousands of Jews. Many
of those police personnel then ended up in the ranks of the UPA. Add to that the ethnic cleansing
of Poles and you see why these thugs, which DO NOT represent Ukraine, don't deserve to be called
heroes.
Eastern Ukrainians are always told they need to give up the past, so why can't these other
people give up that past, which in most cases doesn't have anything to do with them?
Of course many Ukrainians I talk to swear up and down that Bandera and the OUN aren't really
so popular in post-Maidan Ukraine -- okay then, watch what happens when someone says people ought
not to fly the flags and there shouldn't be memorials to the OUN and UPA. Suddenly the Bandera-cultists
emerge from the woodwork, enraged. It's a lot like defenders of the Confederate flag in the US.
Or to put it a bit differently, it's reasonable to fear the consequences of a "no" vote, because
nobody knows what would come next. But you should be even more afraid of the consequences of a
"yes," because in that case we do know what comes next - more austerity, more disasters and eventually
a crisis much worse than anything we've seen so far.
The usual narrative of the Greek economic tragedy is that the country is paying for its past
profligacy, but there is deeper back story of political repression fueled by major powers intervening
in Greece and contributing to a dysfunctional political system.
By William R. Polk
Focusing exclusively on the monetary aspects of the Greek crisis the media misses much of what
disturbs the Greeks and also what might make a solution possible.
For over half a century, Greeks have lived in perilous times. In the 1930s, they lived under
a brutal dictatorship that modeled itself on Nazi Germany, employing Gestapo-like secret police
and sending critics off to an island concentration camp. Then a curious thing happened: Benito
Mussolini invaded the country.
Challenged to protect their self-respect and their country, Greeks put aside their hatred of
the Metaxis dictatorship and rallied to fight the foreign invaders. The Greeks did such a good
job of defending their country that Adolf Hitler had to put off his invasion of Russia to rescue
the Italians. That move probably saved Josef Stalin since the delay forced the Wehrmacht to fight
in Russia's mud, snow and ice for which they had not prepared. But, ironically, it also saved
the Metaxis dictatorship and the monarchy. The king and all the senior Greek officials fled to
British-occupied Egypt and, as new allies, they were declared part of the "Free World."
Meanwhile, in Greece, the Germans looted much of the industry, shipping and food stuffs. The
Greeks began to starve. As Mussolini remarked, "the Germans have taken from the Greeks even their
shoelaces…"
Then, the Greeks began to fight back. In October 1942, they set up a resistance movement that
within two years became the largest in Europe. When France could claim less than 20,000 partisans,
the Greek resistance movement had enrolled about 2 million and was holding down at least two divisions
of German soldiers. And they did it without outside help.
As the war's outcome became apparent, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill was determined
to return Greece to the prewar rule of the monarchy and the old regime. He was motivated by fear
of Communist influence within the resistance movement.
Churchill tried to get the Anglo-American army that was getting ready to invade Italy to attack
Greece instead. Indeed, he tried so hard to change the war plan that he almost broke up the Allied
military alliance; when he failed, he threw all the soldiers he still controlled into Greece and
precipitated a civil war that tore the country apart. The Underground leaders were outsmarted
and their movement was smashed. The bureaucracy, police and programs of the prewar dictatorship
resumed control.
After the war, with Britain out of money and no longer able to sustain its policy, London turned
Greece over to the Americans who announced the "Truman Doctrine" and poured in money to prevent
a leftist victory. American money temporarily won the day, but the heavy hand of the former regime
created a new generation of would-be democrats who challenged the dictatorship.
This is the theme beautifully evoked in Costa Gavras' film "Z," starring Yves Montagne. As
the film shows, the liberal movement of the early 1960s was overwhelmed by a new military dictatorship,
"the rule of the colonels."
When the military junta was overthrown in 1974, Greece enjoyed a brief period of "normality,"
but none of the deep fissures in the society had been healed. Regardless of what political party
chose the ministers, the self-perpetuating bureaucracy was still in control. Corruption was rife.
And, most important of all, Greece had become a political system that Aristotle would have called
an oligarchy.
The very rich used their money to create for themselves a virtual state within the state. They
extended their power into every niche of the economy and so arranged the banking system that it
became essentially extra-territorialized. Piraeus harbor was filled with mega-yachts owned by
people who paid no taxes and London was partly owned by people who fattened off the Greek economy.
The "smart money" of Greece was stashed abroad.
The Current Crisis
This state of affairs might have lasted many more years, but when Greece joined the European
Union in 1981, European (mainly German) bankers saw an opportunity: they flocked into Greece to
offer loans. Even those Greeks who had insufficient income to justify loans grabbed them. Then,
the lenders began to demand repayment. Shocked, businesses began to cut back. Unemployment increased.
Opportunities vanished.
There is really no chance that the loans will be repaid. They should never have been offered
and never should have been accepted. To stay afloat, the government has cut back on public services
(except for the military) and the people have suffered. In the 2004 elections, the Greeks had
not yet suffered enough to vote for the radical coalition led by the "Unity" (SYRIZA) party. Only
3.3 percent of the voters did.
Then, after the 2008 financial crash came years of worsening hardship, disapproval of all politicians
and anger. It was popular anger, feeling misled by the bankers and by their own foolishness. There
was also hopelessness as Greeks realized that they had no way out and began to turn to SYRIZA.
After a series of failed attempts to secure a mandate, SYRIZA won the 2015 election with 36.3
percent of the vote and 249 out of 300 members of Parliament.
Today, the conditions that impelled that vote are even more urgent: the national income of
Greece is down about 25 percent and unemployment among younger workers is over 50 percent. So
where does that leave the negotiators?
Faced with German and EU demands for more austerity, the Greeks are angry. They have deep memories
of hatred against the Germans (this time, not soldiers but bankers). They have been, time after
time, traduced by their own politicians. Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras must know that if he is
charged with a "sell-out," his career is finished.
And the bail-out package offered by the International Monetary Fund and the European Central
Bank is heavily weighted against Greece. Greeks also see their option of exiting the Euro as similar
to stances taken by Britain and Sweden in not joining in the first place – although a painful
adjustment for the Greek economy would be expected if Greece undertakes an unprecedented departure
from the European currency.
However, unless the IMF and ECB offer a real chance for a better life for Greeks by forgiving
most of the debts, I believe that the Greeks might well vote on Sunday to reject the austerity
demands and leave the Euro.
William R. Polk is a professor who taught Middle Eastern studies at Harvard. President John
F. Kennedy appointed Polk to the State Department's Policy Planning Council.
Congress Weighs in on Holding IMF Accountable for Damage Caused by Failed Policies in Greece
By Mark Weisbrot
The battle over the future of Greece will not end on Sunday, no matter how the vote goes or
-- if the Greek people vote "no" -- how the European authorities respond to their choice. This
is a fight over the future of Europe, and the people who are currently strangling the Greek economy
in a transparent attempt to intimidate the Greek electorate understand this very well. That is
why they are being especially aggressive and ruthless at this moment: trying to convince Greeks
that a "no" vote means leaving the euro, claiming that such a decision would have calamitous consequences,
and giving them a taste of the financial crisis and economic disruption that they will suffer
through if they refuse to do as they are told.
Last Sunday, the European Central Bank (ECB) made a deliberate decision to limit Emergency
Liquidity Assistance to the Greek banking system. The limit was set low enough to force -- for
the first time in the six years of depression that the ECB has deepened and prolonged -- the closure
of Greek banks.
It is not surprising that the very idea of a referendum would provoke the ire of the eurozone
authorities. Unlike the European Union, which has a different history, the eurozone project has
become a fundamentally anti-democratic project. It has to be; the people currently running it
want to reverse, as much as possible, decades of social progress on issues that are vital to Europeans.
But you don't have to take my word for it: there is a paper trail of thousands of pages that spell
out their political agenda. The International Monetary Fund conducts regular consultations with
member governments under Article IV of its charter, and these result in papers which contain policy
recommendations. There were 67 such consultations for EU countries during the four years of 2008
to 2011, and the pattern was striking: budget tightening was recommended in all 27 countries,
with spending cuts generally favored over tax increases. Cutting health care and pension spending,
reducing eligibility for disability and unemployment compensation, raising retirement ages and
increasing labor supply were also overwhelmingly common recommendations.
The European authorities took advantage of the crisis and post-crisis years to impose parts
of this agenda on the weaker eurozone economies: Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and most brutally
of all, Greece. More than 20 governments fell as a result, until finally, in Greece on January
25, a government was elected that said no. The goal of the European authorities, therefore, is
to topple this government. This has been apparent since the ECB cut off itsmain line of credit
to Greece on February 4.
Now comes a group of U.S. members of Congress warning the IMF that it could -- perhaps for
the first time in decades -- be held accountable for the economic destruction that it's helping
to implement. The letter objects to the IMF "taking a hard line with respect to demands that Greece
implement further reforms" and notes:
Greece has already reduced its national public sector work force by 19 percent and carried
out many of the reforms demanded by the IMF and its creditors. It has gone through an enormous
fiscal adjustment, achieving the largest cyclically adjusted primary budget surplus in the euro
area last year; and a very large current account adjustment (with a 36 percent reduction in imports).
At the same time, as even the IMF has acknowledged in its own research, the austerity imposed
by Greece's creditors over the past five years turned out to be far more devastating to the economy
than they had predicted.
Senator Bernie Sanders, who joined House members in signing the letter, issued his own blistering
statement yesterday. "At a time of grotesque wealth inequality, the pensions of the people in
Greece should not be cut even further to pay back some of the largest banks and wealthiest financiers
in the world," said Sanders. Among the House signers were the co-chairs of the Congressional Progressive
Caucus, Representatives Keith Ellison and Raul Grijalva, and the Dean of the House and Ranking
Member of the Judiciary Committee, Rep. John Conyers.
Unlike many letters from Congress that are ignored by the executive branch, this one might
be taken more seriously by the IMF and the U.S. Treasury department -- which is the IMF's most
powerful overseer. One reason is that the IMF has been trying for five years to enact reforms
in its governance structure that are very important to the Fund and Treasury -- reforms that can't
be enacted unless they are approved by Congress. These reforms would make some small changes in
voting representation. They wouldn't shift the balance of power at the Fund, with the U.S. and
its allies still likely to maintain a comfortable majority. But the U.S. government and the Fund
have lost a lot of credibility in recent years by unilaterally holding up even these largely symbolic
changes. They see this hold-up as encouraging developing countries to opt for creating new institutions
such as the BRICS Development Bank and Currency Reserve Arrangement. More recently, the Obama
administration suffered an embarrassing setback after the U.K., Germany and France ignored their
pleas and became founding members of China's new $100 billion initiative to create an Asian Infrastructure
Investment Bank.
From the congressional letter:
"As members of the U.S. Congress, we must also note the unprecedented difficulty that the IMF's
proposed quota and governance reform has faced in the U.S. Congress since 2010. As you know, this
also has global implications, as some governments in developing countries have begun to lose confidence
in this effort to make the IMF's voting structure more representative of its member countries
in the twenty-first century and are seeking institutional alternatives. It will be difficult to
get a majority of the U.S. Congress on board for these important reforms if the IMF is seen as
responsible for further damage to the Greek economy, as well as the currently unforeseeable consequences
of any financial collapse."
The IMF will need all the votes it can get for this legislation to pass through Congress. It
can choose to ignore this warning at its own institutional risk.
"Aluminum tubes UN testimony trick again: looks like attempt by the US and other interested parties
to keep some evidence secret as in criminal trial all evidence should be made available to defense.
Guardian presstitutes: "Suspicions immediately fell on the separatists, who may have used a surface-to-air
missile supplied by Russia to
shoot down the plane." And other facts versions are simply ignored... That's how blackmail operates.
"...Russia HAS published its satellite data and data on portable radar activity which implicated
Ukraine forces in the downing of the plane. It did so shortly after the incident. Russia has also stated
that the US had a surveillance satellite over this area at the time of the plane coming down. Why is
the US reluctant to publish any surveillance data? This includes both satellite and communications intercepts."
"...I've searched across the web for anyone else reporting this and it's in a few places but always
citing the AFP. Each version is different but they all contain this line: "Suspicions immediately fell
on the separatists, who may have used a surface-to-air missile supplied by Russia to shoot down the
plane."
"...The initial investigation has dragged it's feet but can't they just put their efforts into
completing it, or is Ukraine using it's veto to stop anything coming out? I'm not sure what is going
on in the Netherlands, but it seems they have their mind made up on Russia. "
"...Exactly ultimately we must hold we must hold Obama, Victoria "f**** Europe" Nuland and ambassador
Geoffrey Pyatt responsible. It was they that initiated and organized the violent coup that overthrew
the legally elected President and government of the Ukraine. Their preferred nominees we installed in
a parliament patrolled by armed fascist and neo-Nazi thugs that ensured that it voted the "right way".
Remember Nuland's intercepted phone call anointing "Yats" (Yatsenuk) as prime minister. Not to mention
her photo-ops in the Maidan with the fascist leaders Oleh Tyahnybok and Andriy Parubiy."
"...In fact in 20 years Russia, directly or indirectly, destroyed about 40 thousand people.
USA - about 650 thousand. So what?
Calling Putin - the bloody tyrant, a little funny. Is not it?"
Now the missiles have been fired from Russian territory, because you cannot remind people that
Ukie's actually themselves claimed reasons to activate their own BUK's in the area
Notice all modified reports came out after MH17 shooting, but we know that no aircraft was
shot down after that.
Small details like that will eventually blow a big hole in the narrative that is pushed
down our throats
Jeff Pawiro 26 Jun 2015 21:14
How will the west react when the investigation proves Poroshenko's thugs shot down MH17. Giving
a killer billions in aide ..... i have a feeling this investigation will last for tens of years
till most people forgot about it.
DrKropotkin Jackblob 26 Jun 2015 21:00
Haven't seen the evidence and it's not for lack of looking. A photo provided by Ukraine of
a BUK system with a missing missile driving through government controlled territory is all I've
seen.
As for evidence to which we are not privy, I stopped listening to that talk after the WMD saga.
Terry Ross Jackblob 26 Jun 2015 21:10
June 3, Russia challenges USA to publish its information on MH17, USA refuses.
MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Russia's Foreign Ministry called on the United States on Wednesday to make
public any evidence it has on last year's crash of Malaysia Airlines' flight MH17 in eastern Ukraine.
"If the United States has objective control data from satellites or the airborne warning
and control system AWACS, it should be made public. The same applies to recordings of talks
between controllers and Ukraine's military sector," the ministry said.
<<<>>>
US State Dept Daily Press Briefing (Wednesday):
QUESTION:
Okay, and next question about MH-17. Today, Russian foreign minister –
ministry urged United States to unveil satellite images taken on the date the plane crashed. So
are you going to do that, or maybe you are going to transfer to investigators?
MS HARF: Well, we've worked with – we've given information to the investigators if we thought
it was relevant. At the time, I remember us actually putting out maps. And those maps included
where we believed, where we had evidence, that this
missile was fired from. So we put out, actually, quite a bit of information at the time.
QUESTION: So nothing new?
MS HARF: Nothing new and our assessment of what happened has not changed.
QUESTION: Now I'm talking about new images maybe.
MS HARF: Correct. No.
Russia HAS published its satellite data and data on portable radar activity which implicated
Ukraine forces in the downing of the plane. It did so shortly after the incident. Russia has also
stated that the US had a surveillance satellite over this area at the time of the plane coming
down. Why is the US reluctant to publish any surveillance data? This includes both satellite and
communications intercepts.
DrKropotkin 26 Jun 2015 20:45
I've searched across the web for anyone else reporting this and it's in a few places but
always citing the AFP. Each version is different but they all contain this line:
"Suspicions immediately fell on the separatists, who may have used a surface-to-air missile supplied
by Russia to shoot down the plane."
Not great journalism, let's fix it: "Suspicions (from 5 eyes nations and their media mocking birds)
immediately fell on the separatists, who may have used a surface-to-air missile (that we have
no evidence was) supplied by Russia (or even exists) to shoot down the plane."
chemicalscum -> JJRichardson 26 Jun 2015 20:44
The question is why would they fire one given only Kiev planes were in the air, apart from,
tragically and stupidly, civilian aircraft.
They had form, the incompetent Ukrainian military accidentally shot down a civilian airliner in
2001. However I wouldn't rule out a deliberate fascist Junta/CIA provocation the CIA has form
on that too.
normankirk -> SomersetApples 26 Jun 2015 20:42
And that is going to require transparency of the highest order. Too many horses in this race,
with powerful interests. Its questionable that it is even possible to have a fair trial when the
media and govts have leapt in early on with accusations and a huge effort to assign guilt. Most
people think the russians are guilty. I don't myself, thats the weakest scenario. I think its
an accident by either separatists or Ukrainians. Both had the means and the motive. Ukrainians
to defend against what they perceived to be an imminent Russian invasion, Rebels defending their
towns and cities from air attack
chemicalscum -> airman23 26 Jun 2015 20:39
Ukraine isn't a suspect. Russia is the most likely suspect.
As we say in England "Pull the other one its got bells on it" . The Ukraine along with the
US are the only countries known to have shot down civilian airliners. The Ukrainians shot down
a Russian airliner bringing passengers back form Israel. Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 in 2001.
The Ukrainian army possessed lots of Buk batteries that were deployed and had their radar on in
the right place at the right time.
DrKropotkin 26 Jun 2015 20:37
Why skip to this stage now? The initial investigation has dragged it's feet but can't they
just put their efforts into completing it, or is Ukraine using it's veto to stop anything coming
out? I'm not sure what is going on in the Netherlands, but it seems they have their mind made
up on Russia.
Nothing to do with the Dutch investigation are you aware that the US will not allow any of
their citizens to face ICC trials for war crimes, despite the innumerable war crimes they have
committed in. Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Central America, Serbia, Iraq, Libya etc?
SomersetApples -> ByThePeople 26 Jun 2015 20:22
Yes, Poroshenko has already asked for a delay of the investigation disclosure.
Vatslav Rente 26 Jun 2015 20:21
Well, it sounds like - we Have no evidence against Russia, no results of the investigation.
There is no evidence the Ukrainian air traffic controller. No suspects separatists. OK, let's
create a UN Tribunal:)
Someone really believes that after 1.5 years, the guilty will be punished? You guys are optimists?
Paul Moore -> SomersetApples 26 Jun 2015 20:13
I was looking at other airline incidents to see what a typical time frame in posting information
and reports. I picked one recent one and it seems as if the MH17 investigation is going no slower
than normal. Other than delays in getting information from the site, it may actually be faster
than normal. Implying that there is some kind of sinister motive in the amount of time it takes
to issue the final report is disingenuous at best.
This report discusses the July 6, 2013, accident involving a Boeing 777-200ER, Korean registration
HL7742, operating as Asiana Airlines flight 214, which was on approach to runway 28L when it struck
a seawall at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), San Francisco, California.
The Report was not released until June 24, 2014, after a year. Other investigations have taken
two or more years.
ultimately the people who started the war must be held accountable
Exactly ultimately we must hold we must hold Obama, Victoria "f**** Europe" Nuland and
ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt responsible. It was they that initiated and organized the violent coup
that overthrew the legally elected President and government of the Ukraine. Their preferred nominees
we installed in a parliament patrolled by armed fascist and neo-Nazi thugs that ensured that it
voted the "right way". Remember Nuland's intercepted phone call anointing "Yats" (Yatsenuk) as
prime minister. Not to mention her photo-ops in the Maidan with the fascist leaders Oleh Tyahnybok
and Andriy Parubiy.
This government then started a genocidal civil war against its own citizens murdering en mass
civilians by shelling cities.
Yes we know who the war criminals are.
Vatslav Rente -> talenttruth 26 Jun 2015 19:54
In fact in 20 years Russia, directly or indirectly, destroyed about 40 thousand people.
USA - about 650 thousand. So what?
Calling Putin - the bloody tyrant, a little funny. Is not it?
normankirk -> Doom Sternz 26 Jun 2015 19:52
Legally I don't see how that agreement can stand up in a criminal trial. If all evidence can
be vetoed by the parties in the investigation, there can not be the possibility of a fair trial.
All evidence must be available to the defense.
Vatslav Rente -> Metronome151 26 Jun 2015 19:47
One would think that for 1 year - will determine how any idiot was shot down a civilian Boeing.
But a surprising number of "professionals" and interested parties leaves no hope for it ... When
at stake is the Geopolitics ... well, I think you understand.
SomersetApples -> Metronome151 26 Jun 2015 19:47
Many posters on this page are already assuming that Russia is at fault before they know the
facts. For the UN to make a decision before they know the facts would be just as ignorant. Let
us see the facts first before we make a decision.
SomersetApples 26 Jun 2015 19:25
It is incredible that it has taken so long to release the information recorded on the black
box. A US surveillance satellite was immediately overhead at the time and we know how the US are
always bragging about how accurate their satellites are. Witnesses on the ground saw a fighter
shoot down the plane and photos of the wreckage show bullet holes the size of the onboard cannons
carried on the Ukraine fighters and shrapnel consistent with air-to-air missiles. Usually investigators
make preliminary statements about their investigation in a matter of weeks. In this case, nothing
has ever been disclosed. The Russians named the Ukrainian pilot flying the fighter that day. He
made one brief statement to the press, something about making a terrible mistake and disappeared
never to be heard of again.
I think the Russians are trying to wait until the results of the investigation are disclosed,
examined and cross examined before taking it to the UN. As we have waited all this time for the
disclosure that would seem like a reasonable request.
The West seems to be trying to take it to the UN before the facts are known. They could then argue
that results of the investigation must be kept sealed as they are the subject of a UN hearing
and involve national secrets and insist that it be decided behind closed doors. Any decision by
the UN could then be based on politics rather than facts. Poroshenko is already trying to delay
disclosure of the investigation.
In the UK we are still waiting for the results of the investigation into the invasion of Iraq.
After 12 years they are still stalling and refusing to tell us what they found. Maybe they feel
that if they wait long enough the current generation will die out and future generations will
not remember what happened.
Results of the MH17 air crash investigation are due out and the world is entitled to know what
happened. What are they waiting for?
HollyOldDog -> truk10 26 Jun 2015 18:50
Or to show the DATA and minor design mods that a SU25 would be capable of performing this task
and that Ukraine when it was in the USSR had the data and knowledge to perform this task. But
let's wait for the investigations to finish while ensuring all the evidence has been examined
and all the possible avenues followed. No point jumping to concluesions where the West could end
up with EGGs on their faces. Why is Poroshenko trying to rush this investigation? He is interested
in the TRUTH isn't he?
Doom Sternz -> truk10 26 Jun 2015 18:46
The Russians have presented the evidence. When the US accused Russia of the demise of MH17
they lied. We can now see that 48 hours after that German crackpot murdered 149 people we knew
everything and a year after the MH17, we know nothing. How long does it take to doctor a black
box?
MrHMSH -> Robzview2 26 Jun 2015 18:37
There's a huge difference: we know that Iran Air 655 was shot down by the USS Vincennes. Whereas
we don't know who shot down MH17. You can argue morals and that all day long, but at least it
is known.
normankirk -> psygone 26 Jun 2015 18:36
I do understand thats the way its been from the start. I'm talking about a very recent extension
to the agreement., and was asking if anyone knows what thats about. I'd understood the investigation
will be complete in October, from there, comes a prosecution. So I'm none the wiser from your
post
Doom Sternz -> psygone 26 Jun 2015 18:36
On August 8, Ukraine, the Netherlands, Australia and Belgium signed a non-disclosure agreement
pertaining to data obtained during the investigation into the causes of the crash of Malaysian
Airlines MH17. In the framework of the 4-country agreement, information on the progress and results
of the investigation of the disaster will remain classified.
annamarinja -> BigNowitzki 26 Jun 2015 18:27
Aluminum tubes? Again? Is not Nuland-Kagan the most trusted student of Cheney?
If you are so particular about evidence, then ask the US government to divulge, for gods sake,
the pictures that have been taken by the US' satellite that happened to be just above the shooting
of MH17. What intelligent person could believe that the the best evidences that the US can provide
are some suspicious pics and half-wit ramblings from a website of a deranged blogger.
normankirk -> truk10 26 Jun 2015 18:24
Its the UK and US who have been so vocal about accusing the Russians , right from the start.
The official Russian position has not been to assign blame, but to ask questions. You confuse
media reports, the Engineers union, and the Buk manufacturers with the official position, when
they are not.
Have you seen Putin in a public forum declaring that Kiev is to blame for MH17?
I have not
Whereas I have seen all the plonkers of the 5 eyes countries dutifully doing their bit.
Harper, Abbott, Cameron, Obama, all thundering from the pulpit...Putin did it!
normankirk 26 Jun 2015 18:13
I noticed that Poroshenko, in the Rada has called for an extension of the mh17 investigation
agreement between Ukraine and the Netherlands A really short piece in the Kyiv Post. No further
explanations.
Does any one know what that's about?Does he want a longer time frame, or is it just a standard
agreement that needs to be re affirmed regularly?
"...They would have conquered a large, desperately poor country for which they would have assumed
responsibility, conveniently identifying Russia as the international pariah the west paints it into
the bargain." . "...I have agreed any number of times that it was a mistake for Putin to say that Russia would
protect Russian-speakers, and he acknowledged it was a mistake by asking the Duma to revoke the authority
to use the Russian military to do so in hope that it would avert violence." . "...i think part of the problem is that the fate, even the lives of those in the northern hemisphere,
could be decided by how the us vs russia standoff is resolved. both an article at the saker that i believe
i linked here once (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2014/12/is-russia-ideal-enemy-for-western.html)
and one at fortruss (http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-end-of-history-third-way-and.html)
deal with the underlying dynamic succinctly. big war is on the menu and only the elites want it." . "...How pissed off the engineers of the "western " strategy must be to have their expectations
re Russian responses to having their latest Baldrick like "cunning plans" confounded time and again.
"
What he says is that
– He used to still like Putin a year ago and most of the Donbass residents considered Putin as a
"god" a year ago.
– Now all of this has changed. Donbass people are cursing Putin at the moment. Putin provoked a war
in Donbass as a cover for his Crimean operation.
– Putin's "loud promises" (Russian parliament authorized Putin to use military force in Ukraine in
the spring of 2014) encouraged Donbass residents to an armed rebellion but Putin never delivered
his promises and in fact the law of using military force in Ukraine was withdrawn after Crimea was
securely with Russia.. Donbass people were simply used as a cannon fodder to secure Crimea for Russia.
– Every morning the Donbass people wake up hoping that Russia has finally started sendings its troops
to Donbass (as was promised in the spring of 2014) but it is never going to happen. People of Donbass
have finally realized this and now "they spit when they even hear a word Russia".
– Russia has betrayed Donbass. In a year Russia's rhetoric has changed dramatically. A year ago Russia
was saying that Russia will never abandon their compatriots. They will be protected. Now Russia is
just silent and says nothing as Kiev bombards Donbass.
He may be fake but I think he sounds sincere in this video. And I share his thoughts. I think
Donbass was used as a cover to make the West "forget" about Crimea. Crimea was all that Russia ever
wanted and Donbass people were made out to be the fools who spilled their blood for Russian ambitions
in Crimea.
This is why I think Donbass should now surrender to Kiev. Not because it is a honorable thing
to do. Not because I like the Kiev junta (I hate them). It needs to be done to teach Russia a lesson.
Russia did the dishonorable thing for the Donbass people and this is why Donetsk should host a NATO
military base.
I realize this is a popular theme for you, that Putin should place himself at the head of the
Russian army and lead them in a lunge for Kiev – one which would unquestionably succeed, as all
of Ukraine would fall to the Russians in a week if they chose to take it. But then what? They
would have conquered a large, desperately poor country for which they would have assumed responsibility,
conveniently identifying Russia as the international pariah the west paints it into the bargain.
I have agreed any number of times that it was a mistake for Putin to say that Russia would
protect Russian-speakers, and he acknowledged it was a mistake by asking the Duma to revoke the
authority to use the Russian military to do so in hope that it would avert violence. But
who, really, could have foreseen that not only would the Ukrainian state use its military to butcher
and slaughter civilians in a determined effort to force their servitude to the state, but that
the western world – supposed sympathetic defender of rebel movements and unilateral declarations
of independence, let freedom ring, bla, bla – would stand quietly by and make no effort to stop
it. Moreover, would encourage it.
Your solution would punish the Donbas and reward the junta with success, and at the same time
blame Putin for causing the whole thing in the first place. Elegant. It is not Russia's fault
that Ukrainians are slaughtering their brothers next door, and not only is it not Russia's responsibility
to stop it, Russia is under strict orders from western leaders not to intervene in any way, shape
or form, while every day there are more accusations that Russia is interfering because the Ukrainian
army didn't win that day. Yet somehow, your pick for blame in the whole thing is…Russia. Not Kiev,
for doing the unthinkable – no! they should be rewarded with capitulation. Not the west for encouraging
the continued slaughter, in which they have to make up crazy stories that Putin is burning his
thousands of dead soldiers in mobile crematoriums to cover the fact that no Russian dead have
been found and the greatest proportion of casualties are civilians, many of them women and children.
No; it's Russia's fault, for not launching an armed intervention to put right a wrong Russia had
no part in causing, in the process risking the destruction of the Russian people as a whole.
Yes, Washington will happily drive Europe into a disastrous recession in its efforts to have
its own way. The best chance of averting something really nasty is in Europe realizing that and
refusing to go along.
was reminded of that while reading
this counterclaim to Curt's blithe declaration that Russia's reciprocal sanctions were of
no consequence and that such a massive economy could easily absorb them.
They're looking at a half-million job losses in Germany alone. I don't think job losses
figured in his calculation at all, and he gave some comical figure like $100 Million. This study
was not done by the low-trust liars with no credibility because of their Mongol roots, either.
How pissed off the engineers of the "western " strategy must be to have their expectations
re Russian responses to having their latest Baldrick like "cunning plans" confounded time and
again.
Almost as if those retard Moskal scions of Mongol/Tatar/random bearers of epicanthic folds
and Mongol birthmarks were real human beings. damn their evil souls.
This gentleman – Putin's childhood friend – may be sincere but so what? A lot of people sincerely
believe the earth is flat but that doesn't make it so. It simply isn't correct to say that Putin
provoked a war in the Donbas to secure Crimea. Does Putin control the Kiev government (I'm using
that term loosely) because it was their actions, particularly in Mariupol and Odessa against protestors
who'd been mirroring the Maidan – occupying government buildings and so on – which lead to a violent
reaction from people in Lugansk and Donetsk. Kiev could have stopped this assault on the East
at any time – is it Russia that's been preventing them from doing so?
The Crimeans secured Crimea
for Russia so, again, it's simply incorrect to say that people of the Donbas were used as canon-fodder
to achieve reunification. We know now that Russia undertook covert opinion polls to determine
whether a majority of Crimeans would support re-joining Russia. Personally, I don't believe Russia
would have gone ahead if there had not been overwhelming support, it would have been just too
difficult with an at best indifferent or, at worse, an actively hostile population. Crimea was
secured pretty much without a shot being fired – so why did securing it require Putin to begin
a war in the Donbas? The argument makes no sense.
That said, I think Putin can be legitimately be criticised for his apparent promise to protect
civilians in the East – this may, indeed, in the early stages of the conflict, have encouraged
some people to take up arms. But not now though and not for some considerable time. And we don't
know his motives for saying what he did – maybe he thought that fear of provoking a Russian military
response would deter Kiev in the way that Georgia has been deterred from military adventures against
South Ossetia.
Russia's been providing food, shelter and jobs to a huge number of refugees; its humanitarian
aid deliveries are the one thing that's stood between a dire situation for the people of Lugansk
and Donetsk and a humanitarian catastrophe on a scale not seen in Europe since WW2. And Russia
is not silent about the situation in Ukraine – it's mentioned every time Putin, Lavrov, Churkin
and other members of Russia's political elite speak. Russia has always been clear that its preferred
solution is for Lugansk and Donetsk to remain part of Ukraine under some sort of federal structure.
Putin's never held out the hope of incorporation into Russia or of supporting Novorossiya's path
to a new, independent state so cries of 'betrayal' are not warranted.
We are on completely the same page on this; well said. Speaking of Russian aid and humanitarian
crises, has anyone heard any news on the water situation in Lugansk?
"Ultranationalist and revolutionary Ukrainians like Bandera dreamt in the 1930s of becoming
leaders of fascist states like Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler. The Ukrainian equivalent to
duce and Führer was vozhd' or providnyk. In the late 1930s and early 1940s the generation born
around 1910 took the initiative and continued elaborating Ukrainian fascism on their own. They
invented the Ukrainian fascist salute "Glory to Ukraine!" while answering "Glory to the Heroes!";
wanted to take care of the "Ukrainian race" and claimed that Ukraine needed a fascist state without
national minorities – in particular without Jews, Poles and Russians. They wanted to be a part
of the new fascist Europe like Ante Pavelić's Croatia or Josef Tiso's Slovakia. Bandera was supposed
to become the leader of a Ukrainian fascist state after Ievhen Konovalets' was assassinated in
1938 in Rotterdam and his follower Adrii Melnyk was considered inappropriate for the position."
European values (of 1941)!
[May 28, 2015] Ukraine financial catastrophe of 2014 2015
Notable quotes:
"... According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day. ..."
"... So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty". ..."
"... "What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services, and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education. If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute poverty," ..."
"... Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012, according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day. ..."
According to UN standards a person lives below the poverty line, if one spends life and food
less than 5 USD a day, or less than $150 a month . The subsistence minimum in Ukraine today is defined
in 1176 UAH, i.e. about 50 dollars a month - less than two dollars a day.
So the Ukrainians in poverty are already close to residents of African countries, which spend
an average of 1.25 per day US dollars, was heard on "Radio Liberty".
"What is subsistence? It's not just food, it and public transportation, and household services,
and utilities, and clothing. Overlooked in the subsistence minimum medical services and education.
If we analyze these factors, we can understand that Ukrainians are below the threshold of absolute
poverty," stressed Shipko.
According to the Deputy, the minimum wage in Ukraine at the current exchange rate of the national
Bank should be approximately 3750 UAH - the only way the Ukrainians will be able at least get requred
$5 a day.
Today more than 80% of Ukrainians live below the poverty line, the UN data show. In 2012,
according to the world organization, only 15% of Ukrainian citizens existed on 5 dollars a day.
Ukrainian women do not want to bear children through insecurity and inability to pay for the hospital
and diaper.
The West scored major geopolitical victory against Russia: As Paul said (see below): "My limited
knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not?
That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake."
Poor Ukrainian citizen. Poor Ukrainian pensioners existing on a $1 a day or less (with exchange
rate around 26.5 hrivna per dollar, pension around 900 hrivna is around $1 per day. Some pensioners
get less then that ( miserable 1500 hrivna per month considered to be "decent" pension and monthly salary
4000 hrivna is a "good" salary by Ukrainian standards).
The last thing EU wants is an additional stream of refugees from Ukraine escaping miserable salaries
and lack of decently paying jobs and pressure of Ukrainian migrant workers on unqualified job market
positions.... So far the main hit for this was not in Western but in Russian job market, but that may
change. At the same time making the Ukraine enemy of Russia is a definitive geopolitical victory, achieved
with relatively modest financial infusions (USA estimate is 5 billions, the EU is probably a half of
that) and indirect support of Western Ukrainian nationalists.
One year ago there was a hope the Donetsk problem will be solved. Now in 2016 this civil war entered
the third year -- Kiev government can't squash unrecognized Donetsk Republic with military force and
it does not want to switch to federal state to accommodate their pretty modest demands: initially use
of Russian language and reverse of "creeping cultural colonization" of this region by Western Ukraine.
Initially the official language question was the one of the most important and Kiev Provisional government
rejected Canadian variant of using the same language as its powerful, dominant neighbor and unleashed
a civil war (with full blessing of the USA, which pursue "divide and conquer strategy in this region
from the moment of dissolution of the USSR). Now after so much bloodshed the positions are hardened...
Imagine that the Quebec nationalists came to power in Canada by French supported and financed coup,
and instantly outlawed the English language for official usage and in schools and universities.
Notable quotes:
"... If you made a list of perhaps ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been achieved? ..."
"... That has surely been largely achieved. ..."
"... That has largely happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR. ..."
"... Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations is about to begin. ..."
"... They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. ..."
"... I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it very hard for Russia to respond. ..."
"... If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major geopolitical defeat. ..."
"... Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago, and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained. ..."
"... It has without doubt caused problems and will affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production of components to Russia. ..."
"... True, but again a very short term achievement. ..."
"... NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible ..."
"... The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either. ..."
"... [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable, but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium to long term. ..."
"... Either way it is the West to whom the Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. ..."
"... All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right moment. ..."
"... As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as much as possible, only intervening when critical. ..."
"... To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative. If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must be done. ..."
"... No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. ..."
"... As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it. ..."
"... If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems on the periphery as possible. ..."
"... I wouldn't take the problems with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. ..."
"... As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last a lot longer than the Ukraine does. ..."
"... Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the US to over-extend itself politically & financially. ..."
"... The US want to do more but it can't do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move of some oil trading out of the US dollar. ..."
"... And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created? For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem on their plate they can't quite manage? ..."
"... Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment, and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away, that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago, that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies. ..."
"... NATO has not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit, but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much of anything but manage. ..."
"... I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern borders. ..."
"... NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians what a failure the promise of western largesse was. ..."
"... My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made a mistake. ..."
"... My main point in rubbing the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do. ..."
"... The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth. ..."
"... There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right sector called their own during the maidan debacle. ..."
"... The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children ..."
"... Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were too few to defend the berg. ..."
"... To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay for their crimes. ..."
"... Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there. ..."
"... Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays. ..."
"... I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged, but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register on those who get all their news from CNN. ..."
"... Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate proof that Tupak is alive in Serbia ..."
"... The election of Poland's new president spells big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200 thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles. ..."
"... This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the preservation of ill-gotten capital!'? ..."
The premise that the West must be losing is a bit simplistic. If you made a list of perhaps
ten goals that powerful Western groups may have had in this Ukrainian project, how many have been
achieved?
For example, one goal was to destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that
were oriented towards Russia. That has surely been largely achieved.
Another goal was to radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia. That has largely
happened, as the TV says Russia stole the Crimea and is sending terrorists and bandits into
the country. Look at all the banditry in the LPR.
Another goal was to stress the Russian military with having to respond to too many problems
in a short period of time, which may be relevant if and when the West hits on several fronts
at once.
Finally, the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western
corporations is about to begin. Doubt Russia can stop that.
Not denying that Putin and his circle have survived, and that the Russian economy is in better
shape than most expected, but we should try to think long and hard about the pros and cons of
the Kremlin's approaches.
They surely screwed things up in the Ukraine over the last ten years. Approximately
zero soft power in a place that it should have been straightforward to create.
People have been writing novels and articles for a long time about how the West could gin up
a war in the Ukraine to start an attack on Russia or otherwise break the establishment in Moscow.
It was fairly obvious.
I'm afraid the West would like to start wars in multiple fronts at the same time making it
very hard for Russia to respond.
Kiev would start a major offensive against Donetsk and Lugansk.
Transdnistria is currently blockaded by Moldova and Ukraine with no food supplies allowed
to pass. Moldovan military operation might follow and Russia would be mostly unable to respond
by other means than missile strikes against Moldova – which Russia under extremely cautious
Putin would never do.
Azerbaijan would launch an offensive against Armenia in Nagarno-Karabakh. Russia lacks
common border with Armenia so Russia's options would again be limited.
Albanian proxies, supported and trained by the West, would start military and terrorist
attacks against Macedonian authorities.
NATO would start to bomb Syrian military and capital to oust and kill Assad.
Georgia might start another military operation against South Ossetia in parallel with others
if it thinks Russia is too preoccupied to respond.
NATO-funded and -trained Islamic militants would attack authorities in Central Asian countries
like Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
If the West could pull all this through at the same time Russia would be forced to either
capitulate on most fronts or start a major war. Russia could not answer to these threats with
conventional ways so the options for Russia would be to use nuclear weapons or accept a major
geopolitical defeat.
Georgia and Azerbaijan are not likely to cooperate, Ukraine's offensive capability
is minimal, the Americans are not any more eager to attack Syria than they were two years ago,
and the Islamist threat to Central Asia is presently contained.
The Moldovan army is not capable of defeating Transdnistria by itself, so victory would
require NATO troops to join in the attack. And if it comes to the point where NATO is willing
to directly assault Russian forces, then there's no reason to hold back anyway.
The West plays the short game, so initially it may look
like they have achieved much, much like their foreign policy successes at first, which then turn
out to be disasters with the West reduced to firefighting.
1:..destroy businesses (and the military-industrial complex) that were oriented
towards Russia.This has not succeeded. It has without doubt caused problems and will
affect some Russian military effectiveness in the short term, but no. For example, though some
products were actually made in the Ukraine, many of those businesses contracted out the production
of components to Russia.
2: ..radicalize the Ukrainian population against Russia.True, but again
a very short term achievement. Food on plates and jobs don't grow on trees. What we do have
is the ones in the middle who gravitated to the traditional Russophobes, aka swing voters,
but things are only going to get worse in the Ukraine and the Nazi junta cannot deliver. Those
swing voter will swing the other way, not a Russia love in, but a pragmatic middle ground. That
is where they started.
3: Another goal was to stress the Russian military..What evidence is there of
this? Apart from quite a number of massive snap military exercises that Russia has pulled off
and impressed even the Russo-skeptic military crowd at RUSI and other MIX fronts, it is quite
efficient to fly 50 year old Tu-95 bombers around Europe wearing out expensive western military
equipment that will need to be replaced much sooner now than later. All those austerity plans
that call for holding off on major defense spending in Europe are messed up. Money going in to
weapons is money going away from jobs and the economy. Ukraine's rocket cooperation with Brazil
is dead (now switched to Russia) and also with other partners. So far the US has not actively
banned commercial satellites from being launched from Russian rockets, but the US cannot get its
billion dollar spy sats in to space without Russian rocket engines. No-one has yet pulled the
plug
NATO is not going to do anything apart from make as much noise and fearmaking as possible.
It's one thing to scream and shout, its another to drop their trousers. It is quite the paper
tiger. The USAF is set to rapidly shrink according to their own admission. The F-35 is designed
to replace 5 aircraft – hubris or what? The F-15, F16, AV-8B, A-10 & the F-18. It's a pig of an
aircraft that will perform those missions worse, in most cases, than those designed in the late
1960s early 1970s. The American military industrial complex has screwed itself in a bid to
make more money! Their space programs are not exactly brilliant either.
4:the bankruptcy and transfer of the country from Ukrainian oligarchs to Western corporations
is about to begin. [The transfer of property to Western corporations is] Almost inevitable,
but there are several factors at play here. Western investors will have to deliver rather than
just asset strip and run; domestic political repercussions will be huge at least in the medium
to long term.
This is exactly what almost happened to Russia and then look how things turned out. Ukraine
is of course a different case and the West will certainly try and manage it to their advantage,
but it won't work if it is not for sustained profit. Either way it is the West to whom the
Ukrainian citizen will pay tribute, for a long long long time. This is long before we throw
any legal questions in to the mix. Whoever is in power now will pay the political price in future
sooner or later. All Russia needs to do is be fair and reasonable and step in at the right
moment.
As to Moscow screwing up the Ukraine over the last ten years, I think that may be a bit
harsh. Sometimes the best option is to keep your hand out of the viper's nest and do nothing as
much as possible, only intervening when critical.
Part of the problem with western politics and the Pork Pie News Networks of the last 25 years
is the we must do something now mentality. Let's put it this way, you go in to hospital
for a non-critical undiagnosed condition. Would you a) want to have the tests done and the best
course of action chosen with your consent, or b) panic & be rushed to the operating theater so
that they can just have a look around?
To be honest, Western foreign policy has rarely been panicked, but is always exploitative.
If the opportunity arises, it will jump in having prepared the PPNN to scream that something must
be done.
In short, as it is written on the cover of the good book, DON'T PANIC!
No panic here. Just my opinion that the Kremlin needs to study how the ex-Soviet sphere has
played out and deal with things like NGOs and educational, cultural, and media matters. The
science of mind manipulation has made great progress over the last century. It is a big mistake
to just deal on an oligarchic level. Ukrainians have a legitimate gripe that their country is
insanely corrupt and they can easily blame Moscow. That being the case, measures needed to be
taken. And not creating any semblance of a pro-Russian political or intellectual class was similarly
stupid.
As for my view that NATO wants to stress Russia, well, I suppose it comes down to
your Weltanschauung. I think the US has to take Russia down to some degree, even if it is just
smashing Syria. You aren't a superpower if someone can get away with things like grabbing the
Crimea without paying a cost. Plus, Russia provides China with protection till China can develop
a decent military. So the US has a limited amount of time before locking things up. Call it the
Wolfowitz Doctrine if that is your preferred way of looking at it.
If I am right that the US has to tie Russia up, the logical way is to create as many problems
on the periphery as possible. Could be Georgia; could be Central Asia; could be Transnistria.
What would be your advice to those in US think tanks who are trying to keep domination of the
world? What would be a good strategy? And, for what it is worth, I wouldn't take the problems
with certain fighters to mean the US hasn't got great technology in its black projects. That
is where all the money and technology have gone for the last 30 years. Do you really think the
US would struggle to get to the Moon now and did it in 1969? Be serious – all technology is tremendously
better today.
As for Ukrainians losing their anti-Russian religion, well, perhaps. But as long as Russia
occupies the Crimea, that could take a long time. My bet is the anti-Russian sentiment will last
a lot longer than the Ukraine does.
Regardless of the think tanks, one thing the US can no longer ignore is their pocket. That's
where to hit them. Even Osama Bin Laden understood this and was his primary goal to cause the
US to over-extend itself politically & financially.
The US want to do more but it can't
do it the old expensive way – it has less means but it wants to achieve more. Something has to
give. The US has barely started addressing the problem. That's even before we consider the move
of some oil trading out of the US dollar.
And what of the growing number of home grown jihadists that all NATO's wars have created?
For all their support by western foreign policy to undermine Russia, it's a monster that will
bite anyone and is increasingly looking at the West. As others have written before me, does the
West want a reliable partner in Russia whilst it is under threat of jihadism or another big problem
on their plate they can't quite manage?
I have no doubt that the US has been trying to tie up Russia, but it is just more frenetic
than before, the main planks of NATO enlargement (and weakening) resolved, but the rest has gone
a bit wrong. The West is growing increasingly desperate and is trying all sorts of things to undermine
Russia, but it could be much, much worse from a sanctions point of view. Level heads in the West
understand that trying to pull the rug out completely from under Russia is a massive risk and
one they are very careful in making.
As for their wonder-weapons, the US cannot afford enough of them or make them cheap enough
for their allies to buy in sufficient numbers. It is much easier and cheaper to upgrade the sensors
and missiles on a SAM system than to design and bring to production standard a brand new wonder-weapon.
The old days of easily blinding air-defenses are almost over when you can have a lot of cheap
distributed sensors providing the information, passively & actively. The countermeasure is a lot
cheaper.
In al, Money Money Money – and every passing day the US has less to leverage and has to spread
it far and wide:
Western corporations will only plunder the country if they can get a return on their investment,
and except in the case of what they can strip from it – like the black earth – and take away,
that does not seem very likely to me. However, I would agree, and have done since some time ago,
that the west's biggest success was turning Ukraine and Russia into enemies.
NATO has
not quite given up trying to turn Ukraine into a prosperous western democracy within its own orbit,
but the enormity of the task and the hidden factors that make it so is beginning to dawn and enthusiasm
in Europe is well on the wane, remaining strong only in Washington which does not have to do much
of anything but manage.
I think it is clear to Brussels and Washington that Moscow will see Ukraine destroyed and
a failed state before it will allow it to be a NATO satellite snuggled up against its southwestern
borders. The part that NATO is having trouble with is getting Russia to destroy it, so that
it will be in the minds of Ukrainians for generations who did this to them.
NATO is running a steady propaganda campaign about Russian aggression, but I don't know
how well that is actually selling outside Galicia, while it must be clear to a lot of Ukrainians
what a failure the promise of western largesse was.
That's all reasonable, though it is hard to believe that there isn't a lot more than just some
black earth to expropriate.
My limited knowledge of the situation inside the Ukraine is that a lot of Ukrainians do
blame Russia. Why not? That is what the TV says. It is very hard to get someone to admit he made
a mistake.
That's true enough, and it appears there has always been a certain amount of hostility to Russia
west of the Dneipr, so they perhaps did not need too much coaxing. My main point in rubbing
the west's nose around in it is not that they have conclusively lost, because it is indeed early
days to make such a judgement, but that it has not won easily as it bragged it would do.
The country it said it would confidently bat aside in its confident stroll to victory has not
only weathered western attempts to crush its economy and put in place safeguards which will hurt
western business opportunities in future, it has strengthened a powerful alliance with Asia and
garnered considerable international sympathy, which implies increased hostility toward the west.
Meanwhile, the country the west bragged it would snatch from Russia's orbit and make a model of
a prosperous western democracy is miserable, poor and angry.
The west does a poor job of managing expectations generally, and it has done abysmally
this time around. It has no intention of curbing oligarchs in Ukraine and little interest beyond
lip service in genuine reform in Ukraine. For their part, Europe should proceed cautiously with
plans to integrate Ukraine more closely, because it is plain that the interest of Ukraine's oligarchs
in such a course is to broaden their opportunities for stealing and increasing their wealth.
There are plenty of opportunities for the west to steal Ukraine blind, but few that involve
a product or entity that the west can buy, remove and sell somewhere else. Many such opportunities
rely on western interests taking over Ukrainian businesses and asset-stripping them like crazy;
however, the main buyer in many cases would be Russia, which has no interest in making western
businesses rich, or other western buyers who would have to take over and run a Ukrainian business
in a very uncertain environment in which its biggest market is Russia.
A copypaste from Auslander (formelry of MPnet), originally from Saker's blog:
"This is not the first time such atrocities [the mutilated rebel prisoner] have happened
in this conflict and it will not be the last.
The Trade Union Building on maidan square was found to be full of the burned remains
of Berkut prisoners chained to the batteries and pipes after right sector set the building
on fire. The Berkut were burned alive, left to their fate in the very two floors that right
sector called their own during the maidan debacle.
The Trade Union Building in Odessa also had people burned alive, the total death toll
there was almost 300. The sub basement was a charnel house of corpses including women and children.
I know the official death toll and I know the real death toll. We also lost a friend in that
atrocity, not in the building but at the far end of the square, beaten to death because he
was walking home from work at the wrong place and the wrong time. Why was he beaten to death?
He had a speech impediment and when he got nervous he literally could not talk. Since he could
not say 'salo yucrane' 5 right sector boys beat him to death in broad daylight.
Over 200 citizens were killed in Mariupol the following weekend, shot down or burned
to death in Militsiya HQ. In this incident at least a few of the perpetrators were destroyed
in an ambush by Opolchensya as Opelchensya were leaving the city, ordered out as they were
too few to defend the berg.
The killings of innocents and not so innocents have been ongoing since the beginning and
well before the beginning of the conflict that let to what is now Novorossiya. One can not
morally justify killing all the UAF because of the acts of a relative few, but you can rest
assured that documentations are being kept for all who can be identified as committing either
individual or mass atrocities.
To expand on the documentations a tiny bit, do you think all those artillerists who
when captured to a man scream that they did not know they were bombarding and killing thousands
of our civilians are believed? Not hardly. They knowingly committed crimes and they will pay
for their crimes. Do you think all those 'people' who commit atrocities and then post
photos of the atrocities and openly brag about them on social media will walk away unscathed?
Again, no hardly. Do you think we don't know who was and is abducting young women and even
girl children for their use and then killed and discarded them like less than animals? They
are known.
I can go on for reams but you get the idea. These are crimes being committed by a relative
few of UAF, and for the record anyone fighting for Ukraine against Novorossiya is a member
of UAF, their military unit does not matter. In the end justice will be done, by the law and
with due legal process where possible. Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice,
like revenge, is a dish best served cold.
As for those few of you who are still aghast at the total and deafening silence from USEU
over these ongoing atrocities and crimes, I urge you to forget any chance of anything being
said about we untermenschen being slaughtered by those civilized denizens of USEU. It is not
going to happen so stop complaining about it. Never forget, never forgive, always remember,
but don't complain, it's useless."
Auslander is living in a denial. The perps of these crimes will never face any punishment
because there is nobody to carry out such punishments. Novorossiya is a tiny portion of Ukraine
and the rest is ruled by the Kiev thugs. Novorossiya can never reach the criminals there.
Well, in their lifetime anyway. Russia will not invade and Novorossiya is currently limited
to defending their land against Kiev attacks unable to even liberate Sloviasnk and Mariupol. And
it would be against the nature of Russia (or NAF) to send partizans to kill the perps in Kiev
or Lvov. Russians simply do not behave that way nowadays.
He says "In the end justice will be done, by the law and with due legal process where possible.
Where not possible, justice will still be done. Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold."
I do believe various people involved in Odessa have disappeared – or turned up. Dead. Some have
had to go to ground. Some have "died" under unbelievable circumstances, but their new name will
probably still have the same face. The biggest obstacle will be all this wearing of masks, but
with more recent atrocities, where they are garrisoned in the cities for months, they'd be known
anyway..
The spirit of Novorossiya will be expanding (not yet). Things may slowly go back towards normal.
But fully normal it can never be, while murderers and torturers walk free by the hundreds. It
is going to be a very long headache for Ukraine.
I wonder if he has any substantiation for those numbers. Some sources have always said that
hundreds more died in the Trade Unions building in Odessa than were ever officially acknowledged,
but I don't recall hearing about anyone dying in the Trade Unions building on Maidan, and I thought
the death toll in Mariupol was just a few police (not to make it sound like that's nothing) rather
than hundreds. And I follow the situation in Ukraine fairly closely – this would not even register
on those who get all their news from CNN.
Actually it was my net-acquaintances from Serbia and Bulgaria who were arguing with each other
who is more deserving the title of "niggers of Europe". Serbian guy was winning, using the ultimate
proof that Tupak is alive
in Serbia
The election of Poland's new president spells
big problems for Ukraine. The issue is "de-heroization" of OUN-UPA militants whom Ukraine just
recently granted the status of the liberators of Europe from fascism. But unlike Komorowski, who
forgave the Ukrainian heroes the Volhyn Massacre in which the Banderites slaughtered over 200
thousand Poles, the conservative Duda does not intend to sacrifice his principles.
Of course J Hawk's take is probably on the money. J.Hawk's Comment:
Not so fast. I'm not so sure that Duda wants to do any of the things described above. One
of the major reasons Duda won is the defection of the rural voters, whose average income declined
by 14% in 2014 in large measure due to Russian food embargo. Since Duda knows on which side
his bread is buttered (no pun intended), deep down he also realizes the importance of that
embargo lifting. His UPA criticism may well be only an excuse, a pretext to allow himself to
maneuver out of his election campaign pro-Ukraine position while saving face. Because, ultimately,
what is the likelihood that the Rada will actually pass a law that "de-heroizes" UPA to a sufficient
degree? And even if it does, will Bandera monuments start disappearing from Lvov and other
parts of Western Ukraine?
This is so. A state must have myth and Ukraine has already rejected the Soviet myth. Junk
the Bandera myth as well, and what is left? 'Slava Ukraini' hasn't been brilliantly effective
in motivating Ukrainians to fight, but would they have done better with a slogan like 'for the
preservation of ill-gotten capital!'?
JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in
Baltimore.
We're continuing our discussion about the role of nationalism and right-wing parties in the Ukrainian
popular protests and the transitional government.
With us again to discuss what led to the rise of the right wing is our guest Per Rudling. Per
is an associate professor of the Department of History at Lund University concentrating on nationalism
and the far right in the Polish-Ukrainian-Belarussian borderlands.
Thank you for joining us, Per.
PER ANDERS RUDLING, PhD, ASSOC. PROF., LUND UNIV., SWEDEN: Thank you.
DESVARIEUX: So, Per, let's pick it up where we left off. You were discussing the crushing of
Ukrainian nationalism by the Soviets in about year 1951, 1952. What exactly happened?
RUDLING: Well, the war--unlike in Western Europe, the war in Eastern Europe, in, partially,
Eastern Europe, the Baltics but primarily in Western Ukraine, did not end in 1945. A very harsh insurgency
continued for several years, roughly up until the early--1952, 1953, when the Ukrainian insurgent
army, led by the Bandera wing of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, carried out an armed
resistance against the collectivization, against the imposition of Soviet rule in this part of Ukraine.
And the Soviets responded extremely brutally by deporting entire villages carrying out collective
punishment. Roughly 150,000 people were being killed by the Soviets as they returned and imposed
their draconian control of its territory. And the UPA in turn used an escalation of violence also
against civilians who collaborated with the Soviet authorities. Here you also have several tens of
thousands of Ukrainians, primarily, being killed by the OUN and UPA, up until 1952, '53.
But roughly at the time Stalin died in 1953, the insurgency was crushed. And, of course, there
was a liberalization of policy under Khrushchev after 1956. So Ukrainian nationalism, per se, was,
well, pretty much stamped out in Ukraine.
In the West, however, you had several hundred thousand so-called displaced persons and refugees
from Western Ukraine which stayed in the West after the war, and many of these have been in one way
or another involved with the German authorities as they retreated westwards. And they, of course,
many of them, many of those from Eastern Ukraine were forcibly repatriated. But those who had been
Polish citizens before 1939, they could stay in the West, and many of them emigrated to Canada and
the United States, and there they built their communities. And among these postwar emigrates, the
by far largest political party there was the Bandera wing of the OUN, and they came to dominate much
of--or take over much of the political discourse in the Ukrainian diaspora over the course of 1950s
and '60s. And they developed a parallel historiography that's sort of set up as a counterweight to
the Soviets' influence, and they took upon themselves to carry the sort of Ukrainian spirit [incompr.]
carry out--either carrying out the national cause in the United States and in Canada. And they developed
a counter-history to the Soviet narrative. They [incompr.] other far-right groups, and what's been
the group of the OUN was supported for many years by the United States, through the--by the CIA,
primarily, through covert action programs. And they developed their institutions. They developed
their book printing. And in Canada, with the rise of official multiculturalism after 1971, there
was support for bilingual education for Ukrainian schools and so on, and they developed their own
textbooks and their own narratives.
When the Soviet Union collapsed after 1990, these narratives were re-exported to Ukraine proper
from diaspora. As the Soviet textbooks were discarded, there was a complete narrative of World War
II, of the famine of 1932-33, of the Bandera movements as national heroes, and it was re-exported
to Ukraine. And Ukraine is different in that sense from the Baltic states, all three of which had
their heads of state from the diaspora. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, all of the American and Canadian
heads of state, in Ukraine, the old nomenklatura, the old communist leaders were still in power,
more or less. They dropped, of course, the communist rhetoric and became nationalists instead. So
they adopted much of this discourse glorifying the OUN, glorifying the Ukrainian insurgent army.
And that became sort of a powerful narrative, at least in Western Ukraine.
When Viktor Yushchenko came to power after the so-called Orange Revolution in 2005, 2004, he decided
to make this narrative sort of a new founding myth for post-Soviet Ukraine and elevated Stepan Bandera
to an hero of Ukraine, elevated Roman Shukhevych, the leader of UPA, as national heroes. And also
he endorsed a narration which presented the famine of 1932-33 as a deliberate act of genocide against
Ukrainian people, and he greatly inflated the number of victims. He called it the Holodomor, and
the Holodomor narrative came on a regular basis. With it they claim 7 million or even 10 million.
So even though most historical demographers, they agree that the extra, surplus death due to famine
was 2.6-3.9 million deaths, the Yushchenko government claimed over 10 million death, being killed,
people being killed in the famine.
So this became sort of a national narrative. It was not very successful, because Ukraine is a
very divided society. Ukraine is a young state. The current borders came about in 1954, when the
Crimea was added to Ukrainian S.S.R. Western Ukraine was added through the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty
in 1939. Zakarpattia, Transcarpathia, of the [incompr.] was added all in 1945. So this is a divided
country in many ways, primarily Russian-speaking in the east, Ukrainian-speaking in the west, and
sort of mixed in the center.
So Yushchenko was trying to build a new narrative based upon Bandera and the Bandera cult, but
this didn't really work out, because people in Eastern Ukraine tended to see the Bandera movements
as fascist, as traitors, and Soviet notions lingered quite strong. And so it polarized Ukraine further.
And what's more seriously, it also alienated Ukraine's closest supporters within European Union,
'cause even the Bandera was sort of used as a symbol to mark distance to Russia. Most of the people
that Bandera actually killed were not Russians or--but the major victims were Poles and Jews. So
the cult of the OUN and UPA brought a lot of concern in Poland, and the Polish parliament has defined
the OUN mass murders of the Poles as ethnic cleansings with a hallmark of genocide.
So this is--the policy has been very clumsy.
But from this--well, Yushchenko was voted out of office in 2010 in a larger, fair, free election.
He got, like, roughly 5 percent of the vote [incompr.] 95 percent voted against him. And Yanukovych
came to power. And Yanukovych's regime was very corrupt and continued this policy of polarization,
be based [incompr.] different perspective [incompr.] based [incompr.] having your electoral base
in the east.
DESVARIEUX: Per, I want to stop you for a moment, and I want to talk about--if we could
just go back a bit and discuss the rise of the right-wing nationalism and put that in context of
the Orange Revolution before we even get to speaking about Yanukovych.
RUDLING: Well, in the Orange Revolution, Yushchenko was a moderate nationalist, and he
won this--he prevailed in this Orange Revolution together with a socialist ally and an ally of Tymoshenko's
party.
But Orange Revolution turned out to be a huge disappointment from any of the people involved.
Corruption wasn't uprooted overnight, and in fact, Yushchenko spent most of his time in office squabbling
with his prime minister, Tymoshenko, and in the end he made sure that--well, he really made sure
that she wasn't elected president, but instead his rival from 2004, Yanukovych, became his successor.
So under Yanukovych what happened then was that Yanukovych continued his policy of polarization.
He gave Svoboda, which was a party which got less than 1 percent support nationwide, disproportional
representation in national media, primarily on TV, which was controlled by his government and by
various oligarchs affiliated with his regime. And so Svoboda became very prominent in mass media.
And Yanukovych may have been calculating on--of course, this is very hard to know exactly what
goes on in a non-transparent political system like that in Ukraine, but there are indications the
elite was supporting Svoboda as a way to polarize the country, and then, in a runoff election in
2015, had it come to that, that it will be a runoff between Yanukovych and Svoboda, in which Yanukovych,
even though he was quite unpopular towards--in the second half of his tenure, would actually prevail
over Svoboda.
DESVARIEUX: Per, so wait. Am I understanding you correctly is that Yanukovych actually
helped boost up Svoboda, who was essentially the group behind his ouster, in a sense, is did he sort
of create a monster that eventually would come after him?
RUDLING: Essentially, yes. I mean, that's one of the most depressing aspects of his legacy,
that he exercised selective justice. He put Tymoshenko, a sort of a moderate nationalist, in jail.
Well, maybe she belonged in jail. Few other people, people in Ukrainian political leadership, are
not corrupt. The problem was, of course, that this was selective justice by a president and by a
supreme court which was no less corrupt than Tymoshenko herself.
So he went after moderate nationalists and gave the far right disproportionate attention in the
media.
DESVARIEUX: But the far right, who's behind them? I mean, they have to have some sort of
money and power and influence. Who are the oligarchs supporting them?
RUDLING: Well, they are an ideological party in a political landscape which is rather non-ideological.
Tymoshenko and Klitschko are not particularly ideologically driven. They're sort of middle-of-the-road
candidates and very adaptable.
Svoboda is based in the far west, and there they have a very strong position. In Lviv, the largest
Western Ukrainian city, I believe they got roughly around 40 percent of the vote. So they have a
majority in the local county administration. And they have similar situations in Ivano-Frankivsk
and Ternopil, that is, in Halychyna, Galicia, the part of Ukraine which used to be part of Austria-Hungary
before 1920 and has quite a different history than the rest of Ukraine.
So it's based regionally. And these regions in the far west are also one of the poorer regions.
So the heavily industrialized east, that's where a lot of the financial interests are. And in
many ways Svoboda could be used as a sort of a bogeyman to mobilize the Yanukovych electorate. And
clearly now, once Yanukovych is gone, Russia's continued its policy of referring to the entire opposition
as fascist or Banderites, even though--and I think this is very important to point out--this was
genuine broad popular uprising against a regime which was immensely corrupt. According to Transparency
International, Ukraine is on place 141 out of the world states. That means it's divided 141 place
with Nigeria and the Central African Republic. That is, Ukraine is not only the most corrupt country
in Europe; it's one of the most corrupt countries in the world. And it got worse under Yanukovych.
DESVARIEUX: Per, I want to pivot and talk about the role of any sort of liberal or left-leaning
groups there in Ukraine. Do you know of any? Have they ever attempted to sort of contest this nationalist
groups, people with political power, if they be Yanukovych, who is more on, like, the Russian side?
I mean, what about more liberal left-leaning organizations?
RUDLING: There are left-leaning organizations, and they took part in the protests. I have
good friends of mine who actually traveled from Sweden and traveled from United States to be in the
Maidan and to help the opposition, and they are, I assure you, far from fascists. So if you have--you
know, Ukraine is divided, but it's hard to have the exact numbers. But roughly 60 percent supported
the protests. Forty percent were against. Of those 60 percent who supported the protests, say Svoboda
were roughly one-third of the protest. The bulk of them were supporters of Yatsenyuk and Klitschko
or non-party activists which wanted Ukraine to get closer to European Union, that were tired of the
corruption which was rampant under Yanukovych. And now the Russian media is stereotyping the entire--this
broad protest movement as fascists, which is quite directly wrong. But there is a hard right within
this movement.
And I think, you know, it should be possible to keep two problems in mind at the same time. On
the one hand, yes, Russia is instrumentalizing this, discrediting opposition they don't like. On
the other hand, there is indeed a hard right within these protests, which I think liberally minded--from
perspective of--liberal-democratic perspective, it would make sense to keep an eye on them. And also
I think that's the best way of helping Ukrainians' democratic transformation, identifying not only
Putin and Yanukovych, which should be identified as major problems and obstacles to democratic development
in Ukraine, but also the far right.
There are several problems here, and I think any sensible analyst should sort of, like, look at
them both. One doesn't exclude the other.
DESVARIEUX: Alright. Per Rudling, thank you so much for joining us.
RUDLING: Thank you.
DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Russian Leftie
What is missed in this interview is that the Fascist elements, being a radical minority, are
becoming de facto an integral part of the ruling regime and are top-down becoming the commanders
of army and police.
The current Ukrainian regime is also on the verge in legalizing fascist paramilitary forces
and giving them an official place in the power structure.
neoconbuster > Russian Leftie
He also made one false statement:
"And now the Russian media is stereotyping the entire--this broad protest movement as
fascists, which is quite directly wrong."
I watch RT and Ria Novosti every day and they don't say that. This is basically what they say:
This was a Coup sponsored by US-NATO (CIA's NGOS). Violent Nationalist elements occupied by
force most government's building and by using Molotov cocktails, Guns, Baseball bats and Sniper
rifles removed by force the elected president.
You can't ignore the Geostrategic point of view:
Their idea is to encircle even more Russia, with military bases, this time in Ukraine as a future
NATO member.
This view is the correct one in my opinion. Discounting the rhetorical hyperbole that sometimes
creeps into RT's reportage, their narrative fits the known facts. The Euro-NATO version of the
story doesn't add up.
Henry Kissinger gently scolds the idiots in Brussels when he writes (in the Washington
Post) that policies must be developed and executed with a view to their outcome. Brussels
and Washington have loudly challenged Russia to a game in which Moscow holds the high cards. What
an embarrassment!
Russian Leftie -> Russian Leftie,
March 13, 2014 6:20 PM
Valentyn Nalyvaichenko [1], the current director of the Security Service of Ukraine (Ukrainian
version of KGB/FSB), meeting with Yarosh and other fascists at the paramilitary camp in 2012.
[2]
Also, Nalyvaichenko is known to be a big-time CIA friend [3].
Right in the video he salutes the fascists with the known Ukrainian Nazi salute ("Слава Украине"
- "Героям Слава") [4].
This was very helpful to understand a lot more about what is going on. I noticed also that
a documentary that I myself had found trustworthy and that I advertised as such in a post about
two weeks ago, isn't so trustworthy anymore after I followed this interview. It was the following
documentary, found on youtube:
Between Hitler and Stalin: Ukraine in World War II (58 minutes)
made by the The Ukrainian Canadian Research & Documentation Centre, Toronto, Dec 2012
I will have to watch it again with some more caution, and noting what Ruling said about the
narratives that "were re-exported to Ukraine proper from diaspora." This movie is likely to be
part of that narrative, and may be quite biased.
Maybe Anders Rudling could respond to this? I wish to know what's true and what is lies.
NoDifference > Reiner Wilhelms
You are very wise to see this. The way the media -- both the MSM and the alternative Media
-- have continually changed their narratives of the story as it has unfolded. I don't necessarily
fault all of them for this, because it is important to re-evaluate when new information is introduced.
At the beginning, all I was hearing was a sort of reductionist view that said that there was
a push and pull going on between Ukranians who wanted to be closer to the west (EU) versus those
who wanted to join Mother Russia (or something to that effect). It sounded like maybe the US was
working it with the help of maybe Germany or France to sort of "pull" Ukraine into the western
sphere, thereby thwarting the cruel and terrible Putin.
Now, I realize that Putin is not free of incrimination. He has taken his country far right,
neoliberal, with all the classic trappings (and rhetoric) of capitalism. And whenever I watch/listen
to RT, I do listen through a very thick filter. Ukraine is still very much in the sphere of Russian
influence, despite the fall of the Soviet Union and despite the failure of the CIS to become a
viable supranational governing agency. So, while I like RT's reporting, there is (at least to
me) very opinionated questioning of guests when it comes to US domestic policy (I am talking about
RT America, and the corresponding website). Not that I disagree with RT's opinionated narrators,
but I think they do their otherwise great network a disservice by engaging in the same kind of
slant as many of their MSM competitors. In sum, I admit to a bit of skepticism about RT's reporting
in that I fear they are telling me what I might LIKE to hear, further skewing my views of the
situation, in this case, in the Ukraine.
Now, toss in the Crimea breakoff and the scuffle that it is creating, and you get a very complex
and complicated situation. It is not as simple as a question of whether Ukraine should go with
the West or with Russia, but rather, an issue of petty nationalism that could explode into a powderkeg
that could result in a tragedy no less than what we witnessed (or didn't, thanks to our poor media
then) in the 1990s in the Balkans. Crimeans want to be with Russia, western Ukrainian (Svoboda)
forces want to establish an ethnically-cleansed state based on a mythology that Hitler would applaud,
and Kiev is left with a vulnerable government that could topple any moment if the Fascists were
to rise up and proceed with a full coup (they are certainly positioned to pull it off). Frankly,
I am confused still as to what the desires and goals of eastern Ukraine proper (sans Crimea) really
want. I know eastern Ukrainians speak Russian and perhaps identify with Russian culture, but I
don't sense that with certainty based on the reports coming in from here and RT.
Thank goodness for TRNN, though. At least I am not still stuck in the original, reductionist
narrative I was given just a few weeks ago. It is a complex situation with a lot of different
pieces at work. TRNN is helping to create a much more nuanced, even if very confusing, picture
of events in Ukraine.
Reiner Wilhelms > Russian Leftie
Here is the transcription of the youtube video of Gregor Gysi's speech in the German Bundestag
(parliament):
Gysi is a member of Die Linke (The Left) in Germany, his background is from the former socialist
party of East Germany where he became early on a leader for the reforms that Gorbachev was inspiring
there.
I think his speech is a very good and fair critique of the hypocracy of the EU's politics and
of Merkel's role in what I see as two imperialists (the big one who has been winning and another
who has been loosing and who wants to have a comeback) are trying to pick Ukraine apart and risk
confrontations that could lead to war. Yet he is not defending Putin either, and is against the
separation of Crimea.
He recounts the story of the original demand for dissolving both NATO and Warshaw Pact, which
the West didn't accept. So Warshaw Pact was dissolved and NATO was converted from a defense alliance
into an alliance for intervention, which was followed by a rapid expansion of NATO directed towards
Russia, and the decision to station missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Han
Well, we understand that many people in Ukraine who supported the coup are not fascist
and they are just tired of the corruption. But here's what. It's not really important that
many Western Ukrainians are moderate. The important thing is that the fascists are very strong
and are supported by the USA. The new government is controlled by the USA and it will do all it
can to provoke Russia and hurt its interests in every possible way. The fascists will have to
be kept under control. To make them happy, the government in Kiev will attack the Russian-speaking
population more and more. Their language will be excluded from the public sphere, their schools
will be closed, they will suffer from job discrimination etc. This is what happened in the Baltics.
The wise historian knows this but it's not really all that important to him. After all, he is
in Sweden and he will just keep smiling smugly just as he and the likes of him did watching the
fascist regimes in the Baltics.
P.S. The Swedes who took part in the coup in a foreign country should be caught and shot. They
are just bored with their nice lives in Sweden and are looking for trouble at other people's expense.
Better still, they should be kept in a Ukrainian prison for ten years. Then they will learn what
life is about.
P.P.S. Last but not least - Jessica is very good at her job. She's very intelligent and professional,
I hope that people at TRNN realise how lucky they are to have her. Thank you, Jessica! I hope
you stay at TRNN for a long long time.
redrico
Really informative look at the history of the far right in western Ukraine. One thing I would
like to hear Per talk about is what role he thinks the EU has to play in this. He didn't really
have much to say about this or at least he didn't have time. Timothy Snyder has done his best
to downplay the influence of Svoboda and the far right militias in the Maidan while exaggerating
how inclusive it was (eg. not mentioning that 40% of the country were opposed to it) despite supposedly
being an expert on these movements. His belief seems to be that closer integration with the EU
would somehow weaken the growth of the far right, even though he is the first to point out that
the largest far right movements are already in the EU. The EU's attempts to impose economic reforms
in Greece has clearly had a role in the relatively recent rapid growth of Golden Dawn. The anti-immigrant,
islamophobic politics of governments and parties across the EU has led to the broad growth of
the far right in country after country. Per is honest about the role of the far right so I think
it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on this question.
erpiu
very good change from the fact-free "opinion" that one gets on main-stream TV and from the
ethnic-harmony/politics that moscow state university and nicolai petro have served us here so
far, but...
i) rudling forgets to tell us who got how much of the usa's 5-billion ukr "democracy investment".
Groups defending mother theresa and his bleedingheart friends who flew in to maydan?
maybe he just forgot to discuss these moneys, but jessica should have been prepared to ask
where the moneys went and for which specific events/interventions by whom they became critical.
ii) the soviet's "brutal" repression after 1945 that pers says was inflicted on "defenseless
populations" is true but he obfuscates the whole story (and are his ultra-exact figures really
reliable? that happened behind the curtain after all):
per himself and the whitewasher of holocaust-helpers, t.snyder, have described in detail how
in 1941-45 these wonderful "defenseless populations" massacred tens of thousands of jews and poles
(not ruskies) in veritable non-stop orgies of cruelty (of course beautifully reciprocated --when
not initiated-- by oh-so-so catholic polish clerico-fascists (who btw had been enslaving/expropriating/brutalizing
the locals in both polish-occupied bielorussia and ukr until 1939/41; remember: in 1940 polish
bishops would write to rome that the nazi 1939 invasion+jewish killings showed that poland's jewish
problem "was solvable!" so jew killing and harassing is interconfessional in the area; that's
why so many eastern jews joined the commies).
in other words, in 1945 the soviets were "reacting" to an epidemics of paramilitarily organized
crime by "defenseless populations" that had the worst possible history and nastiest possible paramilitary
expertise/culture.
Therefore the deportation of these "defenseless populations" was much more humane than trying
to suffocate them in situ by accepting to fight the civil war that the west was trying to start
in the area and that it would fight "to the last white-ukranian".
pers should indeed have mentioned the west's provocations/infiltrations in newly sovietized
ukr areas (read wikipedia on the special commandos of former nazi-collaborators that flew in from
the uk "all expenses covered").
PS. and jessica should start reading wikipedia before interviewing super-experts like per.
GabrielWhite > erpiu
Where did he use the term "defenseless populations"? Is it in the other clip? He's very clear
in this clip that the the Nationalist movement was brutal.
spktruth200
Let us not forget that John McCain took retired Israelie commandoes to the Ukraine. the US
had already spent $5B in Ukraine as was announced by Victoria Nyland in DC. That's not counting
the one billion we just gave them.
To think the US hasn't been conducting illegal activities in the Ukraine is naďve. This is
also about Oil, as the right wing in US are pushing the State Dept to support the XL piplelines
so they can send that oil to Europe in their attempt to crush the economy of Russia.
Mark Mason
Professor Rudling does not understand that the so-called centrist Fatherland Party of Tymoshenko
and Yatsenyuk are exploiting, using the Far Right elements to do the dirty work, to exercise violence.
Per Anders Rudling is an associate professor of the Department of History at Lund University,
specializing on nationalism, the Holocaust, and the far right in the Polish-Ukrainian-Belarusian
borderlands. He is the author of the forthcoming book "The Rise and Fall of Belarusian Nationalism,
1906-1931," which will appear with University of Pittsburgh Press in July. Dr. Rudling recieved his
Ph.D. in history at the University of Alberta (Edmonton, Canada), 2009, and his post-doc at University
of Greifswald, Germany. He also has an MA in Russian from Uppsala University (1998), and an MA in
History from San Diego State University (2003).
Transcript
How Right-Wing Nationalism Rose to Influence in Ukraine (1/2)JESSICA DESVARIEUX, TRNN PRODUCER: Welcome
to The Real News Network. I'm Jessica Desvarieux in Baltimore.
Tensions continue between Russia and the U.S. over Ukraine's Crimea region, the main issue being
the imminent referendum vote, which could place Crimea under Russian control. We here at The Real
News want to take a step back and get a broader look at the Ukrainian protests and the new transitional
government.
On the one hand, Russian media reports, as well as Russian President Vladimir Putin, characterize
Ukrainian protesters as right-wing extremists who led the ouster of Ukrainian President Yanukovych.
On the other hand, President Barack Obama, U.S. officials, and other segments of the American media
have reported on these events as a legitimate popular revolution.
With us to discuss what's really the underlying truth is Per Rudling. Rudling is an associate
professor of the Department of History at Lund University, concentrating on nationalism and the far
right in the Polish-Ukrainian-Belarussian borderlands.
Thank you for joining us, Per.
PER ANDERS RUDLING, PHD., ASSOC. PROF., LUND UNIV., SWEDEN: Thank you.
DESVARIEUX: So, as we mentioned before, Per, we have two contesting narratives here. We have
Ukrainian as protests as right-wing extremists, and the ouster of Yanukovych as sort of this U.S.-backed
coup, and also the characterization of the uprising as a popular protest. But we also have the facts,
and the fact is that the right-wing nationalist party in Ukraine, Svoboda, has claimed seats in the
Ukrainian transitional government, including deputy prime minister and the deputy secretary of national
security. Can you talk about the ideology of the party and its history? And how much influence do
they really have?
RUDLING: Well, thank you. Well, the government in Ukraine is a transitional government. It consists
of two parties, even though there were three parties that prominently figured in the protests. One
was Yatsenyuk's party, which is the party of Yulia Tymoshenko that is now run by her deputy. There
is Klitschko's party, UDAR, sort of an anticorruption. Both parties are center-right sort of parties.
And there is the radical right-wing Svoboda Party. These three made up the protests sort of opposition
together. And two of these--Svoboda and Bat'kivshchyna, or Fatherland, the party of Yatsenyuk--make
up the government. And Svoboda has their four government members, and there are another three members
that belong to the far right.
Svoboda is a party which is based primarily in western Ukraine, in primarily the regions that
before 1940, 1939, were part of Poland, and they grew out of a tradition of Ukrainian [incompr.]
nationalism. They particularly identify with the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, which was
active during World War II and before World War II. It's a party which is regional but claim to be
all national--the exact term of the party is the all-Ukrainian party, Svoboda. But it is very regionally
based. It belongs to the far-right on the European perspective. It's a member of the so-called Alliance
of European National Movements and movements. That means it works closely with parties such as the
British National Party in Britain, Jobbik in Hungary, in Sweden a small party called the Nationaldemokraterna
(the National Democrats). And what they do want is they promote a policy on ethnic grounds. They
are seeing Ukrainians being downtrodden in their own country, and they want to introduce, for instance,
a nationality paragraph in the passport or reintroduce the nationality paragraph in the passport.
They want to elevate the status of Ukrainian language to the only official language, something which
they did succeed, reversing that law a couple of weeks ago. It's a party which belong on the far-right
political spectrum. But politically, economically, it's sort of middle-of-the-road. Like many far-right
parties, what makes them extreme is not economic policies but sort of this sort of identity politics
which they employ. And Svoboda has found its heroes and idols particularly in the very divisive World
War II era, and they celebrate in particular the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists
Stepan Bandera, who during World War II led the movement, which was involved in atrocities, primarily
against the sizable Polish minority in West Ukraine, but also involved in crimes or persecution of
Jews and other minorities.
DESVARIEUX: I'm glad you mention that, 'cause I want to get into the history of this right-wing
faction and go as far back as sort of the early 20th century. How did they really even get started,
these Ukrainian right-wing nationalists?
RUDLING: Well, Ukraine was one of those countries in Europe the national movement of which
failed or did not succeed in establishing a national state in 1920, 1919. Right? The Ukrainians were--and
is one of the largest ethnic groups in Europe, but they failed to achieve a state. And Ukraine was
divided up between four states, primarily Soviet Union and Poland in 1920, 1921. And in the 1920s,
Ukrainian nationalism was primarily a left-wing or center-left phenomenon and primarily democratic,
but as the Soviet turned increasingly, well, under Stalin, authoritarian and a forced starvation
killed millions of Ukrainians, and at the same time the Polish government after 1926 became increasingly
authoritarian, after May 1926, there was a rise of the far right. And that was a part of a larger
European phenomenon that all of Europe in the 1930s, particularly this part of Europe, became authoritarian,
dominated by authoritarian right-wing movements. The Ukrainians were no exception. So, as the political
conditions became such that in the Soviet Union, Ukrainians were being killed en masse, dying due
to famine, due to starvation under Stalin, and in Poland Ukrainian parties were discriminated, there
was a current that took up an armed struggle against the Polish authorities. They wanted to create
an independent Ukraine, in fact a greater Ukraine encompassing all the ethnographic Ukrainian territories.
And this organization, an organization which was called the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists,
OUN, or /un/, was founded in 1929. It became, over the course of 1930s, and particularly during World
War II, the predominant Ukrainian nationalist force. And as Hitler and Stalin divided up Poland in
1939, many Ukrainian nationalists from western Ukraine ended up under German control. And they were
reconstituted there in Kraków, and they cooperated with the Germans, claim that Germany would be
this catalyst which would change the status quo in Europe. So it's not only Ukrainian nationalists,
but also Croatian nationalists and Slovak nationalists, started to orient [incompr.] towards Germany,
which would overthrow the--if somebody could overthrew this order, it would be Germany. But it was
also an affiliation of--an ideological affiliation. The OUN wanted a one-party state under its leadership,
an ethnically cleansed one-party state with no room for Jews and Poles and other minorities. And
they sought to bring this about through the use of political terrorisms, through assassinations,
through all the use of mass political violence. So to position the OUN historically, I guess this
is still very much contested. But I do believe, and others do believe, other colleagues of mine do
believe that also that the OUN can be classified as a fascist movement, sort of a generic Eastern
European fascism. So you should make the distinction between Naziism and fascism. But if you talk
about fascism as a larger generic phenomenon of radical right-wing movement seeking to overthrow
society and have a rebirth of the society on a basis of new order, in that sense, OUN was created--in
my assessment, a fascist movement.
As World War II broke out, there was a wave of anti-Jewish violence in western Ukraine, and the
OUN, according to the most current research, played a central role in the organization of these pogroms,
and between 17,000 and 35,000 Jews were killed during the first few weeks of the war.
The OUN later on, well, they tried to establish independent Ukrainian state, but the Germans,
unlike in the case of the Slovaks and unlike in the case of the Croats, they were not prepared to
recognize them as allies. In fact, the Ukrainians were treated as subhumans and treated extremely
cruel by the Nazi government, and they would not be interested in cooperating with Germans and crack
down on Ukrainian nationalism soon after the invasion.
Still, some of these Ukrainian and nationalist forces, when they weren't recognized as partners,
many of them went into the German police forces in 1942 and 1943. And after Stalingrad, there was
a complete break, and the OUN policemen withdrew their support for the Germans, and they organized
a so-called Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA, Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya), which fought for an independent
Ukraine sort of as the armed branch of the OUN. Here they also took part in the killing of Jews,
but particularly in the ethnic cleansing of Poles in western Ukraine. This was a--western Ukraine
was an ethnically mixed area in order to remove the Poles to prevent Polish postwar claim on this
region after the war, 'cause this had been part of Poland in the interwar period. Poland, as you
know, was pushed 400 kilometers to the west by Joseph Stalin [incompr.] Poland became western Ukraine.
So the Poles were removed by the UPA.
But they continued also after the war. If the war in [incompr.] in the west ended on May 8, May
9, 1945, it continued in Ukraine a nationalist insurgency led by the UPA, which in turn was under
command of the OUN, continued an armed insurgency up until the early 1950s, 1952, '53.
DESVARIEUX: So, Per, I'm going to actually stop you there, and we'll discuss what happened
to that Ukrainian nationalism in that post-World War II world. So thank you so much for joining us.
RUDLING: Thank you very much. Thank you very much.
DESVARIEUX: And thank you for joining us on The Real News Network.
Pascale1
"Svoboda's openly pro-Nazi politics have not deterred Senator John McCain from addressing a
EuroMaidan rally alongside Tyahnybok (Svoboda leader), nor did it prevent Assistant Secretary
of State Victoria Nuland from enjoying a friendly meeting with the Svoboda leader this February.
Nuland boasted that the US had invested $5 billion to "build " in Ukraine.
I doubt there will be many democratic skills and institutions with this particular bunch of
fascists.
neoconbuster
As many times before US-NATO employ radical elements for achieving regime change.
-German MP: 'Unrest in Ukraine part of NATO's expansion plan' -
The West's interests in Ukraine may be part of a much bigger picture. That's according to former
German MP and Vice President of the OSCE Assembly, Willy Wimmer. Back in 90's, he expressed alarm
over NATO's expansion plans during the alliance's bombing campaign of Yugoslavia.
"Ukrainian [incompr.] nationalism" is "Ukrainian interwar nationalism."
"started to orient [incompr.] towards Germany" is "started to orient themselves towards Germany"
"west by Joseph Stalin [incompr.] Poland became western Ukraine" is "west by Joseph Stalin
and what used to be Poland became western Ukraine"
"If the war in [incompr.] in the west ended on" is "If the war in-at least in the west ended
on..."
Yagshemash > Pete
"Eastern" Poland became Western Ukraine, obviously
lastmarx
After Germany surrendered in May 1945, Soviet authorities turned their attention to insurgencies
still active in Ukraine and the Baltics which had supported the Nazi invasion and committed war
crimes against Red Army troops, anti-Nazi partisans and conducted "ethnic cleansing" against Poles
and Jews.
Soviet combat units were reorganized and special forces sent in. Their main challenge was local
support for the UPA [Ukrainian Insurgent Army--Ukrayins'ka Povstans'ka Armiya, -- the military
unit of the OUN-B [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Bandera faction]. One of the UPA's main
detachments was the Nachtigall (nightingale-see below*).
Areas of the highest UPA activity in the Western Ukraine were depopulated. The estimates of
numbers deported vary; officially Soviet archives state that between 1944 and 1952 a total of
182,543 people were deported. Mass arrests of suspected UPA informants or family members were
also conducted; between February 1944 and May 1946 over 250,000 people were arrested in Western
Ukraine. some of whom were subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques" to persuade them to
identify UPA fighters or agree to become Soviet double-agents.
The UPA also used terror against Soviet supporters, their suspected collaborators and their
families, most brutally inflicted by its "anti espionage" unit, the Sluzhba Bezbeky (SB). In a
typical incident in Lviv region, in front of horrified villagers, UPA troops gouged out the eyes
of two entire families suspected of reporting on insurgent movements to Soviet authorities before
hacking their bodies to pieces. Other victims of the UPA included heads of village Soviets, those
sheltering or feeding Red Army personnel, and even people turning food in to collective farms.
The UPA assassinated many key Soviet administrative officials. According to NKVD data, between
February 1944 and December 1946 11,725 Soviet officers, agents and supporters were murdered and
2,401 were presumed kidnapped in Western Ukraine.
The first success of the Soviet anti-insurgency drive came in early 1946 in the Carpathians,
which were blockaded from January 11 until April 10. The UPA operating there ceased to exist as
a combat unit and its heavy casualties elsewhere forced the UPA to split into small units consisting
of 100 soldiers. Many fighters accepted Soviet amnesties and deserted during 1947-1948. During
those years, UPA resistance was weakened enough to allow the Soviets to begin implementation of
large-scale collectivization throughout Western Ukraine.
By the end of 1946, the UPA was reduced to a core group of 5-10 thousand fighters, and large-scale
UPA activity shifted to the Soviet-Polish border. Here, in 1947, they allegedly killed the Polish
deputy defense minister General Karol Świerczewski.
In spring 1946, UPA established contacts with the Intelligence services of the US, France,
and Great Britain. Although the UPA obtained some help from the CIA and British intelligence during
the latter phase of its struggle, the operation was betrayed by Kim Philby. The CIA-UPA connection
was noted March 7 by Oliver Stone on Facebook:
"For an interesting perspective on Ukraine, revisit Chapter 4 of "Untold History," where
we dealt with the " Nightingale"* stay-behind armies in Ukraine, which were an early CIA operation
in 1947/8 under the direction of Secretary of Defense James Forrestal. They caused unbelievable
mayhem -- and remember that 'nightingale' was the last word Forrestal wrote out in his diary,
copying out the chorus from "Ajax," before he committed suicide. "
Nightingale (Ukrainian: soloveiko, German Nachtigall). The nightingale is commonly invoked
in Ukrainian folk songs and folklore in the image of a creator of sweet sounds, a builder of homes,
and a harbinger of spring. The word soloveiko is a term of personal endearment.
http://www.encyclopediaofukrai...
The Soviet authorities also won support from the local population by making significant economic
investment in Western Ukraine, and by setting up rapid reaction groups in many regions to combat
the UPA. This contributed to the growing isolation of the UPA which had also been helped by the
Polish government's operation Vistula in 1947. According to one retired MVD major, "By 1948 ideologically
we had the support of most of the population." The Soviets were able to recruit some family members
of Polish victims of the UPA as informants.
In 1948 these and other Soviet agents planted within the UPA took their toll on morale and
on the UPA's effectiveness. In November their work led to two important Soviet victories: the
defeat and deaths of the leaders of the most active UPA network in Western Ukraine, and the removal
of "Myron," head of the notorious SB unit. On September 3, 1949 the UPA's leader Roman Shukhevych
ordered all UPA units to dissolve and integrate with the OUN (B) underground. A few months later,
he was killed in an Soviet ambush near Lviv. The UPA's last commander, Vasyl Kuk, was captured
on May 24, 1954. Despite a few small and scattered bands, the MGB of the Ukrainian SSR announced
the complete "liquidation of armed units and OUN underground by the beginning of 1956."
In 1951 CIA covert operations chief Frank Wisner estimated that some 35,000 Soviet police troops
and Communist party cadres had been eliminated by guerrillas affiliated with the UPA in the period
after the end of World War II. His number was close to official Soviet figures for the losses
inflicted by all types of "Ukrainian nationalists" during the period 1944-1953, although their
total of 30,676 were mainly civilians, including 446 local CP and Komsomol leaders and 16,355
peasants and kolkhozniks. They listed 8,340 deaths among armed Soviet combatants.-MM
Rudling is excellent. He fails to mention that Ukrainians were never free; always under the
control of Russia, Sweden, Lithuania, Poland, etc. So this movement was for freedom, more than
Nazi like conquering. He further forgets to let everyone know that nationalism; as pure homeland,
just as today's Zionism; was more finding a place where the real family could rest in peace; than
like the Nazis and their anti-Jewish obsession. You could think of them as Ukrainian's early 20th
century version of our Tea Party.
JOHNNYMITCHELL > WarrenMetzler
That would be a nice whitewashing of the actual activities of the OUN which later morphed into
Svoboda. They were virulently anti-semitic. Are you aware of the 'galicia' section of the waffen
ss? In order to show their antisemitic and anticommunist zeal (they viewed soviet communism as
a jewish conspiracy, as did the german Nazis) they volunteered to form a special Ukranian SS regiment
which carried out ethnic cleansing against Poles and Jews in the Galician region and helped the
Nazis brutally crush a partisan uprising in Slovakia, murdering the entire civilian population
of several Slovak villages. The modern day Svoboda party has no problem viewing Bandera who was
up to his eyeballs in all of this as a national hero. I'm no fan of the Tea Party, but they haven't
machine gunned the entire populations of any american towns because they didn't like the ethnic
religious demographic there. Putin is acting in Russia's geopolitical interest in all of this,
and is not worth supporting. But neither are these fascists, who are arguably the biggest political
winners in the situation having had the good fortune of becoming a useful tool for US/IMF meddlers.
JOHNNYMITCHELL > WarrenMetzler
So, you downplay the significance of fascist elements in the Ukrainian uprising first by comparing
them to the Tea Party, then by claiming that they are not representative of the majority of the
Maidan protestors or the Ukrainian people, then by making the two-wrongs-make a right argument
that because all nationalist movements do bad things, there's no problem with Ukrainian political
parties (Svoboda, Pravy Sektor) reveling in the Nazi collaborationist past. You know these are
all non-arguments, right? I never claimed that all of the protestors or all Ukrainians were fascists,
that Ukranian nationalism was worse than anyone else's nationalism or that Yanukovich was a saint.
The point is that in assessing the situation in Ukraine it is important not to view either the
new pro-western government or the Russians as being beyond reproach and that what has occurred
is that an anti-corruption and vaguely pro-western protest movement was hijacked by unsavory right
wingers, goaded on by US/IMF and EU actors into essentially carrying out an illegal coup, and
subsequently ushering in what promises to be a brutal round of IMF austerity for the majority
of Ukrainians, as well as an extremely pissed off Russia next door.
This is generally a terrible situation for just about everyone, and it will likely be a very
long time before all of the negative consequences play out and there is any possibility of the
Ukrainian people crafting some sort of decent outcome for themselves.
JOHNNYMITCHELL > WarrenMetzler
So, we agree on all of the facts. Except that for you its ok to carry out a coup because, you
know, you've been to Ukraine and everyone was very nice and people always work things out what
with their commons sense and all. Since you have "determined that Euromaidan is about freedom
and eliminating corruption"
I will not spend any time worrying about how those Ukrainians you met are doing when their
pensions are decimated, ConAgra owns all the farmland and U.S. gas companies are fracking the
holy hell out of the place. Thank you very much for the comforting platitudes.
adam > Chief Justice Warren
I understand Ukrainian, I have been to Ukraine, I know numerous people in Ukraine, I have watched
TV shows about Ukraine.
I believe that Euromaidan was a popular movement whose aim was to achieve freedom. Nevertheless,
far-right movements are trying to hijack the movement to get access to power. In western Ukraine
the fight-right have been controlling the local government for a long time. These forces have
continuosly blocked agreements between Polish and Ukrainian presidents with regard to Polish memorial
places. They also staged protests while Poles were commemorating UPA atrocities in Ukraine.
Let's hope that extreme political forces will lose elections.
Nixak.77 > JOHNNYMITCHELL
Besides down-playing the significance of the role of Neo-NAZIs / Fascists in this Ukrainian
coup [who reportedly now control key posts in Ukraine's army & police], he's made a 'curious'
claim that Yanukovich stole as much as $75 BILLION$ [w a 'B'] in less than 4yrs in office. So
How could a guy that corrupt & greedy even get elected in the first place??? Plus that conveniently
ignores the fact that another [corrupt] Billionairess is a {figure}Head of this coup. & also this
shit-storm in Ukraine reportedly began when Yanukovich turned down the EU's aid package because
it had sovereignty compromising SAPs strings attached as well as other strings that would have
pulled Ukraine toward NATO's camp. So when Yanukovich went for Putin's Russia's more generous
aid offer- that's reportedly when the turmoil began.
And what of these reports that some of these same Neo-NAZI leaders had snipers shoot some of
their fellow 'protesters' {or rioters} to further stir-up a shit-storm & then [falsely] blame
Yanukovich's police??? Sounds like a replay of the NAZIs' Reichstag fire false-flag ploy.
Nixak.77 > NoDifference
Many might find any comparison of Ukrainian 'nationalists' to Zionism & the Tea Party, not
so reassuring. Besides what you've out-lined above, I recall that it was very vocal elements in
the ranks of [white] Tea-Baggers that openly portrayed Pres Obama as an APE & Witch-Doctor, &
SPAT on Civil Rights Icon Rep John Lewis while Spewing RACIST Obscenities at him & other CBC members!
So now in this Ukrainian coup, Neo-Nazis hold key posts over the military & police , while
openly displaying Confederate [Huhh? WTF?], white-power & NAZI insignia in Kiev's govt bldg(s)!
I can NOT see how this can be down-played & dismissed.
?! > WarrenMetzler
You do not fight for freedom wiping out whole villages within one day using axes, forks, saws
and killing infants in a way reminiscent of Medieval times. Within one day the whole Polish village,
Huta Pieniacka, was killed (around 900 people).
In Poland these atrocities are most often called genocide as there exist official UPA documents
stating that Poles should be killed. So there was an intention to eliminate the whole population
within a given territory.
adam > WarrenMetzler
It is not justified to compare the Ukrainian independence struggle of the 1940s to the tea
party. The former was of genocidal character and was inspired by nazism. Bandera was strongly
influenced by fascism and Ukrainians supported nazi germany.
JOHNNYMITCHELL > WarrenMetzler
Sorry Warren, but your original comment lacks merit. You obviously had no idea about the history,
but thought you would draw some parallels in order to obfuscate what what said in the video. The
Ukrainian nationalist movement in the 1940s actively chose to ally themselves with the Nazis.
People are not making the comparison just because they are on the right of the spectrum. They
formed a special SS unit just so that they could curry favor with the Nazis, present day Svoboda
figures openly attempt to whitewash and/or justify these actions. These events are still in living
memory for some people. In the new Ukrainian gov't they chair various ministries (including security)
Its interesting that you cite their 10% or less support among Ukrainians, which you must be basing
on the seats they held in the ELECTED UKRAINIAN PARLIAMENT. Now that they have overthrown that
parliament they have a lot more power than their popular support would justify. Do you understand
why that is a dangerous thing?
adam > JOHNNYMITCHELL
You are right. There is a danger that the situation will go out of control. An internal fight
for power started in ukraine. One of the leaders of the right sector was killed and his supporters
have just blocked the ukrainian parliament demanding a thoriugh investigation of the matter.
adam
In my opinion the West glossed over the fact that forces glorifying UPA played an important
role in Euromaidan. Now Western Pundits and politicians increasingly acknowledge the mistake.
NoDifference
It seems like a large portion of Eurasia (and north Africa) are catching on fire. This latest
chapter in the Ukraine, involving the RW/Nazis, may be the most frightening. Svoboda provocateurs
are attacking Synagogues and at least one Rabbi and his community are leaving Kiev (I saw this
covered on RT today). Here I thought the early 20th century was long behind us. I guess the Balkan
Wars of the 1990s should have tipped me off that we weren't quite done yet with that sad history.
Krassimir
Thank you Pascale for listeninh to the news has led me to belive
you were thoroughly brainwashed.
"... The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign investors. ..."
"... Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also wants banks returned to Polish control. ..."
"... Party supporters have been rejoicing since Duda's apparent victory was announced late on Sunday. They say the party will do much more to help the many Poles who have not benefited from the country's economic growth, those who face low wages and job insecurity despite a quarter of a century of growth. In his campaign speeches, Duda often spoke of the more than 2 million Poles who left in the past decade to seek better economic opportunities abroad. ..."
The changing political mood could signal a return to power of Duda's conservative Law and Justice
party in parliamentary elections this autumn. That would cement Poland's turn to the right, create a
new dynamic with other European countries and possibly usher in a less welcoming climate for foreign
investors.
Law and Justice presents itself as a protector of those who have not benefited from the capitalist
transformation and as a defender of national interests abroad. It is staunchly pro-US, but has a
sometimes defiant stance towards other European partners, which has created tensions in the past
with the EU and neighbouring Germany.
Duda says he wants new taxes on the foreign-owned banks and supermarkets to protect Polish
interests, suggesting an approach similar to that of Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orbán. He also
wants banks returned to Polish control.
Jacek Kucharczyk, president of the Institute of Public Affairs, an independent thinktank in Warsaw,
said Poland's relations with other European powers would now depend on whether Duda sticks to the
relatively moderate agenda he campaigned on or embraces his party leader's more combative foreign
policy stance.
"That would be a nightmare scenario for Polish foreign policy, because it would mean getting into
conflicts with Germany and anti-EU stunts and aggressive rhetoric towards Russia," Kucharczyk said.
"We are in for a bumpy ride. The only question is how bumpy it will be."
Party supporters have been rejoicing since Duda's apparent victory was announced late on Sunday.
They say the party will do much more to help the many Poles who have not benefited from the
country's economic growth, those who face low wages and job insecurity despite a quarter of a
century of growth. In his campaign speeches, Duda often spoke of the more than 2 million Poles who
left in the past decade to seek better economic opportunities abroad.
...Now Poroshenko clearly understands that his country plays virtually no role, neither in the
EU nor NATO. Meanwhile, it becomes clear the future of the Eurozone. So far as the state is not
able to become an EU member, the prospect of accession to EU and adopting common currency is very
elusive. In other words, Western countries have excommunicated Ukraine from all associations to
which she had once dreamed of entering.
The fact is that the West is using Ukraine for their own geostrategic purposes, and the events
taking place in this country, created great economic hardships for Ukrainian people, hardships
that increase with each day. Flirting by opponents of Yanukovych with the United States, NATO and
the European Union caused a protracted crisis in the country, the conflict with Russia, the
growth of separatist movements in the East, armed clashes, mass death of Ukrainian citizens and
the reduction of GDP. However, Ukraine failed to achieve membership in NATO and the EU. In
other words, the cooperation of the Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians with the two organizations
turned into a complete fiasco.
In such conditions Poroshenko should be extremely concerned about his future and the future of
his government. It is quite obvious that in the event of any military conflict between Russia and
Ukraine NATO command, not having taken any formal obligations in respect of Kiev, will not
directly participate. They will only watch the fall of Kiev from the sidelines. By the way,
exactly the same thing happened in Georgia in 2008.
Then Mikhail Saakashvili stated that in the event of a military conflict between Moscow and
Tbilisi, NATO members will immediately defend Georgia. During the clashes, the representatives of
the Alliance really has condemned Russia's position, however, refrained from starting a direct
confrontation with her. In the end, Saakashvili raised the white flag, admitting complete
defeat in the Ossetian front.
If we return to the situation in Ukraine, we can say that now Poroshenko has lost the
ability even in the slightest degree to analyze the events occurring in his country.
Aggravates the current situation is that the White House and NATO have exploited weak Ukrainian
government. The fact that the West is using Ukraine for their own purposes, and the events taking
place in this country, created the conditions for Kiev to dteriarate ecomonically and
politically with weach day.
To date, the results of flirting opponents of Yanukovych with the United States, NATO and the
European Union caused a protracted crisis in the country, led to the conflict with Russia, the
growth of separatist movements in the East, armed clashes, mass death of Ukrainian citizens and
the alarming reduction of GDP. However, Ukraine failed to achieve membership in NATO and the EU.
The cooperation of the Pro-Western Ukrainian politicians with those two organizations turned into
a complete fiasco.
"...And don't forget folks: Porky and Yats and a host of other shits that are part of the Kiev
"government" repeatedly state that Russia is an aggressor state, is at war with the Ukraine and
has invaded its eastern territory, where the Russian army presence numbers thousands. And with the same
breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which previously supplied Russian
natural gas the Ukraine state owes billions."
"...Bear in mind, with their continuous shameless mendacity and double talk they may simply
be mimicking the behaviour of their mentors, whose blatant hypocrisy has long been evident,"
And don't forget folks:
Porky and Yats and a host of other shits that are part of the Kiev "government" repeatedly
state that Russia is an aggressor state, is at war with the Ukraine and has invaded its eastern
territory, where the Russian army presence numbers thousands.
And with the same breath they ask Russia for a discount on further gas supplies, for which
previously supplied Russian natural gas the Ukraine state owes billions.
They need a decent English proofreader: "by the end of the year" means a discount extension
should be agreed upon before this year ends.
What the RT headline should is, I suspect: "Ukraine asks to extend discount on Russian gas
up to the end of the year", meaning they want their present discount extended up to and including
31 December 2015.
Remember the "Are Slavs Stupid" thread of a while back?
I'm seriously beginning to believe that Ukrainians are, or at least many of their public figures
are, in that they consistently make contradictory statements in almost the same breath, which
might indicate that they have a very short memory span (surely a sign of being slow witted) or
that they are so stupid not to recognize that the clear stupidity of their contradictory statements
must surely be recognized by most people who are in possession of a normal intellect.
Bear in mind, with their continuous shameless mendacity and double talk they may simply
be mimicking the behaviour of their mentors, whose blatant hypocrisy has long been evident,
e.g. the statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal …"
was composed by slaveowners almost to a man, in that several of the Founding Fathers of the USA
were in possession of hundreds of human beings that were listed in their account books as personal
property and worked for them as slaves, namely George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
James Madison, and Patrick Henry were all slave-owners. And Hilary Clinton "misspoke" when saying
publicly that she had been fired upon by a sniper when arriving at Belgrade airport with her daughter;
not forgetting the US lies concerning Iran and Iraq, of course, and the destruction of the USS
Maine at Havana; and the role of the US Marine Corps in maintaining "freedom and Democracy" for
the benefit of United Fruit and Wall St. in Central and Southern America, as revealed by General
Smedly Butler …
Re: the video purportedly depicting the hanging of a Novorossiyan militant and his pregnant wife
– I have come around to thinking that it is a fake. Please
see my comments for explanation, at the original site which reported it, to save me copying
and pasting.
Mark, I will suspend judgment, but to add to the discussion, the angle at which the body leans
from the rope means nothing. For reference,
here's a hanged person
hanging vertically (Viewer discretion is advised).
The execution seems botched (intentionally
or not) in that they did not allow for enough acceleration to break the neck. Nevertheless it
shows the body is hanging vertically.
Here you see bodies hanging obliquely instead of vertically. No doubts this is another real
execution.
Because I am a physicist, let me comment on the acceleration problem too. A car of mass M_car
undergoing an acceleration a_car is subject to a force F = M_car * a_car.
When the rope goes into tension, the neck is subject to the same force M_car * a_car = F = m_body
* a_neck, so the acceleration on the neck is a factor M_car/m_body higher than that you see on
the car, so let's say a factor between 10 and 20 higher.
A final note (for now) is that the place has been clearly used for several executions (real
or fake, I don't know).
Thanks for the input! The clip you have included is apparently a real execution, and the behavior
is what you would expect in a case of asphyxiation. Little to no movement at first, as the victim
is holding his breath for as long as he can; if his arms were not bound his hands would be clawing
at the rope. The first time he tries to draw breath and cannot, just as if he drew in water when
drowning, the body takes over and fights for life. The slow kicking, drawing the legs up above
the waist, is what I would expect to see. In looking at the suspected fake again, the woman's
legs are not bound. If the neck was broken there might not be much movement, except for tremors
in the extremities that are not bound, as the man does with his legs. However, if his neck was
broken he would not hang as he does – what I am talking about, if you look even at the still photo,
is that the center of balance for his hanging body appears to be somewhere on his upper back rather
than his neck, his body hangs at an angle.
In the still photo, some of the bodies are bent at
the middle or have their legs at an angle – there's no way to know, but I suspect some of these
people may have still been alive when the photo was taken, and were struggling. They were likely
just standing on something which was kicked or pulled out from under them, so it is likely that
all choked to death. But if you look again at the still photo of the supposed militant, he is
up nearly as high as he can go without being pulled over the pole, and the rope does not appear
to be leading to his neck. In
this still photo, also from the Biskupia Gorka executions, the man's body hangs at an oblique
angle, but it is plainly because it is swinging. In the case of the alleged Novorossiya militant,
he is right up against the pole rather than hanging at the full extent of the rope, and his body
is not swinging.
You can't tell what happens after the vehicle pulls them off the ground, because the clip ends
– but in the case of snuff souvenirs, people usually want to capture the death agonies, which
leads me to believe all the exciting stuff was over. Then there's the timing; the Kiev regime
needs a distraction because it has run into a spot of negative publicity over Porky's recognition
of Nazi collaborators as heroes. At the same time, he does not dare rescind the law because it
is pandering to his base. However, it is difficult to imagine someone would carry that around
on their phone if it was a fake, knowing what would be the likely reaction if it were found. Which
leads me to suspect the individual did not know it was there.
Once again, it could be a real execution, but if so there is a lot of unusual behavior. I certainly
believe the fascist Kievan forces capable of it, but there have been a number of fakes which were
used by Kiev to say "See? The separatists constantly make up stuff about us to discredit us! Really
we are just regular guys". It pays to be suspicious. There is also someone in front of the couple,
conspicuously recording the execution on his phone, so the point will not be lost on the finder
of the clip. Obviously not the same phone that captured the clip, since it is featured in the
video.
I finally decided to watch that video of the militias hanging the couple. The two people seem
unusually still before the hanging. The bodies don't move much at all after the hanging and I
would have expected also that there would be pelvic spasms from both couples. The pregnant woman's
body would have started to expel the baby some time after her hanging yet the soldier holds onto
her legs and nothing much happens. It reminds me of that fake crucifixion scene we were discussing
in the forums before.
Also, the guy off to the side is not even watching. He walks back from the truck as if it is all
routine and does not even look at the couple. Either they execute people all the time, or it is
something they practiced and practiced.
I initially thought the clip cut off early, but in fact
it runs for some time and after the couple of little kicks from the man, he does not move at all.
It seems very unlikely that they would both be dead so quickly. But maybe I am just looking for
things wrong.
Also, the guy off to the side is not even watching.
This could be because it is a fake,
but it could also be because it is not the first execution. As I have written above, there is
clear evidence that the site has been used for several hangings – even though I cannot say whether
they were real or fake.
On second thought, I am not so sure anymore. Anyway my evidence is:
– the gallows is remarkably well built for a single execution
– the horizontal beam has several marks in the section between the two trees, but there are no
marks on the section to the left (hard to judge on the short right section)
– such marks are also present where the ropes are
So earlier I had concluded that the ropes
had been placed in different points of the beam (this would be normal if you were throwing a heavy
knot over it, because it is rather hard to hit always the same spot). Then a weight has been tied
to the ropes (to generate the needed tension) and finally the ropes have been pulled, thus leaving
marks on the beam.
At the end of the video there is a close-up where the beam is seen better. I'm curious to know
whether it's just my imagination shooting a movie from random tree marks.
I agree that it's hard to say. But the "gallows" is just a simple crossbeam, no great engineering
skill required to throw it up. Whether the hanging is a fake or whether they do this all the
time for real, they would have to practice a couple of times; really all you need to do to
hang a person is lift them until their feet are off the ground, but the vehicle takes them
in one smooth lift right to the bottom of the crossbeam, but not over it. Practice, and I imagine
they have a guide mark for the vehicle driver so he does not overshoot. rope marks in the bark
are conceivably from practice. They could move the vehicle forward two feet and those hanged
would be just as dead.
Everybody involved seems very casual, there is no evidence of tension
or of anticipation on the part of the captors. The prisoners do not struggle, but stand passively
and appear almost relaxed. There's no sound, so no way to tell if anything is said, but that
forces observers to rely on body language, and it looks odd.
The woman's movements bother me, though. That does look real. But she does not draw up her
legs at all or kick, and although it does not look like either of their necks were broken (from
the lack of change in position of their heads, although admittedly it is hard to tell with
a hood on), they seem to die in less time than you could hold your breath.
HUH??? a womb has to do a lot of serious contracting to expel the contents. If she's dead there
is no muscular contraction. All the muscles going floppy won't do it. Even bowel and bladder
control is not lost immediately; it may be hours.
Dear katkan:
I just saw your comment, only after I had already written mine.
So bowel/bladder control is not lost necessarily? I did not know that.
That is one of the things I dread most about dying myself – that I will make a mess that others
have to clean up.
@ Kat Kan: Well I assumed that in this particular situation, the pregnant woman looked as if
she was about to have the baby very soon so I thought the body would start to expel the baby
with blood supply being cut off to the womb and placenta while the mother was dying. If the
woman had been in an earlier stage of pregnancy then things would be different.
I didn't watch the video, I am too squeamish and can't bring myself to watch it, in case it
is real. Which I have a feeling it is. Just based on the meta-data of how the video was found.
There have been quite a lot of examples recently of people leaving trophey photos and vids
on their cellphones. It's the modern way. Just think back to 2008 and all the tropheys captured
by the Russian army in Gruzia, when they gathered up the cellphones of dead American mercenaries.
Anyhow, I read all the comments, and I think that one guy makes a good point, that the victims
would have lost bowel functions, which happens in real deaths. Although, if the victims were
starving and dehydrated, maybe not.
As for the pregnant woman expelling the baby, I don't think that happens right away.
I read about an American murder case where a pregnant woman was drowned by her husband. It
was only after several days of floating around in the ocean, the gases built up inside her
corpse and expelled the foetus from her womb. The foetus floated away and was found by divers,
which helped to solve the case. But they believe it didn't happen right away, the foetus stayed
inside her womb until the gases built up sufficiently to expel it. Once the victim is dead,
she is unable to push it out using her own muscles.
Sorry for being so graphic…
DPR spokesman said it was found on the dead infiltrator.
(a) he is lying and it is a DPR fake
(b) he is saying what he was told but whoever brought the phone was lying, and it was a DPR
fake done without the spokesman's knowledge, and not found on the dead body
(c) it was found on the body but didn't belong to him and the video is fake
. (i) every infiltrator has such a fake image, in case they're killed/caught with it
.(ii) only this one had a fake, in the hope he gets killed and the phone found, and they're
so lucky that the one carrying the phone gets killed
.(iii) one of the 2 surviving infiltrators (still being sought) planted the phone on the body
before himself running away
(d) the infiltrator took the video and it's fake (then there should be other copies around,
to be released anonymously)
(e) the infiltrator took the video and it is real, and just bad lock he got killed and the
video released
No previous atrocity video was released by the authorities; they've all shown up anonymously
on youtube, so could have been directly from the faker.
Placing fakes on random soldiers, hoping one gets killed and the phone found, is a very
hit and miss method of distributing propaganda that took some considerable work to set up.
It can't be placed on hundreds of phones, as if 2 copies are found at once that betrays the
fakery.
The Donbass side has no need of such a fake; the West is not looking and everyone else already
knows these guys are very bad and don't need further proof.
In WW2 the Brits did once send fake documents to the Germans by attaching them to a dead
body, to be washed up on a beach, to make it look authentic. But that was an important misdirection
of where a big attack was going to happen, not a low-value propaganda film.
Yes, all good points. I initially thought it was real, but a combination of things now makes
it seem like a fake to me. If two copies were found it might not necessarily expose it as a
fake unless they were identical; so long as they were not obviously from the same vantage point,
but of the same execution, one would likely tend to validate the other. However, something
I did not think about was the likelihood of such a clip being on someone's phone and them not
knowing, probably because I am emphatically not part of the cellphone-geek craze – how likely
is that, really? People are browsing through the stuff on their phones all the time. And it
is hard to imagine someone would carry around such incriminating evidence willingly, knowing
it depicted a faked execution.
Dear Mark:
Without having watched the video, for which I am too squeamish, I believe that we have to approach
this more scientifically, the way katkan does.
I think asking "Does it look real to you?" is not the right question. We are used to things
looking a certain way from watching movies; and sometimes when we see real life it looks fake
to us. So that's not the right way to approach this.
Not in terms of our own knowledge of
executions and physics and whatnot, of which most of us have no specialized knowledge; but
in terms of the evidence itself and how it is authenticated.
I think the logical points that katkan raises about the actual way the video was obtained,
pretty much convinces, and I think a court of law would accept that it was authentic, just
based on those points, and how the vid was found. Regardless of whether we think we know what
it looks like to die in this manner.
Real or not, the question remains as to why this video was placed on the dead soldier's cellphone,
and if there was deliberate intent behind the placing. Is the video intended to be screened
publicly in Russia with the aim of enraging the public enough to put pressure on Moscow to
invade the Donbass region or, if Moscow resists, to start Maidan-style demonstrations against
Putin?
The video seems to be of a piece with the fake crucifixion video: in each, something
that is supposedly considered sacred in Russian or East Slavic culture generally (whether it
actually is or not) is being violated. In one video, the central tenet of Christianity is being
upended and in the second, the sanctity of the family and motherhood is the subject of attack.
"... "Suspension of debt payments not coordinated with creditors results in a technical default, and in the case of Ukraine, it threatens to undermine Kiev's ability to attract private investment through EU programs," ..."
"... "It is rather clear that the IMF is assuming that Russia's $3 billion bond is included in this year's $5.2 billion financing from a 'debt operation'," ..."
Russia will appeal to the International Court of Justice if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko
signs a moratorium on the payment of Ukraine's external debt into law and fails to pay its debt to
Russia, said Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov.
Siluanov said Ukraine was virtually defaulting
on its debt, adding that Russia doesn't yet have grounds to lodge any claims. If Kiev fails to pay
$75 million in June, Moscow will use its right to appeal to the court, the Minister said.
The Ukrainian parliament has adopted a law allowing the country not to pay foreign debt to private
lenders, saying it needs to protect the ailing economy and people from "unscrupulous" creditors.
The bill says the $3 billion in Ukrainian Eurobonds purchased by Russia at the end of 2013 are
on the list of liabilities subject to a possible payment moratorium.
Experts agree that Tuesday vote meant a technical default for the country and would impede Ukraine's
ability to raise private investment from the EU and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
(EBRD) and the European Investment Bank (EIB), a European source told TASS on Wednesday.
"Suspension of debt payments not coordinated with creditors results in a technical default,
and in the case of Ukraine, it threatens to undermine Kiev's ability to attract private investment
through EU programs," the source said.
As part of the underpinning of Kiev's bailout plan, the International Monetary Fund said in March
that Russia would not receive the $3 billion bond repayment from Ukraine this year.
IMF is looking for cooperation from creditors to accept a restructuring on Kiev's debt. That includes
Russia.
"It is rather clear that the IMF is assuming that Russia's $3 billion bond is included in
this year's $5.2 billion financing from a 'debt operation'," said Charles Blitzer of Blitzer
Consulting and a former IMF staff member.
Poor Ukrainian citizens got back to 90th instead of EU...
Notable quotes:
"... and it is a bit too much like the assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would get the Russian people to blame Putin. ..."
The contraction in Ukraine's economy accelerated to 17.6% in the first quarter compared with a
year earlier, the State Statistics Service said Friday, hammered by a conflict with Russia-backed
separatists in its eastern industrial heartland that has slashed industrial output.
Gross domestic product for the period slid 6.5% from the final quarter of 2014, the agency said.
Ukraine reached a cease-fire deal with the separatists in February that has reduced--but not ended--fighting.
Talks over a longer-term political resolution to the conflict have stalled with each side blaming
the other.
The contraction was "a little bit worse than we estimated," according to Olena Bilan, chief economist
at Dragon Capital brokerage. She said the economy had also been damaged by shrinking domestic consumption
after the country's currency collapsed and inflation shot up. Retail spending was down 31% in March
compared with the same month last year, according to Dragon Capital.
Still, analysts said the contraction in the last quarter is likely to be the worst for the year,
as the economy's plunge began last summer as fighting picked up. Ukraine's government has forecast
a 5.5% contraction this year, but the World Bank said last month that Ukraine's economy would shrink
by 7.5%.
"In certain sectors are showing that the economy is testing the bottom," said Alexander Valchyshen,
head of research at ICU investment firm, citing transportation and agriculture as examples of industries
experiencing a turnaround. " Going forward I think the stronger decline we are having in the first
quarter, the stronger rebound in the second half of the year, because last year it was the second
half of the year when we started registering the collapse."
See also
Ukraine eyes strategic investors in sell-off of state-owned assets: Kiev
has drawn up a list of around 280 companies it hopes to privatise, earning up to 17 billion hryvnia
($821.26 million) in the process. The list includes three thermal power plants and 13 ports.
So Ukraine's GDP drop in 2015 is likely going to be over 20%. I recall Moody's, etc forecasting
a GDP drop of 2% for Ukraine and 6% for Russia. The 2% figure actually is looking more realistic
for Russia this year and is total BS if applied to Ukraine.
These numbers are full on depression ones. The USA's GDP went down 25% during the Great Depression.
I see Ukraine going down 30% and Ukraine was not doing so well before this disaster started.
First the observation – you suggest that the EU will come to blame America for the soured relationship
with Russia.
I think that's a little bit too simplified to properly describe what might occur in Europe
(I would imagine that only SOME EU members' populations will come to blame America, others will
blame Russia for the EU's soured relationship with Russia) and it is a bit too much like the
assumptions made by American and EU policy makers who originally thought that sanctions would
get the Russian people to blame Putin. Just as how that assumption was faulty, the assumption
that the EU will come to blame America could also probably be faulty and likely is given the deepset
Russophobia in many parts of Europe.
This piece is proposing a bit of a conspiracy theory; but also making a solid prediction,
that can proved or disproved in the short term.
The theory is this:
One of Vickie Nuland's tasks, in her recent trip to Kiev, was to groom a man named Sergei
Levochkin for the Prime Minister job. (to replace Yats).
Levochkin is a former Party of Regions type who was in Yanukovych government. Now he is
head of the so-called "Opposition Bloc".
Levochkin confirmed that, yes, he met with Nuland; and, yes, they discussed regulation of
the crisis in Donbass.
The theory is that Americans have not placed all their eggs in one basket; and that Opp Bloc
of former Regions is being groomed to take over Ukie government, since Porky & Co have failed
miserably. Nuland is said to be auditioning replacements for both Porky and Yats.
Again, this is all provable/disprovable, we just wait to see if it happens.
The more interesting aspect is: What will Russia do? Is Kremlin in on this conspiracy to throw
Porky under the bus (if indeed such a conspiracy exists)?
Everybody knows that Russia wasted years of time supporting Yanukovych government, and in fact
it was Russia that put all its eggs in Party of Regions basket. Will Russia now accept the return
of a basically Regions government; and if so, will they throw independent Donbass under the bus?
These are all questions that we await eagerly to see the answers.
The problem that West and first of all the USA and Germany face now is that Ukraine is another Greece.
To keep it afloat financially requires tremendous and continues investment. 40 billions from IMF is
only a start. Economic ties with Russia are destroyed. And without tens of billions of annual aid that
means death sentence. Allowing it to fail with shake Western financial system and we do
not know how many derivatives were written on Ukrainian debt and who holds them. . Looks like MentalToo was on duty for this article with support of usual gang. There was even
some backlash against "Hillary bots", specifically against alphamysh.
By paying a price I clearly meant the very expensive support for Ukraine that EU has to provide,
about 40 billion so far. The Ukraine's economy is down about 14% from just three years ago - this
is going to get very, very expensive.
If you want to compare Russia's and EU's losses due to sanctions, they have been very substantial
for both. EU has so far lost about 10 billion in exports and in the long run it is not clear who
will end up losing more. Russia's GNP will drop by 3% after years of high growth (more than double
in 10 years). EU has been largely stagnant and many countries there are still below where they
were in '09 (Italy, Spain, ...).
Finally, militarily all that matters is who has local superiority. Russia has it in eastern Ukraine.
You can squirm, hallucinate, cry all you want, there is no f...ing way that Nato can defeat Russia
there.
They know it, thus the coming deal.
Dannycraig007 -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 21:34
You would prefer I use the corrupt and obviously biased mainstream Western media as sources
I assume, rather than first person video accounts from the victims themselves? Award winning war
correspondent and Guardian journalist John Pilger has a few words for you.
http://www.discussionist.com/101459708
This is a must watch video about how the Western media operate from a man who was once a part
of the establishment here at the Guardian.
Standupwoman -> Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 17:08
Yep. I think my own Pollyanna moment is already beginning to seep away.
But the stakes are so high! NATO's revival of the 'hotline' has unilaterally put us back on a
Cold War footing, and at a time when the Doomsday clock is already set at 3 minutes to midnight.
Putin has shown incredible restraint so far, but if the provocations don't stop then I'm genuinely
worried about what might happen.
Bosula -> samanthajsutton 11 May 2015 20:43
Neither side is very open about what support it provides.
Russia says openly it doesn't stop volunteers from Russia, often family, cross the border to fight
with the East Ukrainians. They are also probably supplying weapons, but we don't really know.
And no Russian troops have been captured despite the huge battles. To capture a Russian soldier
in a fighting zone would be worth gold in terms of PR value.
The Eastern Ukrainian are having difficulties training all their volunteers (just too many) with
a million refugees, many based in camps in Russia, providing a fertile source of volunteers. The
West provides no humanitarian help - a short sighted strategic decision, maybe?
The US and their allies are also pretty secret about what support they provide - best estimates
are around 1,500 advisers, trainers - and 'volunteers' fighting alongside privately funded far
right militias and the Ukrainian army.
The US are not really in a position to take the self- righteous moral high ground in a civil
war tens of thousands of kilometres from their home.
nnedjo -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:17
What little influence US has on events in Ukraine is irrelevant.
Because of this "little influence" the whole Ukrainian government has become irrelevant. You
know, the fact that you do not see the strings that move their limbs does not mean that they are
not puppets on the strings. And that guys from Washington hold the ends of the strings, that's
probably clear to everyone after the cookies of Victoria Nuland. Or Toria, as poster Dipset called
her.:-)))
Funny guy that Dipset, wonder why he is not here yet.
Standupwoman 11 May 2015 20:09
'Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country'
Are we really sure of this? Yes, Kiev has predictably denied Russian claims that American troops
have been spotted in the Donbass, but the odd thing is that several pro-Kiev supporters have uploaded
this footage of American training under the following description:
In Severodonetsk, Luhansk region instructors from Georgia, Israel and the US carried out
military exercises with the soldiers of the special units of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
of Ukraine
Luhansk is in the ATO region - and Severodonetsk is very, very near to the front line.
geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 20:05
Irrelevant ...?
Just the CIA advisers, military trainers, $billions of dollars, political cover, a propaganda
machine.
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:59
Not proper interviews, are they? Just clips of sentences without knowing the question that
is being answered. They wrap narrative around the comment. Not one of those nine soldiers admits
to fighting in Ukraine, and the claim of written evidence from NGOs is negated towards the end
of the article with the caveat that 'Ukraine' wasn't actually mentioned in the NGO's documentary
evidence.
You're easily duped by propaganda.
Standupwoman -> ID5868758 11 May 2015 19:50
Understood. If governments had to actually fight the wars they started, the world would be
a very different place...
Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:35
If your still doubtful about what the Kiev regime do to people who post unflattering information
online, I present to you them demonstrating firsthand what happens when people step out of line.
Graphic warning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXnNDbJ7r0k&feature=youtu.be
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:31
"What about the guys in military uniforms with weapons, mortars, mines, grenades, anti-tank
weapons..."
What about them? They're defending themselves - the self-defence activists - after the Kiev regime
sent tanks and aircraft to attack the protesters in what they called an Anti-Terror Operation
as this example shows (see all four videos)..
Your question answers itself, in that the Kiev Regime have been tracking down people who post
videos on the internet and in social media that criticize the regime, hence the lack of video
out of Slavyansk now.
The Residents of Slavyansk have disappeared; the town is being re-populated with migrants from
Western Ukraine.
POSTED BY S. NAYLOR ⋅ AUGUST 14, 2014 ⋅ 27 COMMENTS
In Slavyansk, occupied by Ukrainian troops, the local residents have practically disappeared.
The town is being inundated with migrants speaking in a foreign dialect, who take over the housing
of those who left to escape the Ukrainian bombing campaign.
This is reported by one of very few residents of Slavyansk who, trusting Ukrainian official propaganda,
made the decision to return to his native city. The picture that he saw is terrifying. He realized
that the information about residents of Slavyansk returning home is nothing but a vile lie.
"Please, heed our plea! The people have disappeared from Slavyansk!
"I am a native of Slavyansk, residing here already for twenty-seven years. Or better to say 'I
was residing', having left the town three months ago, when it was becoming dangerous to stay.
During this time I found refuge with relatives in Odessa. I made a decision to return when all
the Ukrainian media started saying that everything in Slavyansk was back to normal, that over
sixty percent of residents have come back.
"In the three months of my absence my apartment remained untouched by shells from the junta's
bombardment or by its marauding thugs. I had already started to unpack when I heard the sound
of my neighbour's doors opening across the hallway. I thought it must have been my neighbour,
Sergey Ivanovich, but then I saw a young man unknown to me. To my question about his identity
he replied that he was Sergey Ivanovich's son.
geedeesee -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:27
Here's an example:
Slaviansk: 10 self-defense activists and some 30 unarmed civilians killed
Can you tell us how many people have been killed in Slayvansk?
Dannycraig007 -> mlubiank 11 May 2015 19:06
Here's another video for you that proves the Kiev regime are Nazis as it shows them marching
through Kiev in uniform holding the Waffen SS Wolfsangel flag and was filmed by Poroshenkos very
own Chanel 5 TV outlet.
The rest of the hour and a half long video is a bloodbath showing them killing hundreds of
innocent civilians. Get back to me after you've cleaned your conscience.
Investors, such as Franklin Templeton and George Soros' Foundation, who planned to make blood
money and placed their bets off of the inside information right before the coup back in November
2013, have a combined $7 billion at stake in Ukraine.
The IMF is trying to convince them to take a haircut on the massive amount and get put on the
back burner for the time being, but Russia put it's $3 billion loan in strict terms back in 2012
and has payback priority.
Those human flesh eating Western sharks want their money. This makes those 1%ers and their
IMF vassals very upset as they didn't actually expect to lose money......they thought they were
gonna double their billions with the rape of Ukraine. Now it's hard earned.
Standupwoman ID5868758 11 May 2015 18:41
I completely understand that. It's a very sensitive subject, and must be far more so for those
with personal experience.
Part of the problem is the difference between what we knew then and what we know now. At the time,
as you say, we all thought My-Lai was a 'one-off' by a few bad apples, but now so much material
has been declassified a very different picture has emerged.
BUT there's still a world of difference between 'a lot' and 'all', and we must never allow
those war crimes to taint the reputation of the good soldiers, or to belittle what they endured.
It is indeed wrong to apply excessively broad brush-strokes, and I want to apologize to you personally,
because I think in my post I was guilty of doing just that.
SoloLoMejor -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:40
Yep all good points and there's definitely some push back from Merkel and Hollande. I just
don't think the US can relinquish control of our military or monetary systems as would happen
if Europe developed independently and naturally became close to European Russia. This is a superpower
making sure that it stays a superpower. That said, this is Europe & Russia, not the under developed
middle East so they may not get it all their own way but 6000 lives so far is tolerable collateral
damage for them
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 18:37
There are 1,000 American, British, Polish and Canadian troops in Ukraine. Officially. Plus
endless civilian advisors, agents, private security companies, etc...
Maybe Russians have more people there, but it is after all on their border.
"given control of Ukraine's border back to Ukraine, in contravention of the Minsk II agreement"
No. The Minsk II specifically says that the border will be returned to Kiev control AFTER the
Donbass area gets autonomy. Where is the "autonomy"? You can't cherry-pick from an agreement.
If Nato steps over the line in Ukraine, as they are about to do, the nuclear option will be on
the table. It is absolutely horrible, but that's where we are heading. Try to get your head out
of your behind to understand what is going on there - it is playing with a huge fire on the border
of a nuclear power that said they will not allow Nato missiles 400 km from Moscow. You want to
test them?
nnedjo -> Tattyana 11 May 2015 18:32
I believe there is no need in any meetings for any further escalation as well.
That's right, Tattyana, that's exactly what I said. My only criticism was related to Miss Marie
Harf, who apparently recited a prepared statement, which aims only to reduce the importance of
the visit of John Kerry to Russia.
By the way, a true pleasure for me is to watch the exchange of opinions between US spokeswoman
Marie Harf and her favorite "reporter", Matt Lee, at the State Department press conferences.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Marie+Harf+Matt+Lee
Standupwoman -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 18:23
Yes, that all makes good sense - but I still think personal integrity can have an (admittedly
tiny) role to play. Carter is a case in point.
I'm even (don't laugh!) inclined to extend that to Obama. Yes, he's technically responsible for
this mess, and he must have supported Nuland and Pyatt in the original coup, but I still think
things would be very much worse if either Biden or HRC had been at the helm.
Obama (like Putin) has hawks screaming at him for being weak, but the fact he's holding out
suggests there's a little shred of integrity still there.
It's not much, but it's all we've got. Sometimes it feels as if the whole world is screaming
for war, and in the centre is this little patch of stillness where two men are holding firm against
the madness. If anything happens to either Barack Obama or Vladimir Putin then I think we really
are sunk.
geedeesee -> SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 18:22
Yes, there clearly is a strategic plan being played out, though I don't think it has gone to
plan for the Americans. The release of the Nuland/Hyatt phone call obviously came from Russian
intelligence, which was an embarrassment for US. I suspect this is all a prelude to the coming
clash for stakes in Arctic oil. There are a number of competing nations but US probably wants
to minimise Russian access.
However, there is a lot of strain within the EU at the moment, and we know the views of EU
leaders were disregarded by Nuland last year ("Fvck the EU").
It's possible the whole thing has gone far enough for EU leaders (see link below to comments
identifying reasons) and they're pushing back on US behind the scenes to cool it down now.
See the original post by Beckow and replies. Link direct to individual comment number:
Although the 300 US trainers are operating in the west of the country, well away from the conflict
zone, Russia has questioned their purpose.
So I do not see how it could be otherwise. Had the US sent their "trainers" in the conflict
zone in the east of Ukraine, it is possible that in that case Russia would not complain at all.
In that case, Russia would also send their "trainers" who would soon be found "in the west
of the country [Ukraine], well away from the conflict zone".:-)))
normankirk -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 18:04
and the German gold still locked up in US vaults
Popeyes 11 May 2015 17:53
Once again on Saturday Putin completely outclassed the West, and the decision by Western leaders
to stay away in the end showed their total irrelevance.
Closer ties between China and Russia is Washington's worst nightmare, and a very different
new World Order is emerging from the rubble of the post-Cold War period. Today Russia proposed
that Greece become the 6th member of a new Development Bank set up by the BRINCS, and with some
European leaders desperate to end sanctions things are not going as planned for the empire.
Dannycraig007 -> Bradtweeters 11 May 2015 17:52
Oh, I'm an 'authentic' Guardian reader alright. i'm on my 20th account after being constantly
banned this past year for posting the truth about Ukraine. And when they bane me again I'll be
right back. True Brits don't give up so easily.
ID5868758 -> Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 17:51
Well, it's printed in English only, given away free in places like the Metro and coffee houses,
so it's not like it's the Russian equivalent of the New York Times, to begin with. My son says
it's read mostly by ex-pats in Russia, tourists, that kind of audience, it's certainly not anything
that Russians read on a regular basis.
ID5868758 -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:45
Good grief, what fiction. Vladimir Putin's only problem is that he is not Boris Yeltsin,
opening the door to the international banks and the multinational corporations to continue their
rape of the assets and resources of the Russian people. He is slowly but surely returning
Russia to Russians. Contrast that to Ukraine, going in the opposite direction, with the privatization
of the assets and resources of the people just beginning, and the predators like Monsanto, Cargill,
Chevron, banging at the gate.
normankirk -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:44
Oh I know! its his nature! He can't help it! And vindictively, at home, he's raised the standard
of living and life expectancy! the bastard, only a lunatic would do so.And when he walks among
the people he's forcing them ... at gunpoint!.... to put on forced smiles you can tell by looking.
he.s a maniac! getting Assad to give up his chemical stores! crazy!
Kaiama -> BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 17:43
There was some indication that the ships could not be sold without the explicit permission
of the Russians - probably because they provided the middle part of the hull and if they were
feeling bad have the right to ask for it to be cut out and given back to them.
nnedjo 11 May 2015 17:42
"This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman
Marie Harf said in a written statement.
I do not see what it was unclear so far in the views of the State Department at the Ukrainian
crisis. I mean, if John Kerry is going to Sochi to repeat the usual accusations against Russia,
which US officials have said so far, then there's really no need for him to go to Russia only
because of this, nor Putin is interested to hear it one more time.
Thus, rather it will be some other reason behind this visit, about which we can now only guess.
And none of us is so naive to believe that the Ukrainian crisis can be resolved without direct
negotiations between the United States and Russia. So, either to make a deal, or to enter a further
escalation of the military conflict.
I am inclined to believe that the latter, less predictable solution, is not in anyone's interest.
Kaiama -> Metronome151 11 May 2015 17:41
Maybe, but if the US did cut Russia off of SWIFT for instance, the Russians have already said
that they would regard it as a declaration of "war". The US might start it but the Russians will
definitely finish it.
MichaPalkin -> salthouse 11 May 2015 17:40
It finally happened: A REAL nutjob.
Now why don't you put your money where you mouth is, you pos and go join the fight against Putin
yourself um?.. See? Told ya.
geedeesee -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:31
On the glimmer of hope, I think you maybe right, though its early days. History books on 20th
century show that when there's been a stand-off for sometime an intermediary, or unofficial envoy,
is often sent to explore the basis for talks. And the history books also show confidence-building
measures are used, such as making an announcement via the media acknowledging part of the grievance
of the other side which can use for domestic purposes.
This happened with the IRA talks, for example, both in 1970s and 1990s. Last week Jimmy Carter
visited Putin in Moscow, not on its own remarkable, but what suggested this wasn't an initiative
of his own volition was the interview he gave to Voice of America (official US Gov. channel) immediately
after the meeting in Moscow - indicating they'd travelled with him.
The narrative is for the press and the accompanying 45 second video of Carter saying all the
right things for the Russians can be used by Russian TV/media in news reports.
You'll be disappointed if you look for integrity with the players at this level, because it doesn't
exist. They have their plans and self-interests; integrity doesn't come into it.
Dannycraig007 -> dmitryfrommoscow 11 May 2015 17:30
The Moscow Times is actually operated out of Scandinavia and their readership has been dropping
due to the obvious anti-Russian propaganda.
ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 17:27
Well, My-Lai was, of course, just a horrific example of evil behavior on the part of a few
of our troops, but Kerry came home and, without personal knowledge, painted the entire military
with the same broad brush, made up stories, and just so disgraced himself with this nation that
he would never have won a Senate seat if he had not run in Massachusetts.
I still to this day cannot listen to him speak for more than a few minutes at a time, his betrayal
of the men who were fighting and dying in the hellhole that was Vietnam will stay with me forever.
dmitryfrommoscow -> Havingalavrov 11 May 2015 17:26
The Moscow Times is one of those pro-Washington mouthpieces which, according to the claims
by Putin's critics, have been ruthlessly wiped out of the scene.
SoloLoMejor 11 May 2015 17:15
I saw the Merkel Putin press conference in full. Merkel fully acknowledged and apologised for
the horrors inflicted on the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany, and quite rightly.
When asked specifically about what she still blamed Russia for with respect to Minsk she became
a lot less clear and rambling and very non specific. I couldn't make out what her beef was although
I really wanted to know.
She's going to need some very clear reasons to reinstate EU sanctions on Russia and the phrase
Shaun Walker regurgitates in virtually every piece he writes, "mounting evidence" of Russian involvement
(but without producing any) won't be enough this time round.
MichaPalkin -> alpamysh 11 May 2015 17:15
l though I find your comments stupid, and what is absolutely amazing is that guests such as
you have had zero effect on anything.
Some fascist parties did once praise you and still do, ahem, "purely for the funding you was willing
to give". Some grammar problems here eh.
But this has had no effect on nothing, or the policy of the EU in general.
One does not even see you loonies demonstrating in the street, shouting "hail" to Poro & Co."
Poro's only real "western" base of support comes from RFE and probably Guardian. Even Americans
begin having their reservations now.
Period
Indeed, we may well have all your clownish incompetence to thank for your highly unsuccessful
trolling.
OK, klopets?
John Smith -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 17:06
You can forget about Crimea.
Nothing will come out from this talks because the US will not let off their 'great prize'
as the NED head called it. Unfortunately for Ukrainians.
ID5868758 -> Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:31
Standupwoman, I rarely disagree with you, but as an American who lived through Vietnam as the
wife of a Marine Corps officer, and the sister of a brother in country as a cryptologist, may
I just tell you that John Kerry's actions in front of Congress were not seen by most as heroic
at all, not borne of courage and integrity, especially since he had spent only a very short time
in country, and had awarded himself 2 or 3 purple hearts, but strangely enough, has no scars of
those wounds remaining today. He lied, it was a performance that caused much of America to shun
him even today, and that's the truth.
Igor1980 -> GoodOldBoy1967 11 May 2015 16:29
I am in Sochi now, a navy ship is patrolling the area of the Residence and many police cars
can be seen. It is not surprising . I was surprised by the number of cars with Ukrainian license
plates. The hosts say that many Ukrainian citizens moved to the area on the coast with their money.
Standupwoman -> cabaret1993 11 May 2015 16:22
I agree. If this were HRC rather than Kerry I'd think we were doomed. Do you remember her hilariously
rabble-rousing claim that Putin had no soul - 'He's KGB, it's a given!' - and Putin's dry response?
That woman ought never to have been allowed within a hundred miles of foreign affairs, and if
she ever becomes President then it'll be time to start stocking up on the potassium iodide...
Igor1980 -> Beckow 11 May 2015 16:12
Great and sober analysis. The reality is harsh for both parties and very painful for the
USA: the people in the West are not ready to die for the cause of the American dominance.
It is easy to hate Putin, it is difficult to sacrifice your lives in a war to punish Russia
for a little border change in the most unpleasant part of Eastern Europe.
MaoChengJi -> DogsLivesMatter 11 May 2015 16:11
state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said in a written statement
That's just standard bs. What do you expect them to say.
Standupwoman 11 May 2015 16:06
Maybe I'm having a Pollyanna moment, but I wonder if there isn't just the littlest, tiniest
glimmer of hope in this. The fact the US is prepared to talk to Russia on its own ground is definitely
a step in the right direction, and the fact it's John Kerry is even better.
Because Kerry was once an honest man. Back in 1971 he testified to Congress about American war
crimes in Vietnam, and showed the kind of courage and integrity it's almost impossible to mention
in the same sentence as 'politician'. He talked openly about the everyday reality of rapes, torture,
desecration of the dead, and killing civilians for fun – the American toolbox we're all familiar
with in Afghanistan and Iraq, but which in 1971 was genuinely shocking news. Nationalists hated
him, but I think he showed genuine American patriotism when he explained: 'We feel that because
of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it - not the Reds, not redcoats,
but the crimes which we're committing are what threaten it – and we have to speak out.'
OK, he's a politician now, and his words have frequently been used against him to show the hypocrisy
of his support for America's current wars, but deep down he's still in some way the same man he
was then. He and Lavrov certainly used to have a good relationship until he made that unbelievably
stupid remark about Russians 'lying to his face'.
That kind of populist rudeness plays well with the 'Murica, F*ck yeah!' mob, but grown-up countries
tend to choose a calmer, more courteous approach when it comes to negotiations which could lead
to the threat of nuclear war. Kerry will need to apologize for that (even if only in private)
if he hopes to get in the same room as President Putin.
But maybe he will. Maybe he'll even confound the words of that Psaki-Manqué Harf and actually
listen as well as talk. If he does, and if there's any integrity left in him, then maybe, just
maybe, there'll really be a chance of peace.
PlatonKuzin -> oleteo 11 May 2015 16:03
The Ukies think that the US and EU do them gifts for granted. And they were very suprised
as they knew that, for example, in Poland, an organization named "Restitution of Kresy" was established
that in the nearest future will expropriate, from Ukraine, the property belonging to the Poles.
And more than 100,000 such Poles are now ready to start proceedings to return their property
from there.
Dannycraig007 -> PlatonKuzin 11 May 2015 15:57
Agreed on the 50,000. I am just citing the US/MSM 'official' number. I have been keeping up
with the real numbers also. Petri Krohn has done a great job establishing a proper count of the
dead form various events and battles. The majority of those 50,000 dead are Ukrainian conscripts
and Kievs Baghdad Bob intentionally played the numbers way down in order to not have to pay dead
soldiers families and hide the truth of the war, which the US and EU media simply parroted with
no investigation whatsoever. Here's a link to the numbers:
The US could have prevented all this by keeping there nose out of Ukraine . In the words of
Obama we brokered the change of government in Ukraine.
Now their are 6000 plus people dead . east of Ukraine destroyed, Crimea gone never
to return.
Only the US could imagine you could get away with this.\
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:54
Hmmm...don't fool yourself, he meant the Maidan crowd in Kiev. The problem Kiev government
has is that as economy gets worse, the large cities like Kharkov, Odessa, etc... will become ungovernable.
Except through brute force.
How do you "join EU" if you have to be suppressing large portion of your population? I am
sure EU would love to look the other way, but the cognitive dissonance might get too much, with
YouTube, refugees, etc...
Captain_Underpants 11 May 2015 15:52
Kerry will offer to swap Ukraine for Assad's head + no S300 missiles to Iran + sanction relief.
Putin and Lavrov will tell Kerry to stick the offer where the sun don't shine and then it's back
to square one.
Obumbler won't be involved, he's too busy on the golf course, watching the NBA playoffs, and making
hollow speeches filled with platitudes about race issues and police violence.
Meanwhile back in the increasingly irrelevant Euroweenie land, the NSA-compromised Frau Merckel
has a desk and a phone and will do as told by her masters
Dannycraig007 -> DIPSET 11 May 2015 15:47
I'd still like to see what those US spy satellites saw the day MH-17 was shot down. They first
said they had proof Russia did it, then they went quiet, then they relied on social media BS,
then they said they had a drunk Ukrainian that made a confession that the rebel put on Ukrainain
uniforms, then they stayed quiet. All the while they had ships in the Black Sea monitoring that
airspace and they had AWACS flying over Europe.
They obviously know what really happened but they have chosen no to show that 'evidence'....there
can only be one reason.......because it implicates the Kiev regime...and thereby....themselves.
geedeesee -> MentalToo 11 May 2015 15:42
"...the army of Ukraine is not at war with "protesters"."
Yes they are, they called it an Anti-Terror Operation and not war against an army. The facts are
against you. Hard luck. ;-)
Dannycraig007 -> MaoChengJi 11 May 2015 15:40
Many people have no idea that Merkels father was in the Hitler youth. Sad but true fact. Hence,
maybe that partly explains her allegiance to Ukraine.
Horst Kasner
Biography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horst_Kasner
Kasner was born as Horst Kaźmierczak in 1926, the son of a policeman in the Pankow suburb of Berlin,
where he was brought up. His father Ludwig Kaźmierczak (born 1896 in Posen, German Empire) - died
1959 in Berlin) was born out of wedlock to Anna Kazmierczak and Ludwik Wojciechowski.[1] Ludwig
was mobilised into the German army in 1915 and sent to France, where he was taken prisoner of
war and joined the Polish Haller's Army fighting on the side of Entente.[2] Together with the
army he returned to Poland to fight in Polish-Ukrainian war and Polish-Soviet war.[3] After Posen
had become part of Poland, Ludwig moved with his wife in 1923 to Berlin, where he served as a
policeman, and changed his family name to Kasner in 1930.
Little is known about Horst Kasner's wartime service, and he was held as a prisoner of war at
the age of 19. During his high school years he was a member of the Hitler Youth, with the last
service position of a troop leader.[citation needed] From 1948 he studied theology, first in Heidelberg
then in Hamburg. He married Herlind Jentzsch, an English and Latin teacher, born on 8 July 1928
in Danzig (now Gdańsk, Poland) as the daughter of Danzig politician Willi Jentzsch, and their
daughter Angela was born in 1954.
PlatonKuzin -> Kaiama 11 May 2015 15:38
There is another side of this medal: Novorussia said that, if Ukraine violates the ceasefire
one more time, the Army of Novorussia will make no stops any longer and will free Kiev.
Beckow -> MichaPalkin 11 May 2015 15:35
Threats are simply a part of making deals. When one threatens, there is an implicit understanding
of what the alternatives are. It is how countries negotiate.
Look at it from Russia's point of view: they prefer to deal with useless twats. Putin has been
smart to keep all his threats, options and deals to himself. He speaks very diplomatically and
applies pressure on the ground. There is a Russian saying: "let the punishment tell" - that's
what Russia is doing and it drives the likes of Kerry crazy.
Unless US escalates into a nuclear confrontation, Russia has the upper hand in the long run.
That was obvious from the beginning. So the question is why did Peace Price Winner do this? Why
did he start? Is he and people around him that stupid or that desperate? I hope, it is just stupidity.
"Poro & Co would be applying for the political asylum in the US" - that's going to happen anyway,
but I think Canada will take the bulk of them...
Beckow -> Alderbaran 11 May 2015 15:24
Let's be clear: Kerry is flying in with a proposal to review with Lavrov. If Russia accepts,
Kerry will meet Putin. If not, we will know that sh..t is about to escalate - on both sides.
Regarding "military involvement": both sides are heavily militarily involved with arms, training,
"advisors" of all kinds, intelligence, logistics. And both sides downplay it ("lie", if you prefer).
Why is that even an issue? Or "news"?
It is infantile to discuss it. In a war there is always "military involvement". And this is
a war, has been for about a year, this is the way wars are fought now (see Syria, Libya, etc...).
And yes, of course Putin can change weather. Anyone with enough nukes can.
BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 15:15
Looks like India's participation in the Moscow parade is also paralleled by the cutting of
80% of the French fighter order (remembering that the govt. in New Delhi stated several months
ago that its confidence in France as a supplier would be related to its vulnerability to political
pressuring vis a vis the RU ships that will end-up being scrapped or bought by by a third party,
and it might be that said party, if also participating in said parade, might sell in turn to RU
for a 'cut'). IDK if this is related, big new orders from India for SU's:
These cannot be made in Russia, in any event, as Russia is entirely isolated.
Dannycraig007 11 May 2015 15:09
The US has really hurt itself with the WW2 remembrance ceremony snub. Russia won't be soon
forgetting what the US has been doing in Ukraine and Europe either. After all the 7,000 people
killed by the Kiev regime that came to power through the US backed coup were all ethnic Russian
Ukrainian civilians. So many lives could have been saved if only the US would have allowed federalization
of the obviously ethnically diverse regions of the country.
For those that missed it, here's link to the amazing WW2 Red Square commemoration concert. It
truly was a sight to behold.
Turn Ukraine into a federation. Of a rich pro western part that is member of the EU and a poor
pro Russian part that is member of the Eurasian Union.
In ten years time the East Ukrainians will have had enough of their Russian propaganda-ridden
life without a decent standard of living. We will then have another Euromaidan, but this time
in Donbass.
History always discloses propaganda lies. In the end the people of Donbass will understand they
have been used by Russia for its geopolitical games. And chose for a prosperous future in Europe
as well.
Beckow -> geedeesee 11 May 2015 14:14
Yes, there are huge problems.
But if US accepts a de facto defeat in Ukraine, they are done in many other places too.
My guess is that they will try to weasel out of it by offering a deal to Russia:
- US backs down, Kiev goes back in the box (over time), things quiet down, BUT no victory
speeches or remarks by Russia. US has to be able to maintain that they "won".
It is a disease for insecure people. They fear being seen as losers more than anything else.
Thus we might still see the fire-works if Russia refuses to oblige.
vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:09
"Unfairly blaming Russia for the crisis in Ukraine, which was actually in the main provoked
by the US itself, Obama's administration in 2014 went down the road of ruining bilateral links,
announced a policy of 'isolating' our country on the international stage, and demanded support
for its confrontational steps from the countries that traditionally follow Washington."
Why does the press want us feel so amazed about this quote? What part of it isn't true?
1. US did and does blame Russia for crisis in Ukraine.
2. US did provoke the crisis.
3. US did go down the road of ruining bilateral links.
4. It did announced a policy of "isolation."
5. And it did demand support for its steps from other countries in Europe.
Putin actually appears to be a straight talker.
vr13vr -> caliento 11 May 2015 14:05
"The first question asked should be... "
Kerry doesn't get to ask questions as if he were running a deposition. He can talk politely
and be nice. Outside of the US police TV show and court drama, nobody in the world allows anyone
to speak like this, especially in the diplomatic talks with Russia.
vr13vr 11 May 2015 14:03
"Russia believes that the US is meddling in Ukraine..."
No, it's not just Russia believes. It is a fact. And everyone knows it, not just Russia.
geedeesee -> Beckow 11 May 2015 13:46
Add to your list:
EU unity under considerable strain. Divisive issues on it's plate include Greece and Grexit, UK
referendum and possible Brexit, UK Human rights exit, unresolved Eurozone crisis, migrant quotas,
all made worse by further US spying revelations and German betrayal of EU businesses to the benefit
of US companies.
Putin now supporting/funding anti-EU parties in Europe.
MH17 report and voice recorder info, clearly delayed for political reasons, is due this summer.
Obama administration needs cooperation at UNSC on Iran nuclear deal.
Putin supplying arms to Iran is giving Obama more problems from Netanyahu.
If Obama has plans for a last attempt at cracking Israel/palestine then he'll need as much international
support as he can muster.
Russia opening spying and military bases in Vietnam, Cuba, Venezuela and Nicaragua.
BunglyPete 11 May 2015 13:46
Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda
exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war,
That suggests that it is equivalent to the RFE/RL campaigns of the Cold War.
The reports they produced in 1984 relating to showing the Ukrainian nationalists in a good light
were described by Richard Pipes as "blatant anti-semitic propaganda". Not my words, the words
of Richard Pipes.
These same reports are reprinted today in the Guardian and if you disagree you are a "Putin propagandist".
Even though Richard Pipes agrees that it is distasteful propaganda.
Other activities involved sending millions of balloons across eastern Europe, campaigns in the
US to ask for "Truth Dollars" to fund said balloon campaigns, leaflets pretending to come from
a fictional resistance organisation intended to militarise citizens against their governments,
and much much more. There are many books and articles on the subject.
Senator Royce said in May 2014, in an instruction to Victoria Nuland at a senate subcommitee hearing,
he wants them "producing the stuff they did years ago". Indeed they granted more money than they
did during the cold war to BBG campaigns.
In comparison to the rather pathetic RT, the US campaigns are far more serious in scope and effects.
madeiranlotuseater 11 May 2015 13:27
and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed," state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said
in a written statement
In other words, do as the USA says or we shall continue to hound you.
"Russia has engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda
exercise that I've seen since the very height of the cold war," Kerry said in February. "And
they have been persisting in their misrepresentations, lies, whatever you want to call them,
about their activities to my face, to the face of others, on many different occasions."
There speaks the nation that admits to being involved in forcing regime changes all over the
world since 1947. To arm twisting and invading Iraq on the basis of a known lie. If Mr Kerry believes
he has been lied to he should present his evidence. We can all relax then. But he doesn't. He
says to trust him to tell the truth. Why should we. The USA is a massive war machine intent on
ruling the world. China and Russia are not interested in being bullied.
Beckow -> deathbydemocracy 11 May 2015 12:53
I see that even indirect criticism of the media coverage is not allowed. Interesting, but somehow
understandable.
DIPSET 11 May 2015 12:31
First when they thought they thought they were "winning" they did not want to talk and
instead, instructed their media to do the talking for them.
Okay.
Then reality happened hahaha
As a consequence, we now have all sorts of chatter coming out of Washington and the urgent need
to talk to Russia. So now it's......
Let's "talk" about East Ukraine
Let's "talk about Iraq
Let's "talk" about Syria
Let's "talk" about Yemen
Let's "talk about Iran
Lets "talk" about Latin America
Funny how seeing China and Russia stand next to each other has sharpened some minds across
the Atlantic.
Pity they could not "talk" before Crimea was 'liberated' right in front of the American satellites
circling in space lol
;-)
Fascinating times
Ilja NB 11 May 2015 12:28
Which mounting evidence ??? I haven't seen a single one provided ?
**The Russian foreign ministry said: "We continue to underline that we are ready for cooperation
with the US on the basis of equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and that Russian interests
are taken into account without attempting to exert pressure on us."**
Of-course USA will never agree with it, since USA wants to put it's nose in everyone's affairs.
BMWAlbert -> BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:55
Mr. Semenchenko is clearly referring to Greater Ukraine here that extends east into the Kuban,
including some buffer areas around the mount Elbrus region (intruded upon on this 2008 occasion)
to the south, and north to the Middle Don and Upper Donets basins, to include Beograd and steppe
lands east of Voronezh.
Beckow -> miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:40
Kerry is going to make a deal. Probably surrender after one more chest-beating threat. If Putin
doesn't meet him (also possible), we will have a very hot summer in Ukraine. And maybe elsewhere.
Beckow 11 May 2015 11:34
Kerry is going for a reason, and it is not to restate US views. The reality is:
- Ukraine cannot win the war in its east
- Ukraine is going bankrupt
- EU has just basically said no to Ukraine in EU for foreseeable future (decades?)
- EU denied visa-free access for Ukrainians
- the whole f...ing adventure in Kiev is getting really, really expensive
- time is on Russia's side, they can sit and watch Kiev collapse or West spending billions
to prop it up
- EU cannot currently survive without Russia's gas. Russia has deals with China and Turkey,
in 3 years EU will be screwed or pay a lot, lot more
These realities on the ground drive US crazy. They don't like to deal with reality, it
is too hard. They prefer the fantasy play world where US is god-like, others are scared and geography,
resources and other realities are wished away. Infantile. Stupid. Self-defeating. Russia is actually
doing US a favor by bringing them back to the real word.
I feel sorry for the Ukrainians; they will suffer for years enormously. They rebelled against
a miserable life, were used by a few hustlers from Washington, Berlin and a few Polish ultra-nationalists,
now they will pay for it all. Those are the wages of naivete...
emb27516 miceonparade 11 May 2015 11:32
Yes, especially if they wrestle.
BunglyPete 11 May 2015 11:32
"Mr Putin, look at these images provided to our Senator Inhofe, from Mr Semenchenko of Ukraine's
official government designation to Washington.
As you can see, these images from Georgia in 2008 clearly show you invaded Ukraine last year.
We feel these images prove the invasion so strongly, Senator Inhofe wrote a bill authorising arms
to Ukraine, and we passed this quite easily.
What, Mr Putin, will you do about this? If you continue to send tanks to Georgia in 2008 then
we will assume you have no interest in fulfilling the terms of Minsk accord and will enact necessary
measures to ensure the stability of Ukraine."
alsojusticeseeker Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:27
"He may be a son of a b..., but he is our son of a b...". Just another typical example
of US hypocrisy.
BMWAlbert 11 May 2015 11:25
If only his brain were as big as his hair (obviously, not the bald one).
warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:25
"Western leaders mainly boycotted the parade in protest at Russia's actions in Ukraine."
Aka people's will in Crimea, and Russian people's will to help Donbass, they are not exactly hiding
it there are donation kiosks all over the country almost in every major city. Not on government
level though. There are no on duty Russian troops in Ukraine.
RudolphS 11 May 2015 11:24
So, Barry is too chickenshit to go to Russia himself?
Jeremn 11 May 2015 11:19
Americans should be asking why their government is supporting a Ukrainian governmnet which
honours veterans of an insurgency which massacred Poles, Jews and Russians across Ukraine in 1943
and 1944.
Here they are, members of the UPA-OUN. Rehabilitated by Poroshenko's governmnet. It was an organisation
which formed the Nachtigall Battalion, in German service, and tasked with clearing the Lvov ghetto,
and which took men from SS auxiliaries (Schutzmannschaft Battalion 201), which cleared Belarus
of partisans and Jews.
Most notoriously, the UPA ran a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Poles in Ukraine, killing
some 100,000 of them (mostly women and children).
So there are the veterans, in Ukraine's parliament.
Here's a history of one of their
massacres.
America, you should know.
Steve Ennever 11 May 2015 11:15
"The US has placed several rounds of sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine"
It has indeed. And badgered Europe into sanctioning Russia further. All of which
has affected the US little but has been an immense pain economically for it's "allies."
Strangely though, in 2014, business between the US & Russia actually increased by 7%.
Honestly, you get taken for a ride as recently as Iraq & Libya & you still don't learn a thing.
StatusFoe11 May 2015 11:08
"This trip is part of our ongoing effort to maintain direct lines of communication with
senior Russian officials and to ensure US views are clearly conveyed,"
i.e. "If you don't do what we say and submit to our will there'll be more costs."
warehouse_guy 11 May 2015 11:00
"While Washington has pointed to mounting evidence of Russian military involvement in
the east of the country."
Yet unable to provide any concrete evidence for over a year...
Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting
Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving
only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which
approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance
has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter.
In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to
40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
Notable quotes:
"... "Personally, I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap. ..."
"... Its economy cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine. ..."
"... Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund, which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits. ..."
"... About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the turbines that run its nuclear power stations. ..."
"... So for all the aid coming from the state-backed institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with open arms." ..."
Having survived an assassin's bullet, a revolution and a war, Gennady Kernes now faces a fight
over Ukraine's constitution
One afternoon in late February, Gennady Kernes, the mayor of Kharkov, Ukraine's second largest
city, pushed his wheelchair away from the podium at city hall and, with a wince of discomfort, allowed
his bodyguards to help him off the stage. The day's session of the city council had lasted several
hours, and the mayor's pain medication had begun to wear off. It was clear from the grimace on his
face how much he still hurt from the sniper's bullet that nearly killed him last spring. But he collected
himself, adjusted his tie and rolled down the aisle to the back of the hall, where the press was
waiting to grill him.
"Gennady Adolfovich," one of the local journalists began, politely addressing the mayor by his
name and patronymic. "Do you consider Russia to be an aggressor?" He had seen this loaded question
coming. The previous month, Ukraine's parliament had unanimously voted to declare Russia an "aggressor
state," moving the two nations closer to a formal state of war after nearly a year of armed conflict.
Kernes, long known as a shrewd political survivor, was among the only prominent officials in Ukraine
to oppose this decision, even though he knew he could be branded a traitor for it. "Personally,
I do not consider Russia to be an aggressor," he said, looking down at his lap.
It was a sign of his allegiance in the new phase of Ukraine's war. Since February, when a fragile
ceasefire began to take hold, the question of the country's survival has turned to a debate over
its reconstitution. Under the conditions of the truce, Russia has demanded that Ukraine embrace "federalization,"
a sweeping set of constitutional reforms that would take power away from the capital and redistribute
it to the regions. Ukraine now has to decide how to meet this demand without letting its eastern
provinces fall deeper into Russia's grasp.
The state council charged with making this decision convened for the first time on April 6, and
President Petro Poroshenko gave it strict instructions. Some autonomy would have to be granted to
the regions, he said, but Russia's idea of federalization was a red line he wouldn't cross. "It is
like an infection, a biological weapon, which is being imposed on Ukraine from abroad," the President
said. "Its bacteria are trying to infect Ukraine and destroy our unity."
Kernes sees it differently. His city of 1.4 million people is a sprawling industrial powerhouse,
a traditional center of trade and culture whose suburbs touch the Russian border. Its economy
cannot survive, he says, unless trade and cooperation with the "aggressor state" continue, regardless
how much Russia has done in the past year to sow conflict in Ukraine.
"That's how the Soviet Union built things," Kernes explains in his office at the mayoralty, which
is decorated with an odd collection of gifts and trinkets, such as a stuffed lion, a robotic-looking
sculpture of a scorpion, and a statuette of Kernes in the guise of Vladimir Lenin, the founder of
the Soviet Union. "That's how our factories were set up back in the day," he continues. "It's a fact
of life. And what will we do if Russia, our main customer, stops buying?" To answer his own question,
he uses an old provincialism: "It'll be cat soup for all of us then," he said.
Already Ukraine is approaching that point. With most of its scarce resources focused on fighting
Russia's proxies in the east, Ukraine's leaders have watched their economy fall off a cliff, surviving
only by the grace of massive loans from Western institutions like the International Monetary Fund,
which approved another $17.5 billion last month to be disbursed over the next four years. But that
assistance has not stopped the national currency of Ukraine from losing two-thirds of its value since
last winter. In the last three months of 2014, the size of the economy contracted almost 15%, inflation
shot up to 40%, and unemployment approached double digits.
But that pain will be just the beginning, says Kernes, unless Ukraine allows its eastern regions
to develop economic ties with Russia. As proof he points to the fate of Turboatom, his city's biggest
factory, which produces turbines for both Russian and Ukrainian power stations. Its campus takes
up more than five square kilometers near the center of Kharkov, like a city within a city, complete
with dormitories and bathhouses for its 6,000 employees. On a recent evening, its deputy director,
Alexei Cherkassky, was looking over the factory's sales list as though it were a dire medical prognosis.
About 40% of its orders normally come from Russia, which relies on Turboatom for most of the
turbines that run its nuclear power stations.
"Unfortunately, all of our major industries are intertwined with Russia in this way," Cherkassky
says. "So we shouldn't fool ourselves in thinking we can be independent from Russia. We are totally
interdependent." Over the past year, Russia has started cutting back on orders from Turboatom as
part of its broader effort to starve Ukraine's economy, and the factory has been forced as a result
to cut shifts, scrap overtime and push hundreds of workers into retirement.
At least in the foreseeable future, it does not have the option of shifting sales to Europe. "Turbines
aren't iPhones," says Cherkassky. "You don't switch them out every few months." And the ones produced
at Turboatom, like nearly all of Ukraine's heavy industry, still use Soviet means of production that
don't meet the needs of most Western countries. So for all the aid coming from the state-backed
institutions in the U.S. and Europe, Cherkassky says, "those markets haven't exactly met us with
open arms."
Russia knows this. For decades it has used the Soviet legacy of interdependence as leverage in
eastern Ukraine. The idea of its "federalization" derives in part from this reality. For two decades,
one of the leading proponents of this vision has been the Russian politician Konstantin Zatulin,
who heads the Kremlin-connected institute in charge of integrating the former Soviet space. Since
at least 2004, he has been trying to turn southeastern Ukraine into a zone of Russian influence –
an effort that got him banned from entering the country between 2006 and 2010.
His political plan for controlling Ukraine was put on hold last year, as Russia began using military
means to achieve the same ends. But the current ceasefire has brought his vision back to the fore.
"If Ukraine accepts federalization, we would have no need to tear Ukraine apart," Zatulin says in
his office in Moscow, which is cluttered with antique weapons and other military bric-a-brac. Russia
could simply build ties with the regions of eastern Ukraine that "share the Russian point of view
on all the big issues," he says. "Russia would have its own soloists in the great Ukrainian choir,
and they would sing for us. This would be our compromise."
It is a compromise that Kernes seems prepared to accept, despite everything he has suffered in
the past year of political turmoil. Early on in the conflict with Russia, he admits that he flirted
with ideas of separatism himself, and he fiercely resisted the revolution that brought Poroshenko's
government to power last winter. In one of its first decisions, that government even
brought charges
against Kernes for allegedly abducting, threatening and torturing supporters of the revolution in
Kharkov. After that, recalls Zatulin, the mayor "simply chickened out." Facing a long term in prison,
Kernes accepted Ukraine's new leaders and turned his back on the separatist cause, refusing to allow
his city to hold a referendum on secession from Ukraine.
"And you know what I got for that," Kernes says. "I got a bullet." On April 28, while he was exercising
near a city park, an unidentified sniper shot Kernes in the back with a high-caliber rifle. The bullet
pierced his lung and shredded part of his liver, but it also seemed to shore up his bona fides as
a supporter of Ukrainian unity. The state dropped its charges against him soon after, and he was
able to return to his post.
It wasn't the first time he made such an incredible comeback. In 2007, while he was serving as
adviser to his friend and predecessor, Mikhail Dobkin, a
video of them trying to film
a campaign ad was leaked to the press. It contained such a hilarious mix of bumbling incompetence
and backalley obscenity that both of their careers seemed sure to be over. Kernes not only survived
that scandal but was elected mayor a few years later.
Now the fight over Ukraine's federalization is shaping up to be his last. In late March, as he
continued demanding more autonomy for Ukraine's eastern regions, the state re-opened its case against
him for alleged kidnapping and torture, which he has always denied. The charges, he says, are part
of a campaign against all politicians in Ukraine who support the restoration of civil ties with Russia.
"They don't want to listen to reason," he says.
But one way or another, the country will still have to let its eastern regions to do business
with the enemy next door, "because that's where the money is," Kernes says. No matter how much aid
Ukraine gets from the IMF and other Western backers, it will not be enough to keep the factories
of Kharkov alive. "They'll just be left to rot without our steady clients in Russia." Never mind
that those clients may have other plans for Ukraine in mind.
"... American soldiers in Ukraine, American media not saying much about it. Two facts. ..."
"... Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia. ..."
"... Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border? ..."
"... And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect. ..."
"... Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this paragraph. Speechless. ..."
"... Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential. ..."
"... Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.) ..."
"... In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that 300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it, there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation, a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed. ..."
"... The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers." ..."
"... He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it. ..."
As of mid-April, when a Pentagon flack announced it in Kiev, and as barely reported in American media, U.S. troops are now operating
openly in Ukraine.
Now there is a lead I have long dreaded writing but suspected from the first that one day I would. Do not take a moment to think
about this. Take many moments. We all need to. We find ourselves in grave circumstances this spring.
At first I thought I had written what newspaper people call a double-barreled lead: American soldiers in Ukraine, American
media not saying much about it. Two facts.
Wrong. There is one fact now, and it is this: Americans are being led blindfolded very near the brink of war with Russia.
One cannot predict there will be one. And, of course, right-thinking people hope things will never come to one. In March, President
Obama dismissed any such idea as if to suggest it was silly. "They're not interested in a military confrontation with us," Obama
said of the Russians-wisely. Then he added, unwisely: "We don't need a war."
Don't need a war to get what done, Mr. President? This is our question. Then this one: Washington is going to stop at exactly
what as it manipulates its latest set of puppets in disadvantaged countries, this time pretending there is absolutely nothing thoughtless
or miscalculated about doing so on Russia's historically sensitive western border?
The pose of American innocence, tatty and tiresome in the best of times, is getting dangerous once again.
The source of worry now is that we do not have an answer to the second question. The project is plain: Advance NATO the rest of
the way through Eastern Europe, probably with the intent of eventually destabilizing Moscow. The stooges now installed in Kiev are
getting everything ready for the corporations eager to exploit Ukrainian resources and labor.
And our policy cliques are willing to go all the way to war for this? As of mid-April, when the 173rd Airborne Brigade started
arriving in Ukraine, it looks as if we are on notice in this respect.
In the past there were a few vague mentions of an American military presence in Ukraine that was to be in place by this spring,
if I recall correctly. These would have been last autumn. By then, there were also reports, unconfirmed, that some troops and a lot
of spooks were already there as advisers but not acknowledged.
Then in mid-March President Poroshenko introduced a bill authorizing-as required by law-foreign troops to operate on Ukrainian soil.
There was revealing detail, according to Russia Insider, a free-standing website in Moscow founded and run by Charles Bausman, an
American with an uncanny ability to gather and publish pertinent information.
"According to the draft law, Ukraine plans three
Ukrainian-American command post exercises, Fearless Guardian 2015, Sea Breeze 2015 and Saber Guardian/Rapid Trident 2015," the publication
reported, "and two Ukrainian-Polish exercises, Secure Skies 2015, and Law and Order 2015, for this year."
This is a lot of dry-run maneuvering, if you ask me. Poroshenko's law allows for up to 1,000 American troops to participate in
each of these exercises, alongside an equal number of Ukrainian "National Guardsmen," and we will insist on the quotation marks when
referring to this gruesome lot, about whom more in a minute.
Take a deep breath and consider that 1,000 American folks, as Obama will surely get around to calling them, are conducting
military drills with troops drawn partly from Nazi and crypto-Nazi paramilitary groups . Sorry, I cannot add anything more to this
paragraph. Speechless.
It was a month to the day after Poroshenko's bill went to parliament that the Pentagon spokesman in Kiev announced-to a room empty
of American correspondents, we are to assume-that troops from the 173rd Airborne were just then arriving to train none other than
"National Guardsmen." This training includes "classes in war-fighting functions," as the operations officer, Maj. Jose Mendez, blandly
put it at the time.
The spokesman's number was "about 300," and I never like "about" when these people are describing deployments. This is how it
always begins, we will all recall. The American presence in Vietnam began with a handful of advisers who arrived in September 1950.
(Remember MAAG, the Military Assistance Advisory Group?)
Part of me still thinks war with Russia seems a far-fetched proposition. But here's the thing: It is even more far-fetched
to deny the gravity of this moment for all its horrific, playing-with-fire potential.
I am getting on to apoplectic as to the American media's abject irresponsibility in not covering this stuff adequately. To leave
these events unreported is outright lying by omission. Nobody's news judgment can be so bad as to argue this is not a story.
Last December, John Pilger, the noted Australian journalist now in London, said in a speech that the Ukraine crisis had become
the most extreme news blackout he had seen his entire career. I agree and now need no more proof as to whether it is a matter of
intent or ineptitude. (Now that I think of it, it is both in many cases.)
To cross the "i"s and dot the "t"s, as I prefer to do, the Times did make two mentions of the American troops. One was the day
of the announcement, a brief piece on an inside page, datelined Washington. Here we get our code word for this caper: It will be
"modest" in every mention.
The second was in an April 23 story by Michael Gordon, the State Department correspondent. The head was, "Putin Bolsters His Forces
Near Ukraine, U.S. Says."
Read the thing here.
The story line is a doozy: Putin-not "the Russians" or "Moscow," of course-is again behaving aggressively by amassing troops-how
many, exactly where and how we know is never explained-along his border with Ukraine. Inside his border, that is. This is the story.
This is what we mean by aggression these days.
In the sixth paragraph we get this: "Last week, Russia charged that a modest program to train Ukraine's national guard that
300 American troops are carrying out in western Ukraine could 'destabilize the situation.'" Apoplectically speaking: Goddamn it,
there is nothing modest about U.S. troops operating on Ukrainian soil, and it is self-evidently destabilizing. It is an obvious provocation,
a point the policy cliques in Washington cannot have missed.
At this point, I do not see how anyone can stand against the argument-mine for some time-that Putin has shown exemplary restraint
in this crisis. In a reversal of roles and hemispheres, Washington would have a lot more than air defense systems and troops of whatever
number on the border in question.
The Times coverage of Ukraine, to continue briefly in this line, starts to remind me of something I.F. Stone once said about the
Washington Post: The fun of reading it, the honored man observed, is that you never know where you'll find a page one story.
In the Times' case, you never know if you will find it at all.
Have you read much about the wave of political assassinations that erupted in Kiev in mid-April? Worry not. No one else has either-not
in American media. Not a word in the Times.
The number my sources give me, and I cannot confirm it, is a dozen so far-12 to 13 to be precise. On the record, we have 10 who
can be named and identified as political allies of Viktor Yanukovych, the president ousted last year, opponents of a drastic rupture
in Ukraine's historic relations to Russia, people who favored marking the 70th anniversary of the Soviet defeat of the Nazis-death-deserving
idea, this-and critics of the new regime's corruptions and dependence on violent far-right extremists.
These were all highly visible politicians, parliamentarians and journalists. They have been murdered by small groups of these
extremists, according to reports readily available in non-American media. In my read, the killers may have the same semi-official
ties to government that the paramilitary death squads in 1970s Argentina-famously recognizable in their Ford Falcons-had with Videla
and the colonels.
The Poroshenko government contrives to assign Russia the blame, but one can safely ignore this. Extreme right members of parliament
have been more to the point. After a prominent editor named Oles Buzyna was fatally shot outside his home several weeks ago, a lawmaker
named Boris Filatov told colleagues, "One more piece of shit has been eliminated." From another named Irina Farion, this: Death will
neutralize the dirt this shit has spilled. Such people go to history's sewers."
Kindly place, Kiev's parliament under this new crowd. Washington must be proud, having backed yet another right-wing, anti-democratic,
rights-trampling regime that does what it says.
And our media must be silent, of course. It can be no other way. Gutless hacks: You bet I am angry.
* * *
I end this week's column with a tribute.
A moment of observance, any kind, for William Pfaff, who died at 86 in Paris late last week. The appreciative obituary by the
Times' Marlise Simons is
here.
Pfaff was the most sophisticated foreign affairs commentator of the 20th century's second half and the first 15 years of this
one. He was a great influence among colleagues (myself included) and put countless readers in a lot of places in the picture over
many decades. He was a vigorous opponent of American adventurism abroad, consistent and reasoned even as resistance to both grew
in his later years. By the time he was finished he was published and read far more outside America than in it.
Pfaff was a conservative man in some respects, which is not uncommon among America's American critics. In this I put him in the
file with Henry Steele Commager, C. Vann Woodward, William Appleman Williams, and among those writing now, Andrew Bacevich. He was
not a scholar, as these writers were or are, supporting a point I have long made: Not all intellectuals are scholars, and not all
scholars are intellectuals.
Pfaff's books will live on and I commend them: "Barbarian Sentiments," "The Wrath of Nations," "The Bullet's Song," and his last,
"The Irony of Manifest Destiny," are the ones on my shelf.
Farewell from a friend, Bill.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century." He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from
1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and
has contributed frequently to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on Twitter,
@thefloutist.More Patrick L. Smith.
"... Though designed to isolate Russia because it had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. ..."
"... Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian alternative narrative. ..."
"... Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late 2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it truly was the most blatant coup in history." ..."
"... So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country. ..."
"... Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault." ..."
"... Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians. ..."
"... Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal." ..."
President Barack Obama's decision to join other Western leaders in snubbing Russia's weekend celebration of the 70th anniversary
of Victory in Europe looks more like pouting than statesmanship, especially in the context of the U.S. mainstream media's recent
anti-historical effort to downplay Russia's crucial role in defeating Nazism.
Though designed to isolate Russia because it
had the audacity to object to the Western-engineered coup d'état in Ukraine on Feb. 22, 2014, this snub of Russia's President Vladimir
Putin – like the economic sanctions against Russia – is likely to backfire on the U.S. and its European allies by strengthening
ties between Russia and the emerging Asian giants of China and India.
Notably, the dignitaries who will show up at this important commemoration include the presidents of China and India, representing
a huge chunk of humanity, who came to show respect for the time seven decades ago when the inhumanity of the Nazi regime was defeated
– largely by Russia's stanching the advance of Hitler's armies, at a cost of 20 to 30 million lives.
Obama's boycott is part of a crass attempt to belittle Russia and to cram history itself into an anti-Putin, anti-Russian
alternative narrative. It is difficult to see how Obama and his friends could have come up with a pettier and more gratuitous
insult to the Russian people.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel – caught between Washington's demand to "isolate" Russia over the Ukraine crisis and her country's
historic guilt in the slaughter of so many Russians – plans to show up a day late to place a wreath at a memorial for the war dead.
But Obama, in his childish display of temper, will look rather small to those who know the history of the Allied victory in World
War II. If it were not for the Red Army's costly victories against the German invaders, particularly the tide-turning battle at Stalingrad
in 1943-1944, the prospects for the later D-Day victory in Normandy in June 1944 and the subsequent defeat of Adolf Hitler would
have been much more difficult if not impossible.
Yet, the current Russia-bashing in Washington and the mainstream U.S. media overrides these historical truths. For instance, a
New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar on Friday begins: "The Russian version of Hitler's defeat emphasizes the enormous, unrivaled
sacrifices made by the Soviet people to end World War II " But that's not the "Russian version"; that's the history.
For its part, the Washington Post chose to run an Associated Press story out of Moscow reporting: "A state-of-the-art Russian
tank on Thursday ground to a halt during the final Victory Day rehearsal. After an attempt to tow it failed, the T-14 rolled
away under its own steam 15 minutes later." (Subtext: Ha, ha! Russia's newest tank gets stuck on Red Square! Ha, ha!).
This juvenile approach to pretty much everything that's important - not just U.S.-Russia relations - has now become the rule.
From the U.S. government to the major U.S. media, it's as if the "cool kids" line up in matching fashions creating a gauntlet to
demean and ridicule whoever the outcast of the day is. And anyone who doesn't go along becomes an additional target of abuse.
That has been the storyline for the Ukraine crisis throughout 2014 and into 2015. Everyone must agree that Putin provoked all
the trouble as part of some Hitler-like ambition to conquer much of eastern Europe and rebuild a Russian empire. If you don't make
the obligatory denunciations of "Russian aggression," you are called a "Putin apologist" or "Putin bootlicker."
Distorting the History
So, the evidence-based history of the Western-sponsored coup in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, must be forgotten or covered up. Indeed,
about a year after the events, the New York Times published a major "investigative" article that ignored all the facts of a U.S.-backed
coup in declaring there was no coup.
The Times didn't even mention the notorious, intercepted
phone call between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt in early February
2014 in which Nuland was handpicking the future leaders, including her remark "Yats is the guy," a reference to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
who – after the coup – quickly became prime minister. [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine."]
Even George Friedman, the president of the Washington-Establishment-friendly think-tank STRATFOR, has said publicly in late
2014: "Russia calls the events that took place at the beginning of this year a coup d'état organized by the United States. And it
truly was the most blatant coup in history."
Beyond simply ignoring facts, the U.S. mainstream media has juggled the time line to make Putin's reaction to the coup – and the
threat it posed to the Russian naval base in Crimea – appear to be, instead, evidence of his instigation of the already unfolding
conflict.
For example, in a "we-told-you-so" headline on March 9, the Washington Post declared: "Putin had early plan to annex Crimea."
Then, quoting AP, the Post reported that Putin himself had just disclosed "a secret meeting with officials in February 2014 Putin
said that after the meeting he told the security chiefs that they would be 'obliged to start working to return Crimea to Russia.'
He said the meeting was held Feb. 23, 2014, almost a month before a referendum in Crimea that Moscow has said was the basis for annexing
the region."
So there! Gotcha! Russian aggression! But what the Post neglected to remind readers was that the U.S.-backed coup had occurred
on Feb. 22 and that Putin has consistently said that a key factor in his actions toward Crimea came from Russian fears that NATO
would claim the historic naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea, representing a strategic threat to his country.
Putin also knew from opinion polls that most of the people of Crimea favored reunification with Russia, a reality that was underscored
by the March referendum in which some 96 percent voted to leave Ukraine and rejoin Russia.
But there was not one scintilla of reliable evidence that Putin intended to annex Crimea before he felt his hand forced by the
putsch in Kiev. The political reality was that no Russian leader could afford to take the risk that Russia's only warm-water naval
base might switch to new NATO management. If top U.S. officials did not realize that when they were pushing the coup in early 2014,
they know little about Russian strategic concerns – or simply didn't care.
Last fall, John Mearsheimer, a pre-eminent political science professor at the University of Chicago, stunned those who had
been misled by the anti-Russian propaganda when he placed an article in the Very-Establishment journal Foreign Affairs entitled "Why
the Ukraine Crisis is the West's Fault."
You did not know that such an article was published? Chalk that up to the fact that the mainstream media pretty much ignored it.
Mearsheimer said this was the first time he encountered such widespread media silence on an article of such importance.
The Sole Indispensable Country
Much of this American tendency to disdain other nations' concerns, fears and points of pride go back to the Washington Establishment's
dogma that special rules or (perhaps more accurately) no rules govern U.S. behavior abroad – American exceptionalism. This arrogant
concept, which puts the United States above all other nations like some Olympic god looking down on mere mortals, is often invoked
by Obama and other leading U.S. politicians.
That off-putting point has not been missed by Putin even as he has sought to cooperate with Obama and the United States. On Sept.
11, 2013, a week after Putin bailed Obama out, enabling him to avoid a new war on Syria by persuading Syria to surrender its chemical
weapons, Putin wrote in an op-ed published by the New York Times that he appreciated the fact that "My working and personal relationship
with President Obama is marked by growing trust."
Putin added, though, "I would rather disagree with a case he made on American exceptionalism," adding: "It is extremely dangerous
to encourage people to see themselves as exceptional, whatever the motivation. There are big countries and small countries, rich
and poor, those with long democratic traditions and those still finding their way to democracy. We are all different, but when
we ask for the Lord's blessings, we must not forget that God created us equal."
More recently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov drove home this point in the context of World War II. This week, addressing
a meeting to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory in Europe, Lavrov included a pointed warning: "Today as never before
it is important not to forget the lessons of that catastrophe and the terrible consequences that spring from faith in one's own exceptionalism."
The irony is that as the cameras pan the various world leaders in the Red Square reviewing stand on Saturday, Obama's absence
will send a message that the United States has little appreciation for the sacrifice of the Russian people in bearing the brunt –
and breaking the back – of Hitler's conquering armies. It is as if Obama is saying that the "exceptional" United States didn't need
anyone's help to win World War II.
President Franklin Roosevelt was much wiser, understanding that it took extraordinary teamwork to defeat Nazism in the 1940s,
which is why he considered the Soviet Union a most important military ally. President Obama is sending a very different message,
a haughty disdain for the kind of global cooperation which succeeded in ridding the world of Adolf Hitler.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
Meanwhile, back in Banderaland,
more info is coming
out about the latest political murder. Oleg Kalashnikov, former Parliament Deputy for Party
of Regions.
.
According to the VZGLIAD piece, Kalashnikov was organizing and planning to hold some kind of march
to celebrate the 70 anniversay Victory Day in Kiev. One of his relatives reported to the press,
that he (Oleg) had received death threats in conjunction with these activities. He had also been
threatened by SBU types.
During the time in the Rada (2006-2007) Oleg had made several important
political enemies, including Julia Tymoshenko and Anatoly Gritsenko.
On the eve of his assassination, Kalashnikov wrote a letter to a friend, including the following
words: "Открытый геноцид инакомыслия, угрозы физического уничтожения и постоянные грязные оскорбления
за открытый призыв к празднованию 70-летия Победы в Великой Отечественной войне стали нормой в
оккупированной нацистами сегодняшней Украине, – писал Калашников. – Этот "подарок" я получил 13
апреля вместе с очередной порцией угроз и оскорблений", – говорится в письме.
TRANSLATION
"The open genocide of dissident thinking, threats of physical extermination, and the constant,
dirty insults (directed at my) calls to celebrate the 70th Anniversay or Victory Day in the Great
Patriotic War – these have become the norm in today's Ukraine, which is occupied by Nazis," Kalashnikov
wrote. "This so-called 'gift" was received by me on 13 April…"
END OF TRANSLATION
By "gift" what Oleg meant was that, all of his personal demographic info, including his address,
was published in the publication called "Mirotvorets" on April 13. "Mirotvorets" is a "resouce"
which publishes all known info about separatists. This resource is under the purview of
Anton Gerashchenko,
one of the big-shots in the junta government.
Within a day of his data being published, Oleg Kalashnikov was gunned down and assassinated
near his home.
The piece adds, intriguingly, that this "Mirotvorets" database of separatist info, is supposedly
only accessible to Ukrainian Internal Police and SBU. Therefore, the implication is, that this
was a government-sanctioned assassination of a political opponent.
Continuing with more info from above piece (is a long article):
Kalashnikov had ended his letter
with the following words: "Маски сброшены! Нацизм со звериным оскалом жаждет крови, чтобы скрыть свои преступления против
многострадального народа современной Украины!" – так заканчивает свое письмо Калашников.
TRANSLATION
"The masks are off! Nazism with its beastly grin, is thirsty for blood, and tries to hide its
crimes against the long-suffering people of contemporary Ukraine."
END OF TRANSLATION
On the eve of his assassination, Kalashnikov's friends begged him to flee the country.
He said he could not, for 2 reasons: (1) He was an officer in the intelligence services, and (2)
he could not in conscience leave his fellow-thinkers behind.
Political writer Vladimir Kornilov confirms, that Kalashnikov was very worried about all his
personal, demographic data being published in "Mirotvorets", which he calls a "stool-pigeon rag".
A few months ago, back in January, Gerashchenko
proudly presented his new plan of tracking political dissidents. In a separate comment, I
will translate a bit (if I have time) of Gerashchenko's "presentation" of this totalitarian project
for tracking and eliminating dissidents. For now, suffice that the title of Gerashcheno's "oeuvre"
is called: "Gifts for Christmas: or Every Creature gets what he deserves".
Meanwhile Ukrainian totalitarian media are all over this too, the general tone being:
(1) Kalashnikov was an odious "Regional" who deserved to die; however
(2) It was probably his Russian "sponsors" who whacked him, maybe because he was about to spill
some beans, or something like that….
Around the murder itself, some strange events:
Oleg was shot dead with 4 shots.
Oleg's wife heard the noise and rushed out, as husband was being gunned down.
She immediately called the police.
Within minutes, according to her, police from Internal Ministry were on the spot.
While this was going on, Oleg's daughter-in-law was suddenly mugged; somebody grabbed her purse,
right there at the crime scene.
Here, by the way , is the site Mirotvorets.
This is the site where you go if you are Ukrainian and want to denounce your neighbour as a separatist.
Just skimming through the site, one gets a glimpse into Gerashchenko (aka "Fat Bastard") sick
Nazi mind. For example, scroll down a bit to see him bragging about collecting a database of 20,500
"individuals" (with more negative connotation than English equivalent).
Иначе этих нелюдей назвать не можем, поскольку именно они принесли беду в наш общий дом: изменники
родины, сепаратисты, террористы и боевики, наемники российского происхождения, военные преступники
из вооруженных сил РФ, а также пособники разных мастей всей этой нечисти.
TRANSLATION
We don't know what else to call these in-humans, since they have brought woe into our common home:
traitors of the motherland, separatists, terrorists and militants, mercenaries of Russian origin,
war criminals from the army of the Russian Federation, and also collaborators of various stripes
of all this filth.
END OF TRANSLATION
The rest of the site has the same tone: all heavily anti-Russia and in your face, tone is basically
that of some loud-mouth mobster bully.
Which is exactly what Gerashchenko is.
Here is Mirotvorets post from March 16, pertaining to Crimean citizens:
В последнее время
к нам неоднократно официально обращаются представители ряда государственных ведомств Украины с
просьбой предоставить имеющуюся информацию об изменниках Родины, сепаратистах, пособниках российских
оккупантов и боевиках НВФ, проживающих в настоящее время на временно оккупированной территории
АР Крым (Украина). Учитывая эти просьбы, а также в полном соответствии с действующим Законодательством
Украины, мы решили открыто разместить на сайте Центра "Миротворец" указанную информацию в форматах,
удобных для интеграции в любые автоматизированные системы обработки. Данные представлены в формате
CSV. С учетом постоянного накопления данных, список периодически будет обновляться. По состоянию
на 16 марта 2015 года в Чистилище находится информация о более чем 7500 особей, большую часть
из который представляют изменники Родины.
TRANSLATION
Recently we have been approached officially by representatives of a series of governmental authorities
of Ukraine, with a request to present all the information we have pertaining to traitors of the
motherland, separatists, collaborators with Russian occupiers, and fighters in illegal formations
who dwell at the current time on the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic
of Crimea (Ukraine).
Taking into account these requests, and also in full accordance with existing legislation of Ukraine,
we have decided to place on the "Mirotvorets" site the information indicated, in formats convenient
for integration into any automated databases. The data is presented in the .CSV format [yalensis:
ASCII text file with comma-separated fields]. Taking into account the continuous accumulation
of data, the database will be refreshed periodically. As of 16 March 2015, in our database we
have information on more than 7500 individuals, the major portion of whom are traitors to the
motherland.
END OF TRANSLATION
yalensis: And now, in April, the database is up to 20K traitors.
All in their comma-delimited traitorous glory.
"Fighters in illegal formations", Dear God, you could scream. According to the Ukrainian constitution,
all formations except for the state military and law enforcement are illegal. But only half-hearted
attempts are made to "legalize" the volunteer battalions, which are not even paid by the government,
or were not until Benny's bottomless purse flew away with him. And the ever-alert-for-illegal-behavior
west which brought you the suggestion that Ukraine could ignore its debt to Russia as "odious
debt" says not a word about Kiev's own making up what is legal as it goes along.
It's like a caricature of reality, as if someone either not too imaginative or with the brilliant
talent for mockery that results in films like "Springtime for Hitler" were making an educational
film about the growth of fascism in a fertile society.
All this, I'm sure, contributes to Brussels'
ambition to make a close partner and chum of Ukraine. It certainly displays European values. Of
course, you never know how much they know and how much they are just pretending not to know.
"pro-Russia" and "Russia-leaning" and "Kremlin-friendly" are the new "nothing to see here; move
along" in Ukrainian discourse. What a name that benighted nation is making for itself! I must
confess – somewhat guiltily, because there is nothing funny about the desperate situation of ordinary
Ukrainians – that I get a great deal of amusement over the west's continuing hamfisted attempt
to portray this hellhole as a brave emerging country stumbling towards democracy. It is nothing
of the kind – it is like some sort of college frat party spun out of control in which the most
wicked and deviant of the population are allowed to fully indulge their secret fantasies.
It seems you can kill just about anyone with impunity in the brave new Ukraine provided you put
"pro-Russian" before their occupation. I am becoming steadily more supportive of all Ukraine except
the southeast, without any source of income and crazy as a bedbug, going to the EU. They deserve
to live cheek by jowl with their project and the result of their meddling.
The 'Russian economy returns to growth' headline is actually a little misleading, because although
the stock exchange and currency are up, it still seems as though GDP will decline this year. That
said, the rise in the ruble will reduce inflation which will allow the Central Bank to cut interest
rates, which should permit GDP to start rising again sooner than expected. So not all is rosy,
but the Russian economy is looking much more resilient than critics had suggested.
Yes, that's true – "stabilized" would have been more accurate. But I believe stability is going
to look like growth in today's economic climate; countries that were struggling are going to be
desperate, while those who were on shaky ground are going to have an increasingly hard time of
it. And that's going to be without a coalition of the most prosperous countries all united in
an effort to take them down. Russians have good reason to be more confident, because indeed the
sanctions, long-term, are going to have hurt those who imposed them much more than those upon
whom they were imposed.
Is there a video of your TV appearance? I'd like to see it. How did
it go?
What has impressed me is how the bad news about western sanctions was handled. Rather than the
usual "There's nothing to see. Move on!.", they explained the potential consequences, the reasons
for it and most importantly of all, a reasonable time scale of when it should be over.
I also
strongly suspect that they deliberately overplayed the figures of potential damage to the economy
knowing that it would be highly unlikely that the figures would ever play out as such, the flip
side being that any performance better than those figures is a victory.
On the one hand it gives a pyrrhic victory to the Pork Pie News Networks, western politicians
and Russophobes for Russia to admit it will be significantly damaged and importantly allows Western
states to claim they are taking tough and decisive action against Russia when they have not
done so despite having multiple opportunities to do so – a very useful face saving exercise.
The sanctions could have been much, much worse.
So both sides get something. The West pretends to slap on draconian sanctions and swing its
gigantic pot belly and balls aggressively to its own adoring congregation proving that they are
indispensable and exceptional nations that the rest of the world should be modelled
on, Russia plays the "I'm sexy and I know it" card to the rest of the world. Everyone is pleased.
Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian.
This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions
seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
Balazs Jarabik, who is associated with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and who
focuses on Ukraine, has an
article titled "Ukraine: The War Must Go On?". It's a pertinent article because both sides are
re-arming and both sides are more skilled now at war. Renewed fighting, if serious war breaks out
again, will be more devastating than the earlier engagements. It will likely enter new areas and,
in the process, undermine Ukraine altogether.
Jarabik writes "As terrible as it sounds, Kyiv's endless dysfunction is the Kremlin's most powerful
ally in the current crisis-a point that is glossed over in Western policy debates on sending lethal
aid to Ukraine."
Critics of the libertarian positions on Ukraine should read and heed what the non-libertarian
Jarabik says about Kiev and Ukraine. U.S. and NATO aid, bank financing, training and military advice
are not helping Ukrainians. Quite the opposite.
The libertarian refrain calling for U.S. disengagement from Ukraine (and other of the Empire's
venues) strikes some as being either pro-Russian or not anti-Russian enough. This is a false conclusion
that doesn't follow from a non-interventionist stance. It only follows from a non-libertarian perspective
of supposing that the U.S. should be helping Ukraine achieve independence from Russian pressures.
But such so-called help is destroying Ukraine and promises worse to come.
Criticism of Kiev's administration and its war against Donbas likewise strikes some as pro-Russian.
This too is a false conclusion. The making of war by any state against breakaway regions or regions
seeking autonomy or constitutional changes or secession is anti-libertarian.
Both U.S. disengagement from Kiev and criticism of Kiev's war-making are policies that will help,
not harm, ordinary Ukrainians. Sons will not be drafted, ill-trained, ill-equipped and sent into
unwinnable and destructive wars. The government won't go bankrupt in the process. Huge debts won't
be levied on generations of Ukrainians. The currency won't crash, as it has, destroying the wealth
of anyone holding it, small savers or holders of debt denominated in that currency. Resources can
be put toward peaceful purposes. Similarly, people in Donbas won't face the severe destruction wrought
by war. Refugees can come home. People won't be driven from their homes. Population centers, ranging
from villages to major cities, won't be shelled.
The war-making and other related decisions are promoted by the U.S. and NATO. The U.S. is re-arming
one side and improving the weaponry. The Russians are re-arming the other side, and that side too
will bring in new ways of fighting. The level of destructiveness can only escalate as a consequence
of a U.S. and Kiev decision to bring Donbas back into Ukraine by military means.
Libertarian calls for the U.S. completely out of Ukraine are for the good of Ukrainians themselves,
although surely not all of them. This policy doesn't satisfy Ukrainian nationalists who insist on
union of west and east, come hell or high water. Hell it may be.
Such an elaborate dance around facts. From comments: "It is so depressing when there is far more
information in the comments section than in the article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue
the traditions of her predecessor." This is one event about which there is quite a lot of information
to see how Guardian presstitutes try to bent the truth. See
Odessa Massacre of May 2, 2014
The emergency calls became increasingly desperate. "When are you coming? It's already burning
and there are people inside," a woman told the fire brigade dispatcher. Minutes later, callers started
describing how people were jumping from the upper floors. "Have you lost your minds?" one man asked,
his voice breaking. "There are women and children in the building!" another man yelled. In one of
the most deadly episodes in Ukraine's turbulent 2014 power transition, 48 people were killed and
hundreds injured on 2 May last year in the Black Sea port of Odessa.
Street battles culminated in a fatal fire at Soviet-era building where hundreds of pro-Russia
activists were barricaded in.
VengefulRevenant -> AlfredHerring 1 May 2015 17:24
The victims are the ones who were raped, shot or burned to death in the massacre.
The perpetrators are those protected by the NATO-backed regime which has failed to investigate
the massacre.
The apologists are the NATO-aligned media who blame the victims or assign blame equally to
the killers and the dead along the lines of, 'There was heroism and cruelty on both sides.'
normankirk -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 16:52
Well isn't it wonderful to hear a diversity of views expressed on Russian TV. When all we hear
is how all media is controlled by the Kremlin
Kaiama Danram 1 May 2015 16:48
So the dead Ukrainian children and women are Kremlin goons too?
How simple your life must be to allow you to make such simplistic conclusions.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 16:46
Some nice whitewashing. Now it's fault of the victims and the heroism of the perpetrators,
there hasn't been and there will be no investigation and the word massacre is no longer used.
For those of you who still argue it was not a massacre but some mysterious suicide by 48 people
who set themselves afire, here is footage again.
Take a look at some of the pretty revealing moments:
23 min mark - Ukrainians are entering the building, there was no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
While in the building, Ukrainians were slaughtering people. And it wasn't a fight. Half of
the victims were middle-aged. At least 10 of them - women.
31min - 33min - the victims who got out have their faces and hands disfigured while the rest
of their bodies don't have the same injuries. That's what happens if someone splashes fuel over
someone's face and light it up. There are pictures of victims with only their heads and hands
burned.
33min - 35min - there were women among those trying to find safety in the building. Some of
them are middle-aged. They were not fighters, as the article would imply.
36min- 37min - Ukrainians were inside the building, setting it on fire and killing those whom
they could find, a young woman in this specific frame.
46min - a person was bludgeoned to death. The room doesn't have marks of fire but the blood
is splattered all over the room.
48min-50min - the same story, Ukrainians were slaughtering their victims.
1h:00min - Ukrainians are entering the building again, this time from the make shift scaffolding.
Any attempt to pretend there was a fight rather than a massacre is crazy. Any suggestion that
somehow people inside were setting themselves on fire is ludicrous in light of evidence that the
Ukis were inside the building. And the fact that Kiev doesn't even see it as murder makes me just
angry.
AbsolutelyFapulous -> PlatonKuzin 1 May 2015 16:43
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil.
Donno why you are commenting here. You even don't seem to be able to read a map.
BorninUkraine -> RonBuckley 1 May 2015 16:25
In a way, you are right, it was the US (via Vicky "f… the EU" Nuland and mad John McCain)
that pushed Ukraine over the cliff. As usual, the EU "leaders" (Merkel, etc) acted as US lackeys.
However, equal blame goes to stupid and thieving Ukrainian elites, under whose "leadership"
the country was on the edge of that cliff to begin with.
Current Ukrainian "leaders" keep stealing everything they can, including financial and material
aid from the West. What else is new?
MaoChengJi -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 16:03
Yeah. I'm convinced that they should've sent paratroopers and take Kiev right the next day
after the coup d'etat; stop this whole unholy mess right then and there. That really would've
saved tens of thousands of lives - if not millions, seeing how this thing seems to escalate, leading
us to a nuclear war.
Putin is a pussy, Medvedev got it right in Georgia in 2008. Well, frankly Medvedev is a pussy
too. He should've taken Tbilisi, and put Saakashvili on trial.
To teach the bastards a lesson.
Instead, now we hear every day 'Russia will not fight Ukraine', 'Russia will not fight Ukraine',
and the murdering Nazi bastards get bolder and bolder. What's the point of having all that military
hardware if you're afraid to use it. They Yanks would've taken control of the place months ago,
look at Grenada.
RonBuckley -> BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 15:52
Well said, man. Yes, Ukrainian politics have always been divisive, stupid, thievery and corrupt.
That said they had neither brains nor money for a coup. So Ukraine should thank certain external
powers for the deep shit it is in now.
PlatonKuzin -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:31
Odessa as well as the most Ukraine is a Russian soil. That's the point. And the state of Ukraine
is a temporary occupier of the Russian soil. So people living in Odessa don't have to go to Russian.
They are right at their home. This is the state of Ukraine that has stayed on our Russian land
for 23 years now. It's time for the quasi-state of Ukraine to leave.
BorninUkraine -> puttypants 1 May 2015 15:16
I was born in Lvov in Western Ukraine, I grew up in Lugansk in the East, I have friends and
relatives all over, and I know exactly what is going on in Ukraine.
Ukraine in 1991 was extremely heterogenous. In the area West of Carpatian mountains people
speak Hungarian, Romanian, and Rusine (a form of old Russian, spoken in Kievan Rus).
Galichina and Volynia in the West speak several dialects of Ukrainian. Many in Central Ukraine
speak what is considered literary Ukrainian. In the South and East (historic Novorossia) and in
Kharkov region (historic Slobozhanschina) the majority speaks "surgik", a mix of pidgin-Ukrainian
and pidgin-Russian. Finally, in Crimea people speak Russian, Tatar, and very few speak Ukrainian.
Crimea voted AGAINST Ukraine in 1991 referendum and got a chance to run away in 2014, when Ukraine
committed suicide.
If the leaders of Ukraine had any brains and loved their country, they would have followed
the example of Switzerland and Singapore, having many official languages. However, all Ukrainian
rulers from day one were thieves and idiots. They made Ukrainian the only official language and
pushed it everywhere, so that while you could get school education in several languages, all colleges
operated only in Ukrainian, putting people who spoke other languages at a disadvantage.
That idiotic policy started this whole mess, which with a bit of US money, prodding, and now
arms became a civil war. Not to mention that Galichina is the place that fought against Russia
in WWI (as part of Austro-Hungarian empire, siding with Kaiser) and WWII (siding with Hitler).
They supplied the troops that under Hitler's command murdered thousands of civilians in Ukraine,
Poland, Belarus, and Slovakia. Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina,
who are considered heroes by current puppets in Kiev, voluntarily served Hitler.
80% of Ukrainian population hates these Bandera worshippers, so when external forces push them
to power, it creates trouble. Personally I hate them for giving a bad name to everything Ukrainian.
BorninUkraine -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:10
Russia failed to send its troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians
there, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans.
Or is saying things explicitly beyond your pay grade?
RonBuckley -> AbsolutelyFapulous 1 May 2015 15:06
To Odessa Kiev sent a few hundred pro-Nazi thugs - 42 died.
To Donetsk and Luhansk Kiev sent a few thousand pro-Nazi thugs plus the entire Ukrainian army
- 6000 died.
Get it now?
Goodthanx -> Anette Mor 1 May 2015 15:04
For me it was the silence... You are right! Seeing what i was seeing, with no commentry to
convince me either way.. How could the worlds media be so silent?
Then with MH, it was the complete opposite!! Immediately and with no investigation, MSM could
not shut up about who they thought was responsible!!
Both fail the logic test miserably. But try explaining common sense to those that haven't any.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:48
Those protesters were Ukrainian Pro Federalists! Not one Russian amongst them!
Anette Mor -> Goodthanx 1 May 2015 14:46
Good for you. It is impossible to hide truth with current state of technology. Only not showning.
Any life reporting give the footage adding facts one by one and crwating a true picture eventually.
Even this rather bias article contributes to true story because the lie in it sticks out of logic
for anybody we is able to think for themselves.
PlatonKuzin -> ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:42
Western media are not simply mirror images of the fascist governments they support. Acting
the way they do, these media prepare the public for a future war.
Anette Mor -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 14:41
It is poinless to try to install fear in these people. Need to look at the history of people's
wars in Russia. Since 17 century they were able to resist occupation and unwanted rulers by people
war. There wpuld not be a win against Napoleon and Hitler without people rising and forming resistance.
Same in Odessa now. Just a matter of time.
BunglyPete -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:35
The explanation is very simple. Right Sector had free reign to terrorise pro Russians, so he
took action. Kiev choose not to punish Right Sector both then and now. He said this in the same
interview you constantly reference.
Now can you explain why you think it is acceptable for Right Sector to terrorise the Donbass?
If Strelkov wasnt allowed to defend them, who was?
Anette Mor -> Jeff1000 1 May 2015 14:34
Not sure why you call them pro-Russians. Odessa is multi-national city. These who were massacred
are simply local people who disagreed with the violent coup which put to power by the west. Does
it make them "pro-russian" and justify thier killing? Surely these who want own country to be
coverned by own elected officials could not be pro- another country. If they trust Russian government
care for them more then thier own coup, that only says how bad the coup rule is.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:24
Forget about the Russian government. The idea is justice for the victims and punishment for
the perpetrators. Is it the ambition of the UN to be percieved as bias as so called Russuan investigators
would be?
Kaiama -> truk10 1 May 2015 14:22
FFS there are enough links and analysis to demonstrate that pro-Kiev forces inflicted a massacre
of civilians here. I don't see any pro-Ukraine links to additional information but an overwhelming
deluge of links supporting the unvoiced version of events.
ID5868758 1 May 2015 14:18
Our western media have really become mirror images of the fascist governments they support.
By publishing such whitewashing attempts as this, they only enable more such behavior in the future,
behavior that leads to the deaths of more innocents, more civilians whose only desire is to live
in freedom and peace.
Kaiama 1 May 2015 14:13
It is so depressing when there is far more information in the comments section than in the
article itself. It seems the new editor is keen to continue the traditions of her predecessor.
Goodthanx -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 14:09
What kind of a teenage girl carries in their backpack petrol, empty bottles, rags and whatever
else is required to make Molotov cocktails? What a coincidence... there is a group of them!!
As for Right Sector? Chartered buses transported Right Sector militia which arrived early in the
day. These were the people communicating with police from the start.
MaoChengJi -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 13:51
Speaking of the media... I've been reading this Odessa news website: http://timer-odessa.net/
, and it has been relatively informative (as much as Ukro-sites can be, these days). And today
suddenly it's gone dark: "there is no Web site at this address".
Does anyone know if it's gone for good? I really hope those who were running it are safe...
Jean-François Guilbo -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:51
So you didn't watch the video link in my comment did you?
If you just take this article for granted to know on which side the Odessa police was, you won't
learn much on what happened...
Seems like the officier on the picture would have been recognised as a colonel from Odessa police,
watch this link:
And from these two links, these armed guys not afraid to shoot from the crowd, could have been
agents provocateur...
BorninUkraine -> IrishFred 1 May 2015 13:47
Are you saying that Bandera, Shuhevich, and veterans of Waffen SS division Galichina never
existed? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above did not serve Hitler voluntarily? If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying all of the above are not guilty of mass murder and other crimes against humanity?
If so, please state it explicitly.
Are you saying that people who are murdering their opponents, politicians and journalists,
are not Nazis? If so, please state it explicitly.
As to Crimea, if you knew any history, you'd know that it was illegally annexed by Ukraine
in 1991. Here is history 101, not necessarily for you, but for those who actually want to know
the truth.
Russia deployed its troops in Crimea, and nobody was killed there. Russia failed to send its
troops to Donbass, and Ukrainian army killed thousands of civilians there, including women, children,
elderly, and disabled veterans.
As many Ukrainians joke now, "Crimeans are traitors: they ran away without us".
Your next argument?
Jeff1000 -> Chirographer 1 May 2015 13:45
Don't display callous and willful ignorance and call it even-handedness. The Guardian's "credible"
account offers no sources, agrees with none of the available pictorial or video evidence and is
rampant apologism.
I posted videos - including raw CCTV footage of the starting of the fire, further up the page.
BunglyPete -> coffeegirl 1 May 2015 13:40
I saw that guy's post it was fantastic, very well sourced and thorough. The comments on here
were a different kettle of fish entirely back then.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:39
The attempt to re-package this event as some awful conglomeration of circumstances spurred
on by the cruelty of fate is sickening. We reduce the death of at least 50 people down so that
calling it a "massacre" becomes needlessly emotive. We casually refer to the pro-Ukrainians as
"football fans" to make it seem innocent - when Ukrainian football fans known as "Ultras" are
famours for 2 things: Being neo-Nazis, and being violent thugs.
Look at this video especially: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAEcceedzCU
It's really very simple - candid videos at the time made it clear.
1. Pro-Russian groups were attacked by Ukrainian "ultras". They sought shelter in the Trade
Union building.
2. The building was set on fire when the Ultras threw molotovs through the windows. The doors
were barred.
3. People attempting to climb out of the windows were shot at, if they jumped they were beaten
as they lay on the ground.
4. Ukrainian nationalists deliberately blockaded the streets to inhibit the progress of ambulances
and fire engines.
Only a week after The Odessa Massacre an american CiFer, ex-marine, has gathered links, sieved
through hours and hours of video - he, practically, has done what the journos were supposed to
do, - to prove the Guardian, BBC and the rest were trying hard to whitewash the atrocity. Check
his posts: Additional proof that the BBC and the mainstream Western press lied when they said
both sides threw the molotov's.
I looked for 5 hours searching for one video that showed anyone in the building throwing a
molotov cocktail as the BBC first reported and the rest of the MSM went along with. I could not
find a single one. They claimed a person named Sergei (what are the odds of that) told them a
person threw the molotov inside the building and didn't realize the window was closed. This is
absolutely ludicrous and an example of the pathetic reporting that passes for "news" these days.
I did find the video of the third floor fire starting. It is at the following link and runs
consecutively. You'll notice at exactly the 2 minute mark the camera zooms in on the window where
the fire begins. You'll also notice that at the 2:02 mark you see an additional molotov cocktail
just miss the window. This is strong evidence that the window was being targeted by individuals
on the ground. Prior to this fire starting there is no other fire on the third floor, therefore
this is most likely the cause of the third floor fire and lends credence to the fact that the
violent youth below burned those people alive.
And not just "Russian state-owned media" - also most of the Russian privately owned media,
and most of the world media (and even some of the western media).
I believe I saw a chinadaily calling it Kristallnacht.
Jeff1000 1 May 2015 13:16
Russian state-owned media characterised the day's events as a "massacre" planned by "fascists"
in Kiev, a narrative that has gained widespread traction.
Mostly because it's a pretty fitting description of what happened.
Its not hard truk. Those red armbands that the so called pro Russian provocatores wore? Are
actually the same red armbands Right sector militia was wearing during the most violent Maidan
clashes. You can identify some of the same protagonists wearing the same armband in both Odesaa
and Maidan!
vr13vr -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:07
Idiot. Nobody is laughing. Especially when 50 people died. Look at this video and see how Ukrainians
entered the supposedly "heavily defended" building. You will see them operating inside, you will
see them existing the building after it started burning from inside.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg
Look at 23 min mark - they are entering the building with no resistance.
24:20. A group of Ukrainians go upstairs, there is no fire yet.
26:20 Some are coming returning. The stairs are being set on fire.
27:50 A Ukrainian is firing gun at those trying to jump from the building.
Yes, Ukrainians overrun the building, including the roof. The photographs suggest that people
in the building where set afire while still alive.
You must be an idiot to say someone is laughing at this.
castorsia -> truk10 1 May 2015 13:02
No. They burned them. Check the photographic evidence.
PlatonKuzin -> vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:58
Armored vehicles and special riot forces were brought today in Odessa to prevent possible unrest
there.
WHYNOPASSWORD12 -> Havingalavrov 1 May 2015 12:56
Plenty of witnesses point out that these were pro-ukraine provacateurs sent up to stir up trouble.
They are wearing the same red armbands worn by a group who started the skirmishes earlier in the
town centre. They were part of the group bussed-in under the guise of football supporters.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 12:55
Hi turk10,
I understand your confusion. Luckily, Mr. Christof Lehmann investigated it all for you. Seek and
ye shall find. Use google.
vr13vr 1 May 2015 12:50
Sure, Kiev views burning alive almost 50 people as a "victory." They even allowed to install
fear in the city. Since then the city is totally subdued, people would be afraid to even discuss
the events or think of any peaceful opposition as they are aware of the potential response from
Kiev's supporters.
Nice job Guardian trying to whitewash the events and justify the cold blooded murder by some
street fights elsewhere in the city, events that were taking place all over the country those
days.
Jeremn -> oleteo 1 May 2015 12:40
No greater cynics than western politicians, who certainly don't mourn this heavenly half-hundred,
or come to lay flowers at the scene of their death.
No greater cynic than the Czech envoy, Bartuska, who said:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they [independence supporters] are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were
simply burned to death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side
of the road, everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
ID5868758 1 May 2015 12:18
Another despicable attempt to paint a false equivalency, to assign blame for this massacre,
for their own deaths, on those who perished. Take the Molotov cocktail throwing, for instance.
I watched the videos of those Molotov cocktails being made, pretty little pro-Ukrainian girls
sitting on the ground with their assembly line all set up, smiling as they made those instruments
of death and handed them out, now just where did those supplies come from, who thought to bring
bottles and rags and fuel to an event if it was innocent in nature?
And where would those innocent victims chased inside the building get Molotov cocktails to
throw from inside the building, when they were interested only in escaping the smoke and flames,
saving their own lives? The narrative doesn't match the evidence, but neither does it pass the
smell test, pretty SOP for western media reporting on Ukraine.
StillHaveLinkYouHate -> MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 11:56
The difference is that Nazis want to murder people for the accident of how they were born.
Extreme natinalists will want to murder anybody who does not behave in the perverted way they
feel a patriot should.
That is the difference. Praviy sektor are nazis, incidentally.
It makes the point already made below in this comment thread:
I invite people to imagine how the British media would have reported this massacre if roles
had been reversed and if it had been Maidan supporters who were burnt alive in the Trade Union
building with an anti Maidan crowd filmed throwing Molotov cocktails into the building whilst
baying for blood outside.
Indeed.
GreatCthulhu -> Metronome151 1 May 2015 11:45
Many of them not locals.
I thought the article was pretty clear that everyone on both sides were local. I speak, of
course s an Irish man who doesn't regard hating Russians/ people who identify with Russia who
aren't Russians but live nearby as a default position before beginning any debate.
There are a small minority of Irish people, living in the Republic (I am not referring to the
northern Unionist Community here), who identify with Britain often to the point that they express
regret that Ireland ever left the UK. I don't agree with them, but I would not set them on fire
in a building. For that matter, it is ARGUABLE (I am not saying whether that argument is right
or wrong- just that you could put forward the thesis) that the N.I state-let is something of an
Irish Donbass. No justification for Ireland shelling the crap out of it though... at all... that
sort of stuff is kind of regarded as savagery here these days.
MaoChengJi -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:43
Hi turk10,
what's wrong with calling them 'nazis'? The guardian piece identifies them as "extreme nationalists",
and isn't it the same thing as 'neo-nazis' or 'nazis'?
Is there some nuance I'm missing here? What would you call them?
BorninUkraine -> truk10 1 May 2015 11:38
So you object to calling a spade a spade? Typical pro-US position in Ukrainian crisis. What
do you call the insignia of, for example, Azov battalion (see here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azov_Battalion ). If that's not Nazi insignia, I don't know what
is.
I am simply saying that those who organized Odessa massacre, then Mariupol massacre, then fueled
the war in Donbass, including Poroshenko, Turchinov, Yats, etc, are Nazis.
The simple reason for that conclusion is, as the saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, if
it walks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck, it is a duck". If you prefer Christian version
of the same thing, see Mathew 7:16 "you will know them by their fruits".
To sum it up, if someone behaves like a Nazi, s/he is a Nazi. Is this clear enough?
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 11:28
A pro-Russia activist aims a pistol at supporters of the Kiev government during clashes
in the streets of Odessa, 2 May 2014.
How do we know that the guy is pro-Russian? Does the picture show what he is aiming at? Does
he have a sign on his forehead burned in saying "I am pro-Russian and I am going to shoot that
pro-Ukrainian bastard"? No, he does not. We are expected to assume that because the caption says
so - but captions to pictures aren't evidence. Anybody can put any caption to any picture, and
it's been done many a time.
The head of the local pro-Ukraine Maidan self-defence group, Dmitry Gumenyuk, recalled the
effect of the homemade grenades. . . they threw a grenade and it exploded under his bullet-proof
vest and four nails entered his lungs," he said.
Such peaceful people - going for a nice in the park walk in bullet-proof vests. They were going
to destroy that camp and not on the agreement with the activists in that camp, as Guardian states
(complete BS) but violently, which they did. Even if they were attacked, what did women in the
camp have to do with it?
Come on, people, even in the face of such a tragedy, is it so absolutely necessary to hush up
the truth all the time?
BorninUkraine -> caliento 1 May 2015 11:24
There is a Ukrainian joke. Russians ask:
- If you believe that Russia annexed Crimea, why don't you fight for it?
- We aren't that stupid, there are Russian troops there.
- But you say there are Russian troops in Donbass?
- That's what we say, but in Crimea there really are Russian troops.
castorsia 1 May 2015 11:21
The Guardian continues to misrepresent the Odesa massacre by reporting claims by the official
Ukrainian investigation and the Odesa governor created May 2 group that the deadly fire started
when both sided were throwing Molotov cocktails. The videos and other evidence showing that the
fire started after the Molotov cocktails and tires were thrown by the attackers are deliberately
omitted.
Open question to you all: What would be in the headlines if scores of "Pro-Ukrainian activists
" were being burned, hacked, mauled, shot and raperd to death by Donetsk rebels or their supporters?
BorninUkraine 1 May 2015 11:20
There are lies, there are blatant lies, and then there are reports of Western media. Sad,
but true.
In this article Howard Amos pretends that he believes that both sides were to blame for the
mass murder of anti-fascists by pro-Maidan thugs in Odessa on May 2, 2014. That's like saying
that both the Nazis and the inmates of concentration camps were equally guilty.
This lie is so outrageous, and so far from reality, that it does not even deserve an argument.
The readers who want to know the truth can do Google search using "Odessa massacre 2014" and read
for themselves.
The lie that the Guardian repeats after Kyiv "government" looks even less plausible now, as
Odessa massacre was followed by the massacre of civilians by Nazi thugs in Mariupol a few days
later (change Odessa to Mariupol in your Google search), and the murder of thousands of civilians
in Donbass, including women, children, elderly, and disabled veterans, by the Ukrainian army and
Nazi battalions.
I grew up in the USSR, but I have never read a lie so obvious and outrageous in the Soviet
media. Congratulations on a new low!
coffeegirl aussiereader4 1 May 2015 11:11
Sounds like you know little about what happened in Odessa.
The best compilation of any available material was done on May 8, 2014 by our fellow CiFer
US ex-marine griffin alabama:
You like to cite Strelkov, don't you, when it suits your purpose? If he is such an authority
for you, why don't you cite everything he says? Among other things, he said that Maidan was not
a popular uprising but a pure decoration for the coup organized by the right wing groups and funded
by oligarchs together with the foreign agents? You can watch this here
http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2015/02/must-watch-strelkov-vs-starikov-debate.html
greatwhitehunter caliento 1 May 2015 11:08
you would no if you followed events the idea of peace keepers was supported by Russia, the
separatists and a good many other countries right from the start of the conflict . It was not
however supported by the kiev government or the US. Peace keepers were offered to Ukraine right
up until 4 days before the Minsk agreement.
Kiev's solution has always been a military one and still is. There belated cries for
peace keepers only came after getting an a*& kicking.
kiev signed the minsk agreement which requires them to deal with the issues peace keepers would
be a way out for them. Usa by their actions does not support the Minsk agreement.
Poroshenko,s idea of peace keepers was a few kiev friendly states to send weapons and troups
to bolster their ranks.
An offer was made via the UN security council for a peace keeping force that included china
and new zealand and poroshenko stated that ukraine didn't needed china and new Zealand's help,
as it turned out they did.
EugeneGur 1 May 2015 10:54
Oh Guardian, Guardian. Both are to blame, heroism on both sides - in short, they burned themselves.
We've heard that before. But then the article goes on and tells you that the movement they for
some reason call "pro-Russian", although its not pro-Russia as much as it's anti-fascist, is essentially
eliminated, with all leaders in jail or in exile. In contrast,
None of the pro-Ukraine activists have been put on trial
Kind of tells you what actually happened, doesn't it?
Activists from both sides admit that the port city remains divided into two approximately
matched camps
No, they aren't matched. The Odessa residents are mostly anti-Maidan. The city is flooded with
newcomers from the western Ukraine, and they the main supporters of Kiev. Otherwise, why would
Kiev deploy half of the army to Odessa before the May holidays?
Recently Poroshenko who had the temerity to visit Odessa on the anniversary of the city'
liberation from occupation was met with shouts "Fascism will not pass".
So much for "matched camps". Of course, if you put everybody of the opposing view in jail of
kill them, you can sort of achieve a "match".
Elena Hodgson 1 May 2015 10:50
This was a massacre. Period.
Hanwell123 1 May 2015 10:48
Ukraine is a gangster state where if activists aren't arrested then they are shot; 6 prominent
figures shot this year alone. No arrests. It's supported to the hilt by the EU who shell out enormous
sums to keep it from bankruptcy.
nnedjo 1 May 2015 08:42
This is the news from the Ukraine crisis Media Center:
Odesa, April 27, 2015 – Vitaly Kozhukhar, coordinator of the Self-Defense of Odesa, Varvara
Chernoivanenko, a spokesman for the Right Sector of Odesa held a briefing on the topic: "May
2 this year in Odesa. How a single headquarters of the patriotic forces preparing to hold a
day of mourning for those killed in the city"...
Varvara Chernoivanenko said that for all patriots of Ukraine is important that May 2 was peaceful
day. Patriotic forces create patrols that will keep order in the area of Cathedral Square,
which will host a memorial meeting for all those, who died on 2 May. They will make every effort
to ensure peace and order. Already, the city has operational headquarters of the patriotic
forces. Their representatives will stop all provocations. At the same time, according to Varvara
Chernoivanenko, on their part will not be any aggression.
Thus, the "patriotic forces", which I suppose are responsible for burning people alive in the
building of Trade Unions in Odessa, will now protect those who survived and who should hold the
memorial service for their relatives and friends, victims of Odessa massacre. The only question
is, from whom they should protect them?
I mean, this lady from the Right Sector boasts that they organized patrols of its members all
over the city. Well, you can bet that in these patrols will be at least some, if not all of those
who threw Molotov cocktails at the building of trade unions, and beaten with clubs or even shot
at those who tried to escape from the fire. Because, as this article shows, none of them has even
been charged, let alone be convicted of that crime.
So, can we then conclude that the executioners of the victims of the Odessa massacre will now
provide protection to those who mourn the victims, which is a paradox of its kind.
And how these patrols of "patriotic forces" operating in reality, you can watch in this video,
which was filmed during the visit of Poroshenko in Odessa, on the day of the celebration of liberation
of the city in WWII, 10 April. At the beginning of the film, the guys from "Patriotic patrol"
argue with a group of anti-fascists, demanding that they reject one of their flag. And then at
one point (0:31 of the video), one of these guys from patrol says:
"Didn't burn enough of you, eh?"
MaoChengJi 1 May 2015 07:45
Ah, of course: both sides are to blame, because before the massacre an extreme nationalist
militant died, under circumstanced unknown (shot in self-defense, perhaps? who knows).
Nice.
a pro-Ukraine member of the extreme nationalist organisation
Even nicer: 'pro-Ukraine extreme nationalist'. Pro-Ukraine? Which kind of Ukraine?
I find that one of the most misleading elements in these west-interpreted stories is "pro-Russian"
and "pro-Ukrainian" labels.
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed men.
If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to death,
or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road, everything
will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
6i9vern 1 May 2015 07:43
Truth? One doesn't look for truth in the Graun - the house journal of European Post-Democracy.
The truth will occasionally slip out of one of the Post-Democrats - the Czech diplomat Vaclav
Bartuska, for example:
"Groups of civilians - including men, women and children - seize government buildings. Within
two days they get arms and after that women and children disappear, leaving only the armed
men. If they are quickly resisted, as it was done in Odessa where they were simply burned to
death, or Dnepropetrovsk, where they were simply killed and buried by the side of the road,
everything will be calm. If this is not done, then there will be war. That's all."
The journos of the Graun who want to carry on attending their dinner parties and pretend to
be liberal and decent folk have better sense than to state matters truthfully.
Vladimir Makarenko Celtiberico 1 May 2015 06:20
They took it from Odessa being a symbol of Black Sea and a while ago a Russian poet said: Chernoe
More - Vor na Vore.
Black Sea - a thief by thief.
normankirk 1 May 2015 06:14
This is a shameless attempt to whitewash a massacre.There is plenty of evidence on you tube
Every one has cell phones which can record events as they unfold. This is why the American police
can no longer get away with murder. The European parliament held a hearing in Brussels to hear
the Odessa survivors. there was a concerted effort from Maidan activists from Kiev to shut down
the survivors testimony. A Europarliament deputy from the Czech republic Miroslav said "This is
simply shocking. this is an evidence of fascism not being disappeared from European countries.He
blamed Parubiy, co founder of far right Svoboda party and Kolomoisky, paymaster of neo nazi militia
for the massacre at Odessa. All this is recorded. Ignorance can no longer be a defence
ID075732 1 May 2015 05:53
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum quotes the following, famous text by Pastor Martin Niemoller
about the cowardice of intellectuals following the Nazis':
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak for me.
It's time for the MSM to realise that the same is happening Ukraine - for which the Odessa
massacre is a warning. It's time they stopped playing intellectual games to prop up what is a
fascist regime in Kiev.
BunglyPete 1 May 2015 05:48
Just in case those involved in the production of this article do read or hear of these comments..
Do you not realise we have Google and Youtube now? You can verify anything within a few keystrokes.
You do not need to rely on the evil Russian media, you can watch the eyewitness videos yourself.
I mean this seriously, if you are going to attempt to prove something then at least realise
that you will need to go to more lengths to do so. In the context of the greater 'propaganda war',
articles like this are nonsensical, as you merely serve to discredit yourself, and encourage people
to move to alternative media sources.
If you want to discredit the Russian narrative then discredit it, don't write things that discredit
your own narrative.
You don't need to bill me for this advice it comes for free.
SHappens 1 May 2015 04:30
Many allege that investigators are dragging their feet for political reasons, possibly to
cover up high-level complicity.
At the beginning of the unrest, the most virulent reaction came from supporters of Ukrainian
football clubs. But they were soon joined by a well-organized gang of self-defense that came in
a column of about 100 people dressed in military fatigues and relatively well equipped.
Members of the Ukrainian security forces withdrew from the scene allowing the rightwing radicals
to block the exits and firebomb the building forcing many to jump from open windows to the pavement
below where they died on impact. The few who survived the fall were savagely beaten with clubs
and chains by the nearly 300 extremist thugs who had gathered on the street.
Street fighting thugs don't typically waste their time barricading exits unless it is part
of a plan, a plan to create a big-enough incident to change the narrative of what is going on
in the country. None of the victims of the tragedy were armed.
This isn't the first time the US has tried to pull something like this off. In 2006, the Bush
administration used a similar tactic in Iraq. That's when Samarra's Golden Dome Mosque was blown
up in an effort to change the public's perception of the conflict from an armed struggle against
foreign occupation into a civil war.
So who authorized the attack on Odessa's Trade Unions House? Could it be that the Ukrainian
Security Services were supervised by some external mercenaries just like the Oluja blitzkrieg
in Croatia back in 1995 when the Croatian National Guard was then supervised and managed by MPRI,
an US SMP based in Virginia? Because in Kiev, dozens of specialists from the US CIA and FBI were
advising the Ukrainian government helping Kiev end the rebellion in the east of Ukraine and set
up a functioning security structure. (report, AFP).
Whatever and if ever an inquiry succeeds, fact is that the government in Kiev bears direct
responsibility, and is complicit in these criminal activities for they allowed extremists and
radicals to burn unarmed people alive.
warehouse_guy 1 May 2015 04:30
Tatyana Gerasimova also says the case is getting killed off in court, put that on your headline.
alpykog 1 May 2015 04:30
Nothing unusual about police, army and terrorists working together. I remember the British
army in Belfast actually running joint patrols in broad daylight with Loyalist terrorists through
Catholic areas and that was the tip of the iceberg. Try not to feel "holier than thou" when
you read this stuff.
ID075732 1 May 2015 04:23
Rumours swirl of a higher death toll, the use of poisonous gas and the body of a pregnant
woman garrotted by pro-Ukraine fanatics.
Clearly the author has not watched the footage filmed inside the building after the massacre
- this was no "swirling rumour". Clearly the footage wasn't faked either. It showed may murdered
victims with burns to their heads and arms with bodies and clothes unscorched, not caused by the
actual fire.
Also those that have studied the many videos available of the unfolding events saw a much more
an orchestrated attack on the Trade Union building with fires breaking out in rooms further away
from the seat of the original fire. Also two masked figures on the roof before the fire started
in the building.
Reports that the exits were blocked and a number of masked pro-Ukrainians were inside the building
not just on the roof, don't figure in this report.
ploughmanlunch 1 May 2015 03:41
'While many pro-Ukraine activists helped the rescue effort, others punched, kicked and beat
those who fled the burning building. "There was blood and water all over the courtyard," said
Elena, who escaped via a fireman's ladder. "They were shouting 'on your knees, on your knees'."
This sums up, in my opinion, the whole sordid mess that is present Ukraine.
The majority of ordinary Ukrainians living under the authority of Kiev will broadly agree with
their Government, but are civilised and are probably horrified by the violence perpetrated by
both sides in the war.
Unfortunately, however, there is a significant minority of extremist Ukrainian Nationalists
that readily resort to violence and intimidation and revile Russian speaking 'separatists' in
the Donbas ( and elsewhere ).
Even more unfortunately, the fanatical far right have a disproportionate influence in the Kiev
Parliament and even the Government; a fact conveniently overlooked by the incredibly indulgent
Western powers. The present Kiev regime is blatantly anti-democratic and lacks any humanitarian
concern for the desperate plight of citizens still living in Donbas, ( unpaid pensions, economic
and humanitarian blockade ).
This crisis still has a long way to go, and I believe has not yet reached it's nadir. A brighter
future for all the people of Ukraine will require unbiased and honest involvement of the great
powers, East and West.
Geo kosmopolitenko 1 May 2015 03:22
Some spin doctors in Washington would sarcastically smile if they ever read this sadly tragic
article.
Kiselev 1 May 2015 03:20
Symbol of separated Ukrainian society...
Whatever western Ukrainians told us.
The Washington Post's Michael Birnbaum invented a
new funny way to equalized victims and perpetrators of serious crimes:
MOSCOW - A pro-Russian Ukrainian journalist was gunned down in Kiev on Thursday, authorities said,
a day after a Ukrainian politician supporting Moscow was found dead.
The killing of Oles Buzyna, 45, raised fears of a new wave of back-and-forth violence in the
streets of Ukraine after a string of unsolved deaths that has touched both sides
of the conflict between Ukraine's Western-allied government and pro-Moscow separatists.
Indeed the "unsolved deaths" "touched both sides" with eleven people on one side getting murdered
while the other side covered up these murders as "suicides" and very likely also provided the killers.
Eight
politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S. inspired
coup, were killed as were three
journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.
There is some curious connection between some of the recent killings and NATO. As RB
at NiqNaqprovides (recommended):
On Apr 14, a profile of Oles' Buzina was added to https://psb4ukr.org/ site (where Ukrainian government
encourages people to fink the authorities on the people suspected of separatism); on Apr 15, Oles'
Buzina was killed near his home with 4 shots. I (my correspondent – RB) looked up the
Web address where they posted Buzina's address, and found that it's hosted on a NATO server.
The Niqnaq post provides details and screenshots demonstrating the connection to NATO.
(A short take is also here.) I was myself researching the issue for MoA when I found that
Niqnaq post and I can confirm the findings and add a bit.
Two names and personal data of persons recently assassinated in Ukraine were posted on a "nationalist"
website shortly before those persons were killed. That website,
screenshot)
screenshot), is
headlined:
"Peacemaker"
RESEARCH CENTRE FEATURES OF CRIMES AGAINST UKRAINE'S NATIONAL SECURITY, PEACE, SECURITY AND
HUMANITY international law
Information for law enforcement authorities and special services about pro-Russian terrorists,
separatists, mercenaries, war criminals, and murderers.
Next to some news pieces the site carries a list for download with some 7,700 names of "saboteurs"
and "terrorists".
On a first view the name "psb4ukr.org" is anonymously
registered through the U.S.
company Wild West Domains.
A "traceroute" command shows that Internet Protocol requests to the server "psb4ukr.org" end in
a datacenter in Dallas, Texas at dallas-ipc.com and the IP number 208.115.243.222.
A "nslookup" command with the input "psb4ukr.org" confirms in its output the registered IP Number
to be "208.115.243.222" (screenshot).
A reverse "nslookup" command with the input "208.115.243.222" provides the output "psb4ukr.nato.int".
(screenshot).
"nato.int" is the Internet domain namespace registered and reserved for NATO. Why is a server
for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been killed - registered
within the NATO Internet namespace?
After some additional research we find that the non-anonymous registration to "psb4ukr.org"
is to one Vladimir Kolesnikov, 98 Lenin St, Velyka Oleksandrivka, Kyiv Oblast, Ukraine.
Further searching for Vladimir Kolesnikov we
find that Mr. Kolesnikov has registered several other websites through Limestone Networks, Inc
in Dallas, Texas.
Some of these website seem to be concerned with crypto payment, teletraining and unrelated stuff.
Some others are related to the nasty "nationalist" side of the Ukraine conflict.
Operativ.info asks for tip offs about "saboteurs"
and "terrorists" and their operations while informnapalm.org
is a general "nationalist" news collection.
There is no hint of any NATO-relation in these other sides. A reverse nslookup like the one that
shows a relation like between "psb4ukr.org" and "psb4ukr.nato.int" does not deliver such results
for the other website registered to Mr. Kolesnikov.
One possible explanation for the "psb4ukr.nato.int" lookup result might be that the website was
originally build or tested within the NATO namespace and later transferred outside without cleaning
up some of the original name references.
Posted by b on April 17, 2015 at 03:06 PM |
Permalink
james | Apr 17, 2015 5:45:27 PM | 1
thanks b.. any connection to nato is really riveting if true.. the fact all the people murdered
are opposed to the present gang in kiev speaks volumes as well.. i hope some western msm will
pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.. it will be more bs like the wapo is famous for..
spewing propaganda 24/7, these media outlets make the prvada of previous times look like amateurs..
jfl | Apr 17, 2015 6:33:22 PM | 2
Excellent work, b. It is true that the MSM sill never publish anything like this ... but it
is also true that the 'market' for news has been bifurcated at this point : those who want to
know the truth are engaged in the search for it on their own and those who definitely do NOT want
to know the truth are reading, viewing the MSM.
Attending to the MSM has become an act of complicity with the crimes of the empire in itself.
JerseyJeffersonian | Apr 17, 2015 6:43:55 PM | 3
So, death squads on the menu?
Ah, takes me back to those golden times in Iraq, El Salvador...
Hoarsewhisperer | Apr 17, 2015 11:55:44 PM | 5
I've come to appreciate the value of the "both sides" meme.
It's a 24ct guarantee that USrael or one of their "good friends" has been caught perpetrating
inexcusable atrocities, upon civilians, which need to be urgently diluted.
The "Israelis" have turned it into an art form - an absolute necessity given that ALL the victims
of the Shitty Little Country's insane anti-Palestinian hubris have been civilians.
It's quite clever in a cowardly, sneaky, "Israeli" kind of way...
Fete | Apr 18, 2015 12:41:56 AM | 604/17/2015 19:57
Russian Spring
Commenting an appeal of Donbass community to the guarantors of the Minsk agreements, Presidents
of Russia and France, Vladimir Putin and François Hollande as well as Angela Merkel, the Chancellor
of Germany, the Chairman of Peoples Council of Donetsk Republic Andrey Purgin assumed that today's
Kiev moves toward Ukrainian Nazism.
"Mass arrests and intimidation are common. Those who disagree to live with the Ukrainian
ethnic nazism are prosecuted. The most active ones are incarcerated", asserted Purgin
According to him, thousands are jailed for their political convictions.
"Of course, there are calls to (international) community, to Merkel, Europe to interfer.
Unfortunately, those live in framework of different (double) standards and are not going to
do anything. Instead, they call to yield to Ukraine, where arrests and burning houses are taking
place", added Purgin.
@b
Why is a server for a website which is hunting for dissidents in Ukraine - some of whom have been
killed - registered within the NATO Internet namespace?
Russian Defense Minister summed it up very well, at Moscow's annual security conference.
"The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev
into their orbit..."
JerseyJeffersonian@3 is right on target reminding us of the infamous "Death Squads" in El Salvador
and Iraq. Targeting of opposition figures by parallel security forces killing not-so anonymously,
is an integral part of any regime hell-bent on imposing by force a quasi-fascist form of government.
The purpose is to inflict terror on a massive scale, a psychological war that aims at paralyzing
others from opposing the regime. It is the ABC of any counterinsurgency manual, and it clearly
shows the hand of the CIA behind the systematic killing of Yanukovich allies, perceived or real
pro-Russian individuals/organizations/regional or city governments, as it happened recently in
Kharkov, and a couple of days ago in Odessa.
This is lustration on a higher level, not just firing from government posts all of those
considered "opposition," not enough for the Ukrainian neo-nazis, they have to be physically eliminated.
As bastard children of nazi ideologues, they have to follow their German masters in their
"purification" of society (lustration from Latin = purification), cleansing it from any elements
that could endanger the "purity" of their new fascist dystopia.
The WaPo, a mouthpiece of Neoconland/Deep State, is an accomplice to murder not only in Ukraine,
and has played a crucial role white-washing the crimes of the criminal Kiev junta from day one.
Shame on you, Michael Birnbaum, you're justifying the slaughter of innocents just to keep a miserable
job writing horseshit, and killing them a second time with your blatant lies.
i hope some western msm will pick some of this up, but i highly doubt it.
The western msm have picked up on it but to claim that an anti-Kiev oligarch who funded the Party
of Regions is killing them off to cover his tracks over that funding.
An organisation called the 'Ukrainian Insurgent Army' has claimed responsibility for the murders
of Chechetov, Peklushenko, Miller, Kalashnikov and Buzina.
I second your recommendation. I spotted some short extracts at Russia Insider,
and I share their recommendation that you read the whole piece. Here's a small sample, .
Q: In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia justified?
Well, I can't think otherwise.
I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in the '90s. I've been saying since
February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev] that the 1990s is when everything
went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So you need at least that much history,
25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier....
Q: I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist
campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.
But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington,
Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't
call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations
because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with
murderous intent....
So the United States has been deeply complicit in the destruction of these eastern cities and
peoples....
Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who
are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine....
Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut our eyes to a humanitarian
crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether you like or don't like
Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of American policy and
the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate this.
See also his comments on Yeltsin. Increasing ill and under the thumb of the oligarchs, he cozied
up to Washington. Cohen reports that Medvedev, a number of years ago, advised that Zyuganov of the
Communist Party of the Russian Federation had actually won the election that gave Yeltsin his final
term.
Posted by: rufus magister | Apr 18, 2015 11:04:39 AM |
12
New detentions of peaceful protesters in Odessa: 30 people reported detained at Odessa rally
for cultural autonomy and a peaceful solution to the civil conflict: "The People's Council [of Bessarabia]
is the grassroots, peaceful initiative."
So far the People's Council of Bessarabia is looking like an effort to use what legal space seems
to exist under current junta law to organize "within the system," while the Odessa People's Republic
appears to be extralegal and separatist. But the reality is that there is no legal space within fascism
for any opposition to organize:
Posted by: Vintage Red | Apr 18, 2015 11:43:21 AM |
13
jj, lw, bb at 3, 7 & 10 --
Extrajudicial repression has been a staple of the ruling class since antiquity. See the murder
of Tiberius Gracchus in the 2nd. cent. BC. But along with creating "insurgencies" (Nicaragua, Afghanistan)
the Amercan Century has really made it one of its art forms. A sort of "Abstract Repressionism;"
we're disinclined to think of the human cost, let alone accept responsibility for it.
If you want some good fantasy fiction writing, I'd recommend the Kyiv Post's weirdly informative
article,
Murders of two journalists, ex-lawmaker spook Kyiv. It begins, "The atmosphere was spooky in
Kyiv on April 16 as news broke about the murder of a third prominent person in four days." Quite
lit'ry, weren't it? It's the Party of Regions, it's the Russian, it's a scheme to disrupt Victory
Day.
It goes on to some highly negative spin about Kalashnikov and Buzina, and finishes with short
accounts of rash of "suicides" amongst regime opponents.
Meanwhile, repression is spreading in
Odessa. A mixed group of local Maidan activists, police, and PravSek militiamen detained protesters.
They wanted a free trade zone and were unhappy with utility prices and pensions. A clear and present
danger. Whereabouts presently unknown. -- VR at 13, just saw yrs. I'll have to ck'out the NeoNazi
bit.
VR -- well that was depressing. In part 'cause it lead me to what the link called "Drunk With
Permissiveness: Nazis Execute Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." The page itself is a little
more mundane,
Ukrainian
Insurgent Army Claims Responsibility for Death of Reporter Buzina. It provides further details
than the Fort Russ account above.
It links the rise in violence to the recent proclamation of the collaborators as victors over
their fascist patrons, taken as a green light for a bit of the ultra-violence. They promise "a ruthless
insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and Moscow henchmen..." They seem as
good as their word. Too bad....
These incidents are so historically familiar. When reading your article b, I couldn't help thinking
about Italy and the murders and terrorism that occurred through out the 1950's to 1980's. Incorrectly,
many of our contemporaries believe that the Gladio which was created by NATO, the UK and the US is
defunct. As revealed by Professor Daneile Ganser, Gladio is a live and well and operates globally.
Yes, NATO is the culprit. Just as it was the instrumental culprit that was used as a tool in Kosovo
for US interests. As for the monsters in Kiev, Reinhard Gehlen, one of the Nazi architects of the
stay-behind-network would be proud.
en1c at 15 -- Very droll! It's been renamed "plausible deniability" to suite modern sensibilities.
vr at 13 -- I followed your link.
Depressing, in part 'cause I followed this link there, "Drunk With Permissiveness: Nazis Execute
Journalist Buzina, Promise New Bloodshed." It provides further details than the Fort Russ
item cited at 14. Folks will have to find it on their own, I'm afraid. It wouldn't post my link from
Sputnik -- though the link in the preview worked. Others have had that problem.
"We are unfolding a ruthless insurgent battle against the traitors of the Ukrainian regime and
Moscow henchmen...." They claim five murders, including Kalashnikov and Buzina. So they look to be
as good as their word. Too bad.
Thank you for your links, CTuttle @ 8. I don't know Stephen Cohen very well, but I took a dislike
to Katherine his wife way back when the Nation came out so strongly against Ralph Nader as a candidate,
and seeing her on Charlie Rose didn't warm me to her either. There are some folk on the 'left' who
need to come right out and admit they have been wrong to endorse anti-common-folk principles in the
past, due to the damage they have caused by supporting the oligarchs.
They are taking a page out of Putin's book: he was in government during the Yeltsin era when policies
were strongly skewed to get along with US oligarchies and Russia's own. Putin has changed course,
no two ways about it, and his people as a consequence love him. I just hope these folk will have
the same intention - Katherine, you will have to stop sniping at Ralph if you want us to love you.
The problem of Ukrainian nationalism is that they do not have "democratic template", heroes of
the past were hetmans, otamans and fascists. To be patriotic, you have to be bloody minded. So patriots
are murdering enemies of the people, and the West gives green light by giving aid and not raising
stink. [disclamer: I do not despise patriotism, but like love and religion, it can motivate excesses
including murder, mass murder, lies, mass lies and so on, emotional attachment can be a positive
force, but as we know, it is not always the case. Below, "patriot" describes the self-assessment.]
The Newsweek story
http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/17/ukraine-plagued-succession-unlikely-suicides-former-ruling-party-320584.html
that b found is extremely symptomatic. American patriots in the media are following the official
clues how to cover stories from the confusing lands outside our borders. Apparently, in the case
of Ukraine, one has to follow explanations of Ukrainian patriots. And the version plied in Newsweek
was that an oligarch, Rinat Akhmetov, is ordering murders of his former confidants and benefactors
to "remove witnesses", somehow failing to consider the following clues: murders are being covered
up by the current authorities, the minister in charge of police is a fascist (according to Guardian,
"there is only one fascist in Ukrainian cabinet"), and Akhmetov is not allied with the current authorities.
Since 1945, members of UPA and related organizations were cooperating with CIA, so when American
government want to find reliable familiar faces in Ukraine they will always start with "fascists".
In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat weird
disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically, in
Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist" (for parochial reason,
as they murdered ca. 100,000 Poles).
A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into "moderate
mayhem", contrasting with much more grandiose approach advocated by GOP and neocons (who can be Democrats
and Republicans).
In 1976, journalist Peter Watson was at a NATO conference in Oslo, when a U.S. Navy psychologist,
Dr. Thomas Narut, from the U.S. Naval Hospital in Naples told Watson and New Jersey psychologist
Dr. Alfred Zitani, that the Navy sought men to train as assassins in overseas embassies. The following
is from the London Sunday Times, "The soldiers who become killers," September 8, 1974, but reproduced
from a conspiracy site, as the original, and most references to it, plentiful even when I first
read about it some years ago, are limited now to a few dozen conspiracy sites. The story is also
told at some length in Watson's book (out of print), War on the Mind: The Military Uses and
Abuses of Psychology, published by Basic Books in 1978.
[Narut's] naval work involved establishing how to induce servicemen who ma[y] not be naturally
inclined to kill, to do so under certain conditions. When pressed afterwards as to what was
meant by "combat readiness units," he explained this included men for commando-type operations
and – so he said – for insertion into U.S. embassies under cover, ready to kill in those countries
should the need arise. Dr. Narut used the word "hitmen" and "assassin" of these men.
The method, according to Dr. Narut, was to show films specially designed to show people
being killed and injured in violent ways. By being acclimated through these films, the men
eventually became able to dissociate any feelings from such a situation. Dr. Narut also added
that U.S. Naval psychologists specially selected men for these commando tasks, from submarine
crews, paratroops, and some were convicted murderers from military prisons. Asked whether he
was suggesting that murderers were being released from prisons to become assassins, he replied:
"It's happened more than once."
"For the first time, U.S. officials acknowledge that in 1965 they systematically compiled comprehensive
lists of Communist operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres. As many as 5,000 names
were furnished to the Indonesian army, and the Americans later checked off the names of those
who had been killed or captured, according to the U.S. officials," Kathy Kadane wrote for South
Carolina's Herald-Journal on May 19, 1990. [Kadane's article also appeared in the San Francisco
Examiner on May 20, 1990, the Washington Post on May 21, 1990, and the Boston Globe on May 23,
1990.]
The Indonesian mass murder program was based in part on experiences gleaned by the CIA in the
Philippines. "US military advisers of the Joint US Military Advisory Group (JUSMAG) and the CIA
station in Manila designed and led the bloody suppression of the nationalist Hukbong Mapagpalaya
ng Bayan," notes Roland G. Simbulan (Covert Operations and the CIA's Hidden History in the Philippines).
In the West (due to the limits of my education, that means USA and UK) one can see somewhat
weird disputes if those people are really fascist. In Russia they get "fascist" label automatically,
in Poland few would think that "banderowcy" label is any better than "fascist"
One often hears Novorossiyans and Russians saying that the present Banderites are actually worse
than the German Nazis were. I concur with that view.
As for American attitudes to Ukie fascism, that's not hard to understand. All you have to think
about is the US training death squads in Central America. Fascist thugs are a tool of US foreign
policy, in the same way that Islamist terrorists are. This is now a commonplace in the progressive
blogosphere.
A mixed blessing is that Obama administration is liberal, which apparently translates into
"moderate mayhem"
I recently ran across an interview witb a Ukrainian political scientist who had to flee to Moscow,
in which he said that Europeans are finally cottoning on to the true nature of the Kiev regime, so
the US no longer has any reason to restrain the fascists. Hence the recent slew of assassinations
and terror. (Sorry, I'm too lazy to dig up the link.)
Hey, thanks, man. I forgot it was a video. I just remembered it being in Russian, which confused
me. Well worth watching, IMO. Americans have no idea of what Russians think.
To repeat myself, the prevailing Russian view (and with the Internet, the collapse of communism,
and Putin's revival of Russia, I think that pretty much all Russians are on the same page except
for the 10% or less of the Russians who are "liberals") seems to be that the EU was totally eager
to make Ukraine an economic colony of the West, but unlike the US, it does not want war in Ukraine.
So the views of the US and the EU on the Ukraine diverge significantly, although net everyone here
thinks that. (Of course, Russian policy towards the Ukraine since the coup has been largely predicated
on that.)
And thanks for the second link.
His change of view is prompted by the law passed by the Ukrainian Parliament on April 9
glorifying World War.
It was pretty predictable that this would happen eventually. And then it turns out that Poles are
saying what Russians have been saying since last May:
Their savagery was beyond human imagination. Nazi Germany did not come up with what those Ukrainians
were doing
The American public has no idea of this. (In Europe, it's probably only England and the pesky Balts.)
"Poles know what's going on" ... it is more complex than that. The government and more established
media took very pro-American and anti-Russian perspective. The main opposition party build its current
set of slogans around anti-Russian paranoia. That said, in Communist times the issue of the massacres
of Poles in Volhynia and other regions with mixed population was almost hidden by the authorities,
but now it is common knowledge, and after the law acknowledging the perpetrator as heroes the critique
of the government is increasingly mainstream.
In particular, the U-turn of Gen. Skrzypczak is related to perceived "slap in the face". Polish
president made a speech to Ukrainian parliament with very warm support, and the law that is extremely
irritating to Poles was passed "few hours later", and that was duly noted by leftist opposition in
the Parliament. That is not insignificant, because there are good chances that the ruling party will
be forced into a coalition with those people.
As nationalists go, Ukrainian ones seem worse than most. The last election were preceded with
massive nationwide intimidation campaign and few little massacres. The really have a cult of force
and violence, which is reflected in putting boxers in the parliament, and -- surprise, surprise --
getting fist fights in that parliament. The lie compulsively -- recall American senators who got
photos taken in Georgia as the proof of Russian columns in Ukraine (see
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Franz_Roubaud._Count_Argutinsky_crossing_the_Caucasian_range._1892.jpg
). They seem to care nothing about the economy, instead, they want to eliminate Communism and Russian
language. Poor Ukrainian people seemed to have the choice of hopelessly corrupt and hopelessly insane,
so kicking out the previous corrupt lot is not as much of an improvement as Western liberals (and
the Russian emigrants who are cited in the mainstream media) perceive.
Thanks for the link to the Polish military adviser. Links like that, where a guy with impeccable
'pro-West' credentials says the right things about Ukraine, can be used to persuade our 'normal,
conventional' friends.
About European Union Army: there is a whiff of hilarity there. On one hand, the dangers from ISIS
and Russia are both quite remote, so they are not treated seriously. The force being pencilled is
about as large as the part of Ukrainian army that was encircled in Debaltsevo (should there be a
Wiki entry "Debaltsevo debacle"?). Of course, it makes some sense of practicing coordination of national
units so it is not a moronic project, but a very smallish project with very outsized among of debates,
announcements, analysis and so on.
While Europe has few problems defending itself against some putative onslaught, "projecting force"
is another matter. The French can do it in Chad, Mali etc., but how large a European Corps should
be to make a difference in conflicts between local nationalists of Georgia and Ukraine with Russian-supported
internal opponents? It is like trying to defend Paraguay against the forces of Triple Alliance: we
could promise economic sanctions on Argentina, Brasil and Uruguay would they invade Paraguay again,
but above all, we would urge Paraguay not to pick fights with the neighbors. (Incidentally, currently
Paraguay has a "pro-Western" government, and the three former opponents, "anti-Western", so it is
a good case study for comparisons.)
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Apr 19, 2015 9:05:36 AM |
34
side board
On : Eight politicians of the Party of Region of former president Yanukovich, ousted in a U.S.
inspired coup, were killed as were three journalists un-sympathetic to the now ruling coup government.
I suspect there are many names of murdered unknown, unlisted.
Political 'covert' or open, blatant assassinations are unfortunately normal in such situations.
Tallying them is arduous, because the murderous impulse is reflected right down into the street,
it is not just a State - Power - Corp enterprise.
Viktor, 33, son of Viktor Yanukovych died in March 2015, in an accident on Lake Baikal. His vehicle,
with 6 on board, went through the ice, 5 survived, he died. He was the driver.
I'm not advocating he should be added to that list. Abandonment (one article suggested that all
scrambled to save themselves thus leaving Viktor with no help..) is part of that…
Just to say, that lists like this are dodgy and depend on the MSM, snippets from blogs and the
like. Viktor Junior might easily have been included, his death is exremely suspicious, etc. Or it
might be considered a typical rich son demise due to hubris, stupidity, assumed invicibility
forging ahead in a risky 'sport.'
Lone Wolf at 29 -- "Land of Confusion" is a good call, suits the time now better than it did before.
Unfortunately the vid you linked to was not available in my loc. But I happen to have it in my browser
history, for anyone that missed their daily dose (or yearly allotment) of
Genesis. And let me throw
in my favorite early Peter Gabriel track,
Here Comes the Flood. The
problems of global warming give it a different meaning now than in 80's. Best live version, IMHO.
"It'll be those who gave their island to survive...."
I don't think that there's much doubt that the Apollo program was America's pinnacle. (As is the
case with other great human achievements, it took a German to make it happen.) Compared to when America
made it to the moon, the country is now absolutely pitiful and pathetic, and I think everyone understands
that on one level or another.
I read up on the Apollo program at Wikipedia recently. It really was a mind boggling achievement.
Think of the self-confidence those scientists and engineers must have had to work out such a project,
when no one had any experience of being in space. No wonder there is a conspiracy theory that it
was all a hoax. (Of course, the Russians deserve some credit even here, since it was they who provided
the motivation to the Americans to get to the moon.)
How could America fall so low from such a peak? To hazard a guess, what made the Apollo program
possible was the inheritance from the US WW II effort. Not just Werner von Braun, but also central
economic planning and the restraint of avarice by a sense of national purpose.
Perhaps America's fate was sealed when Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard. That made
the dollar an international reserve currency that could be printed without limit, removing any pressure
from the US to be economically competitive or have a manufacturing base. Thus the current situation,
in which the main way that the US interacts with the outside world is by waging one war after another,
all to keep the dollar in place.
And finally, since we're sharing music videos again, here is an 80s antidote to Genesis:
P. Berman at 33 -- While I've not followed it too closely (I stay busy watching the Banderaists),
the problem of the EuroForce is puzzling. It's the kind of rapid reaction force that the French have
had for decades with Foreign Legion -- professional interventionists. And as they were volunteers,
often foreign, little political cost for use.
So you'd think in principle it's well with the the organizational and logistical capabilities
of the Eurozone. Clearly the problems are political, around domestic sovereignity and foreign entanglement.
As well as the one you raise, who will it be used against, and where?
I'm not sure the Paraguay analogy fits, but I'd have to bone up on that one. I'm glad that we've
drawn someone capable of bringing it up, good fit or bad. I always find it hard to think of land-locked
Paraguay has having been a power frightful enough to unite its neighbors against it in the late 1800's.
The main source of power of the Ukrainian military machine... is in its reliance on wide array
of means of waging war in pursuit of "Ukrainianness".
This machine is based on lies, cruelty,
direct terror, the use of forbidden weapons (I think that if the regime had nuclear weapons it
would have used them by now), and the lowest imaginable methods of warmaking, such as the destruction
of the civilian population, hostage-taking, torture, and the murder of prisoners of war and opponents....
It is not especially subordinate to the political leadership, but instead is purposed for,
to some extent or another, the destruction of everything that does not fit into the "one state-one
nation-one idea" conception.
The power of the Ukrainian military machine also resides in the fact that it is backed by the
entire "civilized world" which is rendering Kiev moral, political, financial, military, and legal
support.
He goes on to note that the Ukrainians have no effective leadership, capable of inspiring the
ranks to sacrifice and victory. This is in part due no cohesive, appealing ideology.
As translator J. Hawk points out about Ukrainian nationalism, "Everyone who's ever adopted it,
lost. They did not merely lose badly, they lost ugly, and made the ideology appear even more despicable
and monstrous than it was before." Having cut themselves off from the Russian and Soviet past, they're
left with Bandera and the OUN-UPA atrocities as models of "Ukrainainness."
I sadly expect this run of bad luck on the part of the heroes of the Ukraine will continue.
If you're trying for true anonymity, you've already failed because this web site records IP addresses
of all who post, unless you've already sought ways to block or falsify your IP address from the very
beginning.
Equally email access has the same problem: irrespective of what information the email provider
requires you to give, all a surveillance agency would need would be to access the IP addresses from
which a given account is logged into.
True, the IP address isn't necessarily very accurate - typically in the 3-5 mile range - but additional
filtering can narrow that down considerably, especially if traces are then put on said IP address
to look for patterns of behavior (times of day a target typically uses the internet, writing/grammar
patterns, lists of web sites frequented, etc).
I am not trying for true anonymity. I just don't want my identity to be obvious to any fascist
(at this current point in history, the word "fascist" is more or less synonymous with "Ukrainian")
idiot who might be reading this blog.
@ALL:
If Atlantos were civilized, they would commit harikiri: Bridge Burning: EU to Bring Antitrust
Charges against Gazprom http://t.co/8TrQ4LWoze
On a darker note, here's a very well-made threat for you. Security forces say
"Ukrainophobes" ought to "lower their rhetoric to zero". Senior SBU investigator Vasiliy Vovk,
speaking officially, said "I think that... when we are practically at war... we should not have people...
who are speaking out against Ukraine and against Ukrainianness. I advise them to do it because nothing
good will come of it."
When asked if he could define "Ukrainophobia," Vovk said "No. But we know what we are talking
about."
Quote: "The [crisis now] grew out of Clinton's policies, what I call a "winner take all" American policy
toward what was thought to be-but this isn't true-a defeated post-Cold War Russia, leading people in
the '90s to think of Russia as in some ways analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II:
Russia would decide its internal policies to some extent, and it would be allowed to resume its role
as a state in international affairs-but as a junior partner pursuing new American national
interests."
From comments: When one looks at the American empire one must think of it in terms of economics,
like the British empire before it. This empire isn't run primarily for military purposes, or for other purposes, but
to make money. It is run as a huge project to export money from places with less power to the US.
At the end of the cold war the former Soviet Union found itself in the position of having natural
resources and being in a subservient position.
The New York Times "basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities say": Stephen F. Cohen on
the U.S./Russia/Ukraine history the media won't tell you
There's an alternative story of Russian relations we're not hearing. Historian Stephen Cohen tells
it here
It is one thing to comment in a column as the Ukrainian crisis grinds on and Washington-senselessly,
with no idea of what will come next - destroys relations with Moscow. It is quite another, as a long
exchange with Stephen F. Cohen makes clear, to watch as an honorable career's worth of scholarly
truths are set aside in favor of unlawful subterfuge, a war fever not much short of Hearst's
and
what Cohen ranks among the most extravagant expansion of a sphere of influence-NATO's-in history.
Cohen is a distinguished Russianist by any measure. While professing at Princeton and New York
University, he has written of the revolutionary years ("Bukharin and the Bolshevik Revolution," 1973),
the Soviet era ("Rethinking the Soviet Experience," 1985) and, contentiously but movingly and always
with a steady eye, the post-Soviet decades ("Failed Crusade: America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist
Russia, 2000; "Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives," 2009). "The Victims Return: Survivors of the
Gulag After Stalin" (2010) is a singularly humane work, using scholarly method to relate the stories
of the former prisoners who walk as ghosts in post-Soviet Russia. "I never actually lost the uneasy
feeling of having left work unfinished and obligations unfulfilled," Cohen explains in the opening
chapter, "even though fewer and fewer of the victims I knew were still alive."
If I had to describe the force and value of Cohen's work in a single sentence, it would be this:
It is a relentless insistence that we must bring history to bear upon what we see. One would think
this an admirable project, but it has landed Cohen in the mother of all intellectual disputes since
the U.S.-supported coup in Kiev last year. To say he is now "blackballed" or "blacklisted"-terms
Cohen does not like-is too much. Let us leave it that a place may await him among America's many
prophets without honor among their own.
It is hardly surprising that the Ministry of Forgetting, otherwise known as the State Department,
would eschew Cohen's perspective on Ukraine and the relationship with Russia: He brings far too much
by way of causality and responsibility to the case. But when scholarly colleagues attack him as "Putin's
apologist" one grows queasy at the prospect of a return to the McCarthyist period. By now, obedient
ideologues in the academy have turned debate into freak show.
Cohen, who is 76, altogether game and remembers it all, does not think we are back in the 1950s
just yet. But he is now enmeshed in a fight with the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian
Studies, which last autumn rejected a $400,000 grant Cohen proposed with his wife, Katrina vanden
Heuvel, because the fellowships to be funded would bear Cohen's name. Believe it, readers, this is
us in the early 21st century.
The interview that follows took place in Cohen's Manhattan apartment some weeks after the cease-fire
agreement known as Minsk II was signed in mid-February. It sprawled over several absorbing hours.
As I worked with the transcript it became clear that Cohen had given me a valuable document, one
making available to readers a concise, accessible, historically informed accounting of "where we
are today," as Cohen put it, in Ukraine and in the U.S.-Russia relationship.
Salon will run it in two parts. This is an edited transcript of the first. Part two follows next
week.
What is your judgment of Russia's involvement in Ukraine? In the current situation, the
need is for good history and clear language. In a historical perspective, do you consider Russia
justified?
Well, I can't think otherwise. I began warning of such a crisis more than 20 years ago, back in
the '90s. I've been saying since February of last year [when Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in Kiev]
that the 1990s is when everything went wrong between Russia and the United States and Europe. So
you need at least that much history, 25 years. But, of course, it begins even earlier.
As I've said for more than a year, we're in a new Cold War. We've been in one, indeed, for more
than a decade. My view [for some time] was that the United States either had not ended the previous
Cold War, though Moscow had, or had renewed it in Washington. The Russians simply hadn't engaged
it until recently because it wasn't affecting them so directly.
What's happened in Ukraine clearly has plunged us not only into a new or renewed-let historians
decide that-Cold War, but one that is probably going to be more dangerous than the preceding one
for two or three reasons. The epicenter is not in Berlin this time but in Ukraine, on Russia's borders,
within its own civilization: That's dangerous. Over the 40-year history of the old Cold War, rules
of behavior and recognition of red lines, in addition to the red hotline, were worked out. Now there
are no rules. We see this every day-no rules on either side.
What galls me the most, there's no significant opposition in the United States to this new Cold
War, whereas in the past there was always an opposition. Even in the White House you could find a
presidential aide who had a different opinion, certainly in the State Department, certainly in the
Congress. The media were open-the New York Times, the Washington Post-to debate. They no longer are.
It's one hand clapping in our major newspapers and in our broadcast networks. So that's where we
are.
The Ukraine crisis in historical perspective. Very dangerous ground. You know this better
than anyone, I'd've thought.
This is where I get attacked and assailed. It's an historical judgment. The [crisis now] grew
out of Clinton's policies, what I call a "winner take all" American policy toward what was thought
to be-but this isn't true-a defeated post-Cold War Russia, leading people in the '90s to think of
Russia as in some ways analogous to Germany and Japan after World War II: Russia would decide its
internal policies to some extent, and it would be allowed to resume its role as a state in international
affairs-but as a junior partner pursuing new American national interests.
That was the pursuit that Clinton and Strobe Talbott, who's now very upset about the failure of
his policy, in the Yeltsin era. That's what they wanted, and thought they were getting, from Boris
Yeltsin. You can read Talbott's memoir, "The Russia Hand," and know that all the official talk about
eternal friendship and partnership was malarkey. Now it's all gone sour, predictably and for various
reasons, and has led us to this situation.
The problem is that by taking the view, as the American media and political establishment do,
that this crisis is entirely the fault of "Putin's aggression," there's no rethinking of American
policy over the last 20 years. I have yet to see a single influential person say, "Hey, maybe we
did something wrong, maybe we ought to rethink something." That's a recipe for more of the same,
of course, and more of the same could mean war with Russia….
Let me give you one example. It's the hardest thing for the American foreign policy elite and
the media elite to cope with.
Our position is that nobody is entitled to a sphere of influence in the 21st century. Russia wants
a sphere of influence in the sense that it doesn't want American military bases in Ukraine or in
the Baltics or in Georgia. But what is the expansion of NATO other than the expansion of the American
zone or sphere of influence? It's not just military. It's financial, it's economic, it's cultural,
it's intermarriage-soldiers, infrastructure. It's probably the most dramatic expansion of a great
sphere of influence in such a short time and in peacetime in the history of the world.
So you have Vice President Biden constantly saying, "Russia wants a sphere of influence and we
won't allow it." Well, we are shoving our sphere of influence down Russia's throat, on the assumption
that it won't push back. Obviously, the discussion might well begin: "Is Russia entitled to a zone
or sphere in its neighborhood free of foreign military bases?" Just that, nothing more. If the answer
is yes, NATO expansion should've ended in Eastern Germany, as the Russians were promised. But we've
crept closer and closer. Ukraine is about NATO-expansion-no-matter-what. Washington can go on about
democracy and sovereignty and all the rest, but it's about that. And we can't re-open this question….
The hypocrisy, or the inability to connect the dots in America, is astonishing.
The nature of the Kiev regime. Again, there's a lot of fog. So there're two parts to this
question. The coup matter and the relationship of the Yatsenyuk government to the State Department-we
now have a finance minister in Kiev who's an American citizen, addressing the Council on Foreign
Relations here as we speak-and then the relationship of the Kiev regime with the ultra-right.
It's a central question. I addressed it in a Nation piece last year called "Distorting Russia."
One point was that the apologists in the media for the Kiev government as it came to power after
Feb. 21, and for the Maidan demonstrations as they turned violent, ignored the role of a small but
significant contingent of ultra-nationalists who looked, smelled and sounded like neo-fascists. And
for this I was seriously attacked, including by Timothy Snyder at Yale, who is a great fan of Kiev,
in the New Republic. I have no idea where he is coming from, or how any professor could make the
allegations he did. But the argument was that this neo-fascist theme was Putin's, that what I was
saying was an apology for Putin and that the real fascists were in Russia, not in Ukraine.
Maybe there are fascists in Russia, but we're not backing the Russian government or Russian fascists.
The question is, and it's extremely important, "Is there a neo-fascist movement in Ukraine that,
regardless of its electoral success, which has not been great, is influencing affairs politically
or militarily, and is this something we should be worried about?"
The answer is 100 percent yes. But admitting this in the United States has gotten a 100 percent
no until recently, when, finally, a few newspapers began to cite Kiev's battalions with swastikas
on their helmets and tanks. So you've gotten a little more coverage. Foreign journalists, leaving
aside Russians, have covered this neo-fascist phenomenon, which is not surprising. It grows out of
Ukraine's history. It should be a really important political question for Western policy makers,
and I think it is now for the Germans. German intelligence is probably better than American intelligence
when it comes to Ukraine-more candid in what it tells the top leadership. Merkel's clearly worried
about this.
It's another example of something you can't discuss in the mainstream media or elsewhere in the
American establishment. When you read the testimony of [Assistant Secretary of State] Nuland, this
is never mentioned. But what could be more important than the resurgence of a fascist movement on
the European continent? I'm not talking about these sappy fascists who run around the streets in
Western Europe. I'm talking about guys with a lot of weapons, guys who have done dastardly things
and who have killed people. Does that warrant discussion? Well, people said, if they exist they're
a tiny minority. My clichéd answer is, "Of course, so was Hitler and so was Lenin at one time." You
pay attention and you think about it if you learn anything from history….
We say we're doing everything we're doing in Ukraine and against Russia, including running the
risk of war, for a democratic Ukraine, by which we mean Ukraine under the rule of Kiev. Reasonably,
we would ask to what extent Kiev is actually democratic. But correspondents of the Times and the
Washington Post regularly file from Kiev and basically re-write whatever the Kiev authorities say
while rarely, if ever, asking about democracy in Kiev-governed Ukraine.
Rewriting handouts. Is that actually so?
Until recently it was so…. I haven't made this a study, and one could be done in a week
by a sophisticated journalist or scholar who knew how to ask questions and had access to information.
And I would be willing to wager that it would show that there's less democracy, as reasonably understood,
in those areas of Ukraine governed by Kiev today than there was before Yanukovych was overthrown.
Now that's a hypothesis, but I think it's a hypothesis the Times and the Post should be exploring.
I take Kiev's characterization of its war in the eastern sections as an "anti-terrorist
campaign" to be one of the most preposterous labels out there right now.
But, then, why did Washington say OK to it? Washington has a say in this. Without Washington,
Kiev would be in bankruptcy court and have no military at all. Why didn't Washington say, "Don't
call it anti-terrorist?" Because if you call it "anti-terrorism" you can never have negotiations
because you don't negotiate with terrorists, you just kill them, a murderous organization with murderous
intent.
By saying that this is not a civil war, it's just Russian aggression-this omits the human dimension
of the entire war, and also the agency of the people who are actually fighting in the east-the hairdressers,
the taxi drivers, the former newspaper reporters, the school teachers, the garbage men, the electricians,
who are probably 90 percent of those fighting. There are Russians there, from Russia. But Ukraine's
army has proved incapable of defeating or even holding off what began as a fairly ragtag, quasi-partisan,
ill-equipped, untrained force.
The horror of this has been Kiev's use of its artillery, mortars and even its airplanes, until
recently, to bombard large residential cities, not only Donetsk and Luhansk, but other cities.
These
are cities of 500,000, I imagine, or 2 million to 3 million. This is against the law. These are war
crimes, unless we assume the rebels were bombing their mothers and grandmothers and fathers and sisters.
This was Kiev, backed by the United States. So the United States has been deeply complicit in the
destruction of these eastern cities and peoples. When Nuland tells Congress there are 5,000 to 6,000
dead, that's the U.N. number. That's just a count of bodies they found in the morgues. Lots of bodies
are never found. German intelligence says 50,000.
Ever since the Clinton administration, we've bleated on about the right to protect people who
are victims of humanitarian crises. You've got a massive humanitarian crisis in eastern Ukraine.
You've got 1 million people or more who have fled to Russia-this is according to the U.N.-another
half a million having fled elsewhere in Ukraine. I don't notice the United States organizing any
big humanitarian effort. Where is Samantha Power, the architect of "right to protect?" We have shut
our eyes to a humanitarian crisis in which we are deeply complicit. This is what's shameful, whether
you like or don't like Putin. It's got nothing to do with Putin. It has to do with the nature of
American policy and the nature of Washington-and the nature of the American people, if they tolerate
this.
You've written about the second Minsk accord as the only hope we've got left. Tell me
briefly your take on Minsk II and whether there's a chance it will hold.
The second Minsk Accord has a lot of moving parts. The primary part is the cease-fire and the
withdrawal by both sides of heavy artillery. It would appear that this has been significantly accomplished,
but the cease-fire is very unstable. The political parts are supposed to come now. Kiev is supposed
to pass certain constitutional reforms, giving a certain autonomy to the eastern regions. The eastern
regions are supposed to hold new elections that in some way comply with Ukrainian law. If all that
happens by December, then the Ukrainian-Russian border will be turned over to the Kiev authorities
along with some European monitors. The political parts are going to be the hardest because there
is no political support for this in Kiev.
[President] Poroshenko went to Minsk because he had no choice: Merkel told him he had to sign
Minsk II. But Kiev is ultra-nationalist. They want no concessions to the east or to Russia. Getting
Minsk II through parliament in Kiev will be very difficult. But the main fact for now is that
Minsk II is the last, best choice to avoid a wider war that might well cause a direct war with Russia.
[Since this interview the Kiev parliament has passed legislation either contradicting or negating
the Minsk II terms.]
Minsk II was Merkel's initiative with President Hollande of France, and why, at the last minute,
she suddenly realized that the situation was different than she thought-desperate-I don't know. And
remember, this is a woman with enormous executive responsibilities for the economic crisis of the
European Union and Greece. The enemies of Minsk II…
I think the main enemy is Washington.
That's right. I wouldn't call them the enemy, but we can't be children about this. Washington
controls the IMF. Washington controls NATO. NATO and the IMF are the two agencies that can make war
happen on a broader basis in Ukraine and in regard to Russia, or stop it. Whoever is the decider
in Washington, if it's Obama, if it's somebody else, now has to make the decision.
All the enemies of Minsk II speak freely and are quoted in the papers and on the networks as rational
people. And yet there's not one dissenting voice from the establishment. Outwardly, it appears to
be a very uneven struggle. One hopes that somewhere in dark corridors and dimly-lit rooms in Washington,
serious conversations are taking place, but I don't think so. [One March 23, 48 members of Congress
did vote against sending weapons to Kiev, a point Cohen commended in an email note.]
Our post-Soviet politics after 1991, it turns out to be war by other means. The Cold War
never ended, in my view. The tactics changed, perhaps the strategy did, too, but there was very little
by way of even a pause.
It's complicated. The main problem today of getting the American political class to think freshly
is Putin. They use Putin as the excuse to do whatever they want and not rethink anything. But Putin
came much later.
The historical facts are not convenient to the triumphalist narrative, which says that we defeated
the Soviet Union and thereby ended the Cold War, and therefore and therefore. According to Gorbachev,
Reagan and Bush, the Cold War ended either in 1988 or 1990. When Reagan left the White House-I think
he wrote in his diary in January 1989, "We have ended the Cold War"-so he thought he had ended it
with Gorbachev. I was in Moscow when he walked across Red Square in that heat, I think it was July
1988, and somebody shouted to him "President Reagan, is this still the Evil Empire?" And he, in that
affable way, said "Oh, no, that was then… everything's changed."
The Cold War was a structural phenomenon. Just because the president says its over doesn't mean
it's over, but then there was Malta in December 1989, when [George H.W.] Bush and Gorbachev said
the Cold War was over, and that continued all through the reunification of Germany. Between '88 and
'90 we were told repeatedly by the world's leaders that it was over. Jack Matlock, Reagan's ambassador
to Russia, has written very well about this, and because he was there as a personal testimony, of
how this truly was. So the conflation of the end of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War
is an historical mistake.
Bush then continued to maintain the official line that he had pursued with Gorbachev that there
were no losers at the end of the Cold War, everybody had won. Bush maintained that position until
the polls showed he was running behind Clinton in his reelection campaign. And then he declared in
1992 that we, and he in particular, had won the Cold War. I saw Gorbachev shortly thereafter. My
wife, Katrina vanden Heuvel, and I had been friends with him for several years. He was deeply, deeply
hurt, with a sense of betrayal. He's forgiven Bush, being a forgiving man.
But at that moment, '91 and '92… well, words are words, but as Russians say, words are also deeds.
By announcing that we had won the Cold War, Bush set the stage for the Clinton administration's decision
to act on an American victory, including the expansion of NATO.
This history brings us to where we are today.
What has changed in U.S. policy toward Russia between 1991 and now, and what hasn't?
I think the history that we know is what I just told you. Behind the scenes, there were clearly
discussions going on throughout the '90s, and there were different groups. Big historical decisions,
whether we talk about the war in Vietnam, or, a subject that interests me, why slavery and segregation
lasted so long in the American South, where I grew up, can never be explained by one factor. Almost
always they're multi-factored. But you got, in the 1990s, some people who genuinely believed that
this was the moment for an enduring post-Cold War, American-Russian, full-scale strategic partnership
and friendship between equals. There were these Romantics, so to speak.
On this side of the ocean?
I think there were people who believed in this. Just like there're people who really believe in
democracy promotion as a virtuous profession-some of my students have gone into it. They believe
in it: It's a good thing. Why not help good countries achieve democracy? The dark side of democracy
promotion for them is either not visible or not in their calculation. People are diverse. I don't
judge them harshly for their beliefs.
There were others who were saying Russia will rise again, and we have to make sure that never
happens. To do that, we need to strip Russia of Ukraine, in particular. Brzezinski was writing that.
At some point during this time he wrote that Russia with Ukraine is a great imperial power, without
Ukraine it's a normal country. But there were people in Washington, the same people I heard in private
discussions, saying that Russia's down and we're going to keep it down. They were feeding opinion
into the Clinton administration, and that clearly helped lead to the NATO expansion.
They use the excuse that everybody wants to join NATO. How can we deny them the right? It's very
simple. People say every country that qualifies has a right to join NATO. No, they do not. NATO is
not a junior Chamber of Commerce. It's not a non-selective fraternity or sorority. It's a security
organization, and the only criterion for membership should be, "Does a nation enhance the security
of the other member countries?" The Ukrainian crisis proves beyond any doubt, being the worst international
crisis of our time, that the indiscriminate expansion of NATO has worsened our international security.
That's the end of that story. I don't know what they think NATO is. Is it like AARP membership and
you get discounts in the form of U.S. defense funds? It's crazy, this argument.
But then you got these guys who are either Russophobes or eternal Cold Warriors or deep strategic
thinkers. You remember when [Paul] Wolfowitz wrote this article saying Russia had to be stripped
of any possibility ever to be a great power again? These people were all talking like…
It goes back to your comparison with Japan in '45.
The question is why Clinton bought into this. That would then take you to Strobe Talbott. Strobe
was a disciple of Isaiah Berlin, who taught that if you want to understand Russia, you have to understand
the history, the culture and the civilization. And certainly if you took that view, you never would
have done, as George Kennan said in 1996 or 1997, you never would have expanded NATO. I knew George
during my 30 years at Princeton. George's social attitudes were deeply alarming, but about Russia
he had a very important idea. Russia marches to its own drummer, let it, don't try to intervene or
you'll make things worse. Be patient, understand Russian history, the forces in Russia. That was
Isaiah Berlin's position. Once, that was Strobe's position. Look at Strobe Talbott today: We have
to send in weapons and overthrow Putin and turn Russia around. Now it's all outside agency.
How did this guy go from A to B?
Well, they say power corrupts, or at least changes people. He had been Clinton's roommate at Oxford,
and he ended up in the White House as a Russia aide, very smart guy. I think Russia disappointed
him. One phenomenon among Russia-watchers is that you create an artifice, and that's your Russia.
And when it disappoints you, you never forgive Russia. Check out Fred Hiatt at the Washington Post.
Fred was writing from Moscow during the '90s that democracy was going to be great. So did most the
guys who are now were still in editorial positions. Russia let them down. They can't forgive Russia
anymore than they can the ex-wife who cheated on them. They can't think anew. It's a phenomenon,
probably not only American, but it's particularly American. You cannot reopen any discussion with
these people who bought into Yeltsin's Russia in the 1990s and were certain that though the road
was rocky, as they liked to say… "Failed Crusade" is about this. They can't get over it.
Part of it also had to do with Yeltsin. He was so desperate, not only for American affirmation
but for American affection. He was so insecure, as his health declined and he became more and more
the captive of the oligarchs, that he wanted to mean as much to Washington as Gorbachev had. He was
getting close to virtually giving Washington anything, saying anything, until the Serbian war. Then
it dawned on him that Washington had a certain agenda, and the expansion of NATO [was part of it],
but by then it was too late, he was a spent force.
Later, when Dmitri Medvedev was president [2008-12], I think, he told a group of people that Yeltsin
hadn't actually won the election, that Gennadi Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party, had. So assuming
that Medvedev wasn't lying and assuming he was in a position to know, all this talk of American support
for democracy, when it comes to Russia, at least, is, shall we say, complex.
Let's go to Putin. What is your view here? What is he trying to accomplish?
It's impossible to answer briefly or simply. This is a separate university course, this is a book,
this is for somebody with a much bigger brain that I have. This really is for historians to judge.
I wrote an article in, I think, 2012 called the "The Demonization of Putin," arguing that there
is very little basis for many of the allegations made against Putin, and that the net result was
to make rational analysis in Washington on Russian affairs at home and abroad impossible, because
it was all filtered through this demonization. If we didn't stop, I argued, it was only going to
get worse to the point where we would become like heroin addicts at fix time, unable to think about
anything except our obsession with Putin. We couldn't think about other issues. This has now happened
fully. The article was turned down by the New York Times, and an editor I knew at Reuters published
it on Reuters.com.
The history of how this came about [begins] when Putin came to power, promoted by Yeltsin and
the people around Yeltsin, who were all connected in Washington. These people in Moscow included
Anatoly Chubais, who had overseen the privatizations, had relations with the IMF and had fostered
a lot of the corruption. He came to United States to assure us that Putin was a democrat, even though
he had been at the KGB.
When he came to power, both the Times and the Post wrote that Putin was a democrat and, better
yet, he was sober, unlike Yeltsin. How we got from 2000 to now, when he's Hitler, Saddam, Stalin,
Gaddafi, everybody that we have to get rid of, whom we know killed Boris Nemtsov because from the
bridge where Nemtsov was killed [on February 27] you can see the Kremlin…. Well, remember, Sarah
Palin could see Russia from Alaska! It's preposterous. But the demonization of Putin has become an
institution in America. It is literally a political institution that prevents the kind of discussion
that you and I are having.
Kissinger had the same thought. He wrote, last year, I think, "The demonization of Putin is
not a policy. It's an alibi for not having a policy." That's half correct. It's much worse now,
because they did have a policy. I think the "policy" growing in some minds was how to get rid of
Putin. The question is, "Do they have the capacity to make decisions?" I didn't think so, but now
I'm not so sure, because in a lot of what comes out of Washington, including the State Department,
the implication is that Putin has to go.
I asked a question rhetorically several years ago of these regime changers: Have you thought about
what would happen in Russia in the event of regime change? If what you say is true, if Putin is the
pivot of the whole system, you remove Putin the whole system collapses. Russia has every known weapon
of mass destruction in vast quantities. What would be the consequence of that conceit on your part-that
we're going to get rid of Putin-for the rest of the world?
So this Putin phenomenon has to be explained. How did he go from a democrat for sure, now to maybe
the worst Russian leader since Ivan the Terrible. How do you explain it? Does that tell us more about
Putin or more about us?
I think his sin is an unacceptable take on, broad-brush terms, Eastern ethos vs. Western
ethos, and on narrower terms a rejection of a neoliberal economic regime in the Washington consensus
style. Although he's got a lot to answer for, I think, in this respect, he's not an evangelist for
what he's doing. What does he face domestically? What's he trying to do?
Let me tell you just briefly. When I ask Russians, they think the answer is American presidential
envy. We've had a lot of unsuccessful presidents lately. Clinton left basically in disgrace,
Bush left not beloved for the war that he had got us into and lied about, Obama is before our eyes
a shrinking, failing president. And here's Putin, now in his 15th year of growing stature inside
Russia.
And by the way, until recently the preeminent European statesman of his time, no doubt of this.
In the 21st century, only Merkel can stand anywhere near him as a European statesman, whether you
like what a statesman does or not. This, of course, changes everything. Not to take the famous cop-out,
but let history judge. X number of years from now, when we've joined the majority, as Lenin used
to say, historians will undoubtedly look back and do the pluses and minuses, and it's going to be
a very close call.
For my short-term take on Putin, he was put in power to save the Yeltsin family from corruption
charges, and the first decree he signed upon becoming acting president was to exempt the Yeltsin
family from future prosecution. He has honored that, by the way. One of the beefs against Putin in
Russia is that he's honorable to his friends and appointees to an extreme; he can't bring himself
to fire anybody. He's got this KGB code of honor. I kind of like it. I'd rather that than people
stab you in your back….
I operate under the assumption that no matter how or why people come to power, when in power they
begin to ponder what their mission is, what history asks of them. For Putin it was quite clear: The
Russian state had collapsed twice in the 20th century. Stop and think what that means. It had collapsed
in the 1917 Revolution and the Soviet Union didn't collapse in 1991- it was plucked apart- but then
the state collapsed and the result was what Russians call smuta, a time of troubles. It
means misery; it means foreign invasion; it means civil war; it means that people fall into poverty.
This is the Russia that Putin inherited. Remember, when he came to power in 2000, Russia was on the
verge of collapsing for a third time as a result of Yeltsin's policies. The governors were corrupt,
were not obeying the law, were not paying taxes, were running criminal fiefdoms in scores of regions.
Russia was highly vulnerable, NATO was expanding, Russia had no influence in world affairs.
Putin comes to power and perceives that his first mission has to be to stop the collapse of the
Russian state- which he calls the vertical, because Russia has always been governed from the top
down, which has made it ungovernable because it's so big- and, most of all, to make sure it never,
ever, ever happens again. In Russian history, the worst thing that can happen to Russia
is smuta, when the state collapses. Stop and think: Between 1917 and 1991, it happened twice
in the largest territorial country in the world. Is there any precedent for that in history? How
a leader could come to power and not see that….
The second piece of this conversation will run next week.
Patrick Smith is the author of "Time No Longer:
Americans After the American Century."He was the International Herald Tribune's bureau
chief in Hong Kong and then Tokyo from 1985 to 1992. During this time he also wrote "Letter from
Tokyo" for the New Yorker. He is the author of four previous books and has contributed frequently
to the New York Times, the Nation, the Washington Quarterly, and other publications. Follow him on
Twitter, @thefloutist.
Americans are like Legos, designed to be manipulated, used, to build structures whose existence
is unknown to them. Part of the design is their incapacity to deal with an idea that would threaten
the structure of which they are the fundamental element. And so we see in these comments the ingredients
of the very plastic from which they are made: deflection, ad hominemism, demonization, etc. By the
time they are finished the discussion will be about someone's character, or the exchange of speculative
analyses of some historical event that didn't happen. The comments are a reduction in scale of what
happens at the level of diplomacy and policy.
Smith an Cohen know this, and yet they carry on trying to educate and inform against great resistance.
They have my respect.
Since 1990, the US is the only nation that's faught wars against nations not on its border. Only
the US has military bases nearly everywhere on earth. Only the US routinely violates nations' sovereignty,
and we do so seemingly every week. We've even classified the number of nations we're bombing. And
still, our hawks yearn for more. A recent world Gallup poll found that the world views us as the
greatest threat to workd peace by a huge margin, Russia was 2nd by over 20 points. If, by some miracle,
we've not become insane, it's impossible fo know because we've classified the evidence. Which may
be itself evidence for insanity.
It's funny how people can't even say "I think Cohen is wrong about this." They have to say he's
a "Putin apologist" or "on the Kremlin payroll." They're so offended that anyone could even suggest
that Putin in 2015 isn't the contemporary equivalent of Hitler in 1938 that they have to resort to
obvious falsehoods. That alone should tell you something: This demonization of Putin isn't about
the facts.
It's also striking how many of the ideologues attacking Cohen, from Cathy Young to Anne Applebaum,
are apologists for George W. Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq.
(Sorry, posted the fragment below by accident and ran out of time to edit it.)
It's also striking how many of the ideologues attacking Cohen, from Cathy Young to Anne
Applebaum, are apologists for George W. Bush's illegal war of unprovoked aggression in Iraq.
Those warmongers are incapable of learning, even from recent disaster.
And this is what happens when Obama refused to prosecute Cheney, Wolfowitz, and the other monsters
responsible for all of that destruction and death. Had we had the war crimes trials America
desperately needed, even the tools on this very thread would have gotten a thorough education, and
perhaps even a clue.
@PGrajnert
@markwriter
@Bitter Scribe It is naive , borderline stupid to think that Washington's aim is to defend the
Baltics or former subservient Slavs from a Russian boot. Washington uses fear at home and abroad
to reach one ultimate goal: economic gain (a.k.a. profit). Simplification some say, well Washington
is not that complex just look who has been in charge in the past 40 years. US policies of late are
obnoxiously primitive and transparent, but not to American audience.
Isn't it funny how Cohen thinks 'The New York Times basically rewrites whatever the Kiev authorities
say' when he himself seems to shadow and echo the Kremlin narrative ad verbatim. Is Cohen not aware
of the lack of independent Russian media portals and echo chambers (domestic and international) that
are bought and paid for by the Kremlin? Does Mr. Cohen not see the distortion and disinformation
he helps spread? If he does not, then his lack of objectivity makes him simply a Stalinist
(or in this case Putinist) apologist. However, if he does, then he is certainly on the Russian
payroll---in some form or another---and is no better than the Russian trolls residing in St. Petersburg.
It's really amazing with people like Noam Chomsky become imperialists. Russia invades Chechnya,
Georgia, now Ukraine, and it's all OK. So we should have invaded Cuba, or any other country nearby
that decides to make a treaty with Russia or China. There are people who think that, but you have
to go to some really extreme right wing xenophobic imperialistic new sites to find them. Who would
have thought that the likes of Noam Chomsky (and someone like Patrick Smith) would become imperialists?
I guess you think NATO is an empire ruled by the Pope or someone? Yeah, NATO is the Holly Roman Empire
of neocons, right? Is that really what you think Patrick? It is one thing to be against neoconservatism,
it is another to take your dislike of it so far that you become an imperialist, it's like something
out of the 17th century.
Chomsky and Smith strike me as people who if they were Russians, living in Russia, they would
be supporting the United States. They are natural dissenters to public opinion. That's a great thing
to have, especially when it's well-researched and articulated.
The problem is that they cannot get past their American-centric views. It's always about what
America is doing, to whom, and why. They excuse the actions of other countries as purely reactionary.
The truth is likely somewhere in between and overlapping with good, bad and survivalist intentions
from both sides. And the truth is that with a globalized economy, this fading superpower (United
States) and former superpower (Russia) are trying to maintain their polarity in this multipolarized
world that no longer needs either of them, and their ideologies, to survive.
@jsmith499 Invading Cuba? You have tried and failed, killing Castro? You have tried and
failed. You got your fav. pres. shot for failing so many times to return investments to US mafia.
NATO is a tool and it is used by IMF and Washington for one ultimate goal: economic advantage. Your
childish arguments reveal how incapable you are at analysis. Read what informed people are writing
and grow intellectually by accepting the shades of gray in RL. This is not discussion about baseball.
What is it about the threat of putting an op-positional military alliance at the doorstep of a
potential adversary that the America does not get? Would we tolerate a federation of Soviet
alliances to put troops, missiles, armaments, missile defense systems, and nukes in Canada and Mexico
aimed primarily at all of the US major cities.
Please people. Get some sense. Drunken Yeltsin let Bill Clinton humiliate Russia by
expanding NATO into countries like Poland and Hungary after the US previously promised Gorbachev
that they would not do so. Putin is a different animal.
He knows that what happened in the Ukraine was engineered by neo-cons. He knows we can't be trusted
(thank you Bill Clinton). He saw our attempt to get our fingers into Georgia. Remember John
McCain's "We're all Georgians now." He knows that the NATO alliance is waiting to bring the
Ukraine into their fold both economically and militarily. He's drawn a red line and said, "No more."
We'd be wise to heed it and back off. Russia has her back against the wall and it's dangerous
for us to keep playing this game of empire with such a country.
@Pacific Blue I don't think making an argument that the US should back away out of fear of an
unstable Russia is the best one to make for the pacifist viewpoint. If that's what this is.
The argument is not that anyone is unstoppable. Rather, it's that we seem to have forgotten MAD.
Russia and the US are the world's only nations capable of destroying the planet in s few hours, We
used to know the dangers and the necessary protocals, things we must have forgot to teach our current
generation in gradeschool history.
Even in conventional wars the US hasn't won anything since WW2, but we leave unimaginable misery
in our wake and excell at creating enemies with our continuous wars. Can anyone give a rational explanation
to US foreign policy since 1995?
Are they talking about William Randolph Hearst? Hearst was a pacifist, certainly vis-a-vis Roosevelt's
military assistance to Russia starting back in the 30's, and all the subversive influence behind
him - and Churchill.
The point is our State Department - anyone with half a brain - knew from the beginning what Russia's
reaction would be if we installed this new (sleazebag) government in Ukraine. It's our inheritance
from England's Lower Danube Policy, and it's stupid, criminal, suicidal for both the named combatants.
Any action to bring about the Ukraine "regime change" of 2014, as with practically all our regime-change-actions
over the long haul, including that dispatching Hitler, have been criminally motivated.
They are about 800 miles from the eastern front. American troops in Ukraine is a small step of
provocation, but you're carelessly misrepresenting the truth.
Did I say nothing to worry about? Again, you distort the truth. If we are looking to equate things,
then the truthful claim is that the are Russian paratroopers on the border of Guatemala, across the
entire country from our southern border, who are training Mexicans.
It's a concern, but I would not be so careless to imply they are near the battlefields, nor would
I (unlike you) deny that there are covert American soldiers fighting in Mexico to destabilize, let's
say Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez.
The problem with US foreign relations -- especially with countries perceived as "adversaries"
such as Russia and Iran -- is that we neglect to consider their point-of-view.
Worse, we neglect to consider that they might even have a point-of-view that differs from our
own.
This is usually the result of the idiotic concept of "American exceptionalism" that presupposes
that we are always good and that therefore our opponents are, by definition, bad -- instead of simply
pursuing what they perceive as rational self-interest.
This is a childish worldview that guarantees conflict.
How would we react if the Russians were establishing military ties with Canada and Mexico? Would
we react differently than the Iranians if other countries demanded that we eliminate our nuclear
industries or be subject to trade embargoes or military action?
US and NATO military forces do not belong on Russia's borders, any more than Russian forces belongs
on ours.
Neocon apologists want the US sphere of influence to span the globe, while Russia's sphere has
been shrunk to nothing. That's not paranoia, that's recent history.
The alleged "wants" of a subset of Ukranians do not come close to justifying the risk of global
thermonuclear war.
But get back to the root of the problem - the US sponsored coup of Feb, 2014, and ongoing US support
of Ukrainian neo-Nazis. Because, you cannot explain those things away on the basis of nebulous
Ukrainian "wants".
What explains those things is the Neocons' PNAC agenda (look it up). Jane Cullen
@Jane Cullen
@markwriter Aha. This is all based on that secretly taped and released (by Russia) conversation
between US diplomats. The conversation was about trying to prevent a hero boxer with no
expertise from becoming a senior political leader of the uprising, amidst a general tone of trying
to catch up to events on the ground, including the UN wanting to step in to mediate as well.
The US certainly was in favor of what was happening, we can agree upon that. But the uprising
and eventual coup was organic and a direct result of the government's violent action and killing
of its own citizens.
To call it US (or UN, for that matter) 'sponsored' is inaccurate and is a deliberate word chosen
on purpose to evoke comparisons to other US blunders and the 'neo-cons running amok' narrative,
some of which you might be surprised to learn I would agree with.
I would close with this: although I completely disagree with the "sponsored" designation, bringing
up that taped call is relevant for this discussion, kudos.
@Jane Cullen
@spriddler Jane, you lose all credibility when you blather on about a 'coup' inKiev while
totally ignoring the actual coups that happened in Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk and Slavyansk at the
hands of Russian forces.
You are just a typical Kremlin propagandist, perhaps even one of the paid ones judging from
your posts.
In decades past, the likes of you called antiwar activists pinkos, Reds, commies. A decade
ago, anyone opposing the Neocons was called a Saddam apologist.
I wear your absurd personal attack as a badge of honor.
@spriddler@Jane Cullen Well the problem is the Ukrainians want different things. Isn't that what the
conflict is all about. First they had an election and then they had a coup. Then they had an election
in which the opposition opted out.
Some Ukrainians want to break away from Ukraine. Besides, you're underestimating the amount of manipulation
occurring on both sides of the conflict.
We have outside forces on both sides meddling in the Ukraine but I'll tell you this. Russia
has much more at stake than we do.
I need to celebrate your knowledge! You're the first person who understands this break in Ukraine
(something Smith and Cohen forget, since neither are Ukrainian scholars).
However, I will argue they do not want to separate Ukraine, even though the west has historical ties
to Poland and Austria-Hungary, and the east and south has ties to Russia (and Turkey).
90% of Ukrainians, including those in the east, want to stay Ukrainians. If they wanted to be Russians,
they could have easily immigrated there long ago (as the second-largest nationality in Russia is Ukrainian).
In many ways, it's like the old North and South or liberal and conservative views of
America. They have their own views of what America is and the will of its people. Perhaps it
would have been beneficial to allow the ideological break in America to occur. Similar to the
old American North, Russia is far more willing to see the country split than we are.
It's a difficult question where both sides have some merit. But Russia has shown with its breakaway
regions in Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and now Crimea, they do not take care of them. Maybe it's a
complete disregard, maybe its corruption in the government, and maybe it's a poor economy that cannot
afford to finance the size of its territory. A problem America has with its own infrastructure across
the country.
@spriddler@Jane Cullen Wait a second are we living in the same World?
How did you deduced from a small
radical Maidan protest helped by US what all Ukranians want? Ukrainians have expressed their will
through elections, no not the traveling circus that put Poroshenko in charge the real elections before.
Amazing isn't it that a bunch of American ignoramuses proclaim they know what Ukrainians want. (shakes
it's head)
The Neocon aggression in Ukraine is absolutely unprecedented, and Norway is in no way equivalent
to Ukraine, sitting as it is next to the heart of Russia, and containing Russia's main port to the Atlantic.
But I'm sure that you'll be proud of your lobbying for war, those few minutes between the WEA alert
on your cell phone, and the end of all you know.
Russia has collapsed twice and almost 3 times in the last 100 years, and is ungovernable except
by ruthless central control since any other governing system leads to an immediate threat of the
internal disintegration of the country.
Therefore, the US should have realized it was forbidden from engaging with countries that have
suffered due to Russia and are terrified by it, because of Russia's secret feelings that it's falling
apart.
Furthermore, intervening in the Balkans against genocide was a terrible mistake because Serbians
share the same church or something with Russia, and it threatened Russia.
And, according to Cohen, Ukraine was the final straw in this disastrous US policy of trying to
pay attention in Europe. The Maidan protests against overwhelming corruption should be completely
discredited because it responded in kind when some protesters were killed, and... fascism.
The conflict in eastern Ukraine is being fought by hero hairdressers and taxi drivers. The efforts
by the Ukrainian government to respond are war crimes.
Merkel, the German leader, is responsible for Greece, and therefore is another misguided leader
who dangerously threatens Russia by refusing to push her "Kiev agrees to Minsk II" button that's
on her desk. The fact that the agreement has a "II" in its title because the first one a few months
ago was untenable within the first day is immaterial.
Russia is always allowed to disappoint, because Russia. Smart scholars like myself, Stephen Cohen,
know this is so, and know how to move on. By the way, I have no idea about Putin except that he's
somehow holding his country together, one day at a time, just doing what he has to do.
Man, that Putin, he's so unknowable and loving to his friends. My god, compare him to Obama who
doesn't even know how to circumvent term limit protections! I think he's one of the best, and all
my future imaginary historian friends agree with me. You'll see when you can listen to them too.
The core problem with this interview, and the many articles making similar points, is that they
start from an assumption that the perspectives and feelings of Russians matter more than those of
the people living in the nations that used to be in the Warsaw Pact but now are in NATO or would
like to be in NATO.
The people of Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, etc. have resisted Russian influence
for centuries. For most of that time, they have ruled themselves and associated with western Europe
or, in the case of Poland, tried to do so. These ties run deep; for example, their dominant churches
have been Roman Catholic; not Eastern Orthodox.
The same is true for the western half of Ukraine. It is culturally part of western Europe and
has been for a very long time.
Given centuries of conflict with Russia and their natural affinity with the nations of NATO, it
is not wrong for western European people to want to belong to NATO. Nor was it wrong for NATO to
expand to include these nations after the end of the Warsaw Pact.
Russia's hurt feelings here, for the most part, are grounded in the loss of its expanded sphere
of influence after WWII. There are two ways of viewing this: maybe Russia fears another invasion
from the West; or perhaps Russia is upset that it's former client states prefer to associate with
their historical allies and patrons. If it is the former, then the USA and NATO need to do more to
make it clear that they will not attack Russia. If it is the latter, however, then it is right for
the West to disregard Russia's hurt feelings.
Although there may be a good deal of truth in what Stephen Cohen and Patrick L Smith write regarding
the treatment of Russia by the West, and by the USA in particular, their argument largely fails because
it does not explain why Russia legitimately fears an invasion from the West. If, indeed, Russia does
have such a fear instead of just bemoaning the loss of influence it never legitimately had.
A voice of moderate reason! Rather than viewing this as either/or, I'd assume that all the claims
about Russia and United States are correct. Russia does feel a loss of influence, Russia does fear
a military threat, and Russia does dislike Ukraine's interest in affiliating with the West. United
States does want to expand influence, United States does want to remove corruption from Ukraine,
and United States does want a strategic location against both Russia and the Middle East. There's
also probably a corporate element too, where corporations want to open markets in Ukraine and find
the corruption too infringing on this ability to expand, so they lobby western governments to intervene.
There's also something revealing about Putin's past claim that "Ukraine is not a real country."
It's borders and its peoples have been re-drawn and forced to migrate dramatically over the last
100 years. So, it's easy to see how Russia feels claim over Ukraine, especially when one is raised
under the Soviet Union as a brotherhood. But, the fact is that Ukraine is now a country in its own
right.
To me, Russia and United States' biggest failings over Ukraine was not foreseeing (or for political
reasons, willing choose) potential conflict. Ukraine should have immediately, after banishing Yanukovych,
moved to model itself after Canada (who balances French and English backgrounds) and militarily &
diplomatically commit to neutrality like Switzerland.
I am the person with Russian background , who came to the uSA for good in spring of 1990. I am
american citizen, I have no Russian citizenship, as, when I immigrated it was required to denounce
Soviet citizenship. I am intelligent (two Ph.Ds.) and I am unbiased. So, the truth and, the very
obvious one, is that Clinton's policies and what happened further, brought to the world the much
heavier than before shape of cold war between two most powerful nuclear country of the world.
I like Putin, like his understanding of his duties, his role in world's history, and his code
of behavior. More important that the overwhelming majority of Russians like him also, as all polls
show. I can write a lot of how idiotically I have been treated here, in the USA. But i've been here
for 25 years, the treatment has been fully idiotic and very damageable for those, who were treating
me this way, and I do not have here enough space to describe even a little bit of this despicable
stupidity.
What I want, nevertheless, to emphasize, is that I completely can't understand how democrats could,
currently even think, not even advertise, that Mrs. Clinton, one of main architect of Clinton's time
international policies, if not the leading person of them, should become their nominee for 2016 presidential
run. This person is heavily responsible for the obvious return and the heavy escalation of the cold
war, not mentioning her numerous internal achievements. How is it possible AT ALL to present her
as the future nominee, ah?
@author0072002 My sentiments exactly. There are American officials and other well-connected
people who are obsessed with making Russia another client state in much the same way the Baltic states
are now: An outlet for American goods and a source of cheap labor, lax environmental laws and
other sorts of exploitation, and outposts for the expansion of American military power (via NATO).
Putin has always acted to American provocations in a calm, measured manner and I think it
drives the American powers-that-be insane. Hillary Clinton was a very hawkish secretary of state
and all indications are that she will act similarly if we are unfortunate enough to see her elected
president.
The Megathatcher has compared Putin to Hitler, and to Saddam. The woman is a dangerous fool.
She will push, hard, for war with Russia, if the world hasn't already burned by the time she's elected.
@Jane Cullen
@nyabingi Now, who was it who said "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran"? Who STILL wants to bomb
Iran? Who opposes diplomatic solutions. Republicans. It's really crazed to think voting for a Republican
President is the path to peace with ANYONE.
Neither mainstream party has offered an acceptable candidate. Maybe I could conceivably take some
of the tolerable positions from each of the candidates and create a Frankenstein Republocrat to vote
for, but our choices in 2016 make me want to write in Nader.
@author0072002 I'm sorry to hear that you've been treated badly in the USA. Even someone who
likes the way Putin governs shouldn't be treated badly. But my question for YOU is: why would you
vote for someone whose response to other countries not doing what they want is to bomb or invade
them?
Those are your ONLY choices on the Republican side. Don't confuse their admiration for "tough
guys" like Putin as any sort of support for Russia. And if you are still being treated badly, why
would you vote for a party that brags about being hostile to immigrants?
@RaisingMac
@Aranfell
@author0072002 He can't believe the Democrats would nominate Hilary Clinton. But so far as I
can tell, EVERY Republican who might be nominated is much more of a war-monger than Hilary, even
assuming that his claims about her are correct. That's my point. Does he really think that US policy
toward Russia would have been or will be friendlier with a Republican as President? If so, I'd sure
be interested in his reasoning.
@author0072002 I am sorry to hear about how you have been treated in the US. You've probably
been here long enough by now to realize that Democrats and Republicans really aren't all that different
on foreign policy (among other things). The main differences have to do with culture-war.
Your old USSR was a one-party state; our USSA is a one-and-half-party state. Sad, but that's how
it is.
Would that more people felt this way: "" People are diverse. I don't judge them harshly for their
beliefs.""
The elephant in the living room seems to be that we are hell-bent for regime change -- via
the usual method that fails time and time again -- economic sanctions, destroying the economy in
the belief that "the people" will force him out.
Didn't work in Iraq, didn't work with Iran, probably won't work in Russian if only because the
BRICS will not let it succeed. No one knows who's next. The poorly-thought-through demonization of
Putin is reminiscent of our character assassinations of Assad, Hussain, Karzai, Maliki, Kim Jong
II, etc. - all "bad men" who we discovered were not actually easy to replace. Too many fingers in
too many pies.
The Times has never gotten it right about Russia. Not once. I can still hear Thomas Friedman telling
us that Yeltsin giving trillions in state assets the oligarchs is good for capitalism. Those old
Stalin ladies on the street selling packs of Prima cigarettes for a ruble apiece to pay skyrocketing
electric bills should just deal with it. They would never, ever vote for someone who promised to
put a stop to the whole thing and take on the West.
@Philadelphia Steve I think the original quote -- which I cannot find -- was that the problem
was that Obama has a "stance" wrt Russia and Putin, but lacked a policy ... which at the time seemed
a very good way to describe various gesture-like reactions by Obama to Putin and escalating sanctions
on Putin's "inner circle"... very whack-a-mole ...
Possibly because Obama was cowardly avoiding having a stated policy (see other F.P. situations)
or because (my personal guess) serious lack of consensus among his various advisors and advising
agencies (see also Syria). It has seemed as if Nuland has prevailed simply by ad hoc actions taken
(See Cohen on the Obama/Putin deal struck on the eve of the ouster). Both Susan Rice and Samantha
Power are at the top of the best reasons not consider voting for Clinton ... and their silence (and
apparent recent low profile generally) on the Ukranian humanitarian crisis (and god knows the Syrian/Iraqi
humanitarian crisis.... etc.) is stunning as Cohen brought up. Obama also apparently has a stance
on R2P, but not a policy that might force his hand or limit his "flexibility" -- end whack-a-mole
-- for something with a goal or end-point, y'know coherent or decisive.
(see Seumas Milne's recent report on our remote control continuing wars).
@PGrajnert He quoted Kissinger in one instance, and you're assuming he's basing his "analysis
of history" on that? Quoting someone isn't the same as saying you agree with that person or their
actions 100%. Calm down man.
@jab670
@Jane Cullen
@battleaxe "Russia is likely encouraging a destabilized/breakaway territory..." Yes, as the US
of A encouraged the destabilization and overthrow of the elected government of Ukraine, no?
"Russian military are operating in eastern Ukraine." Yes, as the US of A is operating overtly
and covertly in Ukraine, no?
Why is it with you folks who have to always make it a "Yes, but you..." argument.
The United States doesn't benefit from destabilization as Russia does. The reason? We don't share
a border with Ukraine. We actually need the opposite, which has benefited from the destabilization
Russia and separatists have caused in the east.
Look at political, historical, religious, linguistic, etc. maps of Ukraine and you'll see that
with Donetsk and Lugansk's regions' voices being diminished due to violence, and now the exclusion
of Crimea, the Ukrainian government is actually more stabile and more pro-western aligned.
Of course, there are many fractured between pro-western and pro-Ukrainian nationalist factions,
but the notion America would want destabilization is no represented by the facts. It IS troubling
though. It is America post-Civil War where the South's electoral power was greatly diminished. It
is undemocratic. It's a "chicken or the egg" situation until violence stops, which can only happen
with granting the east more autonomy, but the Ukrainian government cannot do that at gun point.
Sadly, the reference will be lost on most of the authoritarians who applaud the latest, suicidal
Cold War with Russia, because a Democratic State Dept is leading the charge.
As a Russian, I should say that Mr. Cohen's understanding of "cause - effect" dependency, in application
to present U.S.-RF tensions, is clear and logical.
Mr.Cohen tries to stay focused on the main confrontation line. Obviously, there are dozens and
dozens of issues directly or indirectly related.
Like "what is the present U.S. representative system and why is it called "democracy?"
In my view, we have a conflict between the U.S. plutocracy and the Russian national state.
However. Expanding the discussion to the level of institutions would be too much for this format.
So Mr. Cohen is trying to avoid such issues.
The same way the author doesn't mention the world outside Russia and U.S + 32 U.S.-aligned national
states.
I liked this aspect - staying focused.
And I will be waiting for Part Two.
I am truly intrigued how Mr. Cohen is going to assess president Putin.
In the past three days, three opposition figures have been murdered in Kiev, two journalists and
one ex-MP. Comparing the total lack of media coverage of these (and a whole wave of "suicides" of
opposition figures in the past months) to the front page headline coverage of the Nemtsov murder
in Moscow shows the complete double standard of the Western media. The NY Times isn't writing that
even if he didn't give the orders, Poreshenko is personally responsible for creating an "atmosphere"
in which journalists can be gunned down in the streets. It's much easier to ignore it, because it
doesn't fit the media narrative of a democratic, Western-striving Ukraine. It's like only Russia
is allowed to be bad in that part of the world. And as Cohen says, that's OUR problem, because the
corrupt, oligarch-run Kiev regime is propped up with US tax dollars and EU money in the name of democracy.
Meanwhile, Ukraine's parliament passed a law proclaiming the Ukrainian Nazi-collaborators in WWII
(who murdered hundreds of thousands of people) to be "freedom-fighters", as Kiev (and the US) continues
arming neo-Nazi battalions and sending them to kill Ukrainians. By turning a blind eye, the West
is helping foster and nurture, as well as funding these fascist tendencies in Europe, all in the
name of Western values. If that's what they lead to, those Western values aren't worth much.
@C_COOK
@Frank Knarf You are correct that our US-led system suck. But that does not take away the fact
that living under Muscovite rule sucks more. It'd be great for the EU to get our sh-t together and
create an alternative... But until that's the case, we have to chose sides. And Patrick and Stephen,
cowards who have never lived under the Muscovite boot, are simpleton scumbags for thinking that people
should be forced to.
So those few speaking up against more Neocon war are cowards, and simpleton scumbags.Sounds exactly
like the filthy slurs used against those few who stood up to Neocon war against Iraq.
The immorality of the Neocon warpigs who brought death and dismemberment to Iraq is the same now
as then, as is the immorality of their chickenhawk enablers.
There's a tremendous abuse of the facts by all media on Ukraine, including Russian, Ukrainian
and American media. Cohen offers a good perspective, but it's only a Russian perspective. But the
media is failing us because they keep turning to Russian scholars. Would Russia report on the United
States by talking to a Mexican scholar? It can tell part of the story, but you never hear Smith or
Cohen mention the historic divide in Ukraine between East and West.
I know I am probably a conspiracy theorist, but here goes.
When one looks at the American empire one must think of it in terms of economics,
like the British empire before it. This empire isn't run primarily for military purposes, or for other purposes, but
to make money. It is run as a huge project to export money from places with less power to the US.
At the end of the cold war the former Soviet Union found itself in the position of having natural
resources and being in a subservient position.
Remember Marc Rich http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Rich
? I remember he had many dealing with the Russians. This allowed the US to diminish its dependence
on South Africa resources and probably contributed to South Africa's collapse. I suspect that this
could happen because Russian governmental leadership supported the Russian oligarchy and gave western
businessmen a small cadre of Russian businessmen to negotiate with. I suspect Yeltsen supplied these
relatively easy connections and they had the same deal with Putin. And now those Western businessmen
would like access to Russian oil. Especially now that the Middle East is going pear shaped thanks
to Bush the Junior.
The American reaction to that time period is best summed up by Jeffery Sachs book which has a
chapter on the American intervention in the Russian economy after his success in the Polish economy.
That chapter is unsatisfyingly short and goes something like, the Russian economy was way too complex
and I failed because it is impossible to understand.
I think he ran into American/Russian forces that were way more powerful than he, and that they
were rushing to the money and ran he and his team over.
I would be very interested in someone writing more about this time period in Salon. I suspect
that these writings would help people understand many of today's attitudes driving politics in the
the region, and specifically attitudes driving Putin.
I also remember vaguely a story about a Russian female banker working for one of the major US
banks who was in effect laundering money and how she was caught. I bet she was getting money out
for the oligarchs. Her story would also be interesting.
""The history of how this came about [begins] when Putin came to power, promoted by Yeltsin and
the people around Yeltsin, who were all connected in Washington. These people in Moscow included
Anatoly Chubais, who had overseen the privatizations, had relations with the IMF and had fostered
a lot of the corruption. He came to United States to assure us that Putin was a democrat, even though
he had been at the KGB.""
I was utterly shocked by the PBS/Frontline report stating baldly that "the Kremlin" -- the FSB
from Wiki:
"" The blasts hit Buynaksk on 4 September, Moscow on 9 September and 13 September and Volgodonsk
on 16 September. A similar explosive device was found and defused in an apartment block in the Russian
city of Ryazan on September 22.[1]
The next day then-Prime
Minister of RussiaVladimir
Putin praised the vigilance of the inhabitants of Ryazan and ordered the air bombing of
Grozny, which marked the beginning
of the Second Chechen War.[2]
A few hours later, three FSB
agents who had planted this device were arrested by the local police. The incident was declared to
be a training exercise. These events led to allegations that the bombings were a "false
flag" attack perpetrated by the FSB in order to legitimize the resumption of military activities
in Chechnya and bring Vladimir Putin to power.[4]
The Russian investigation concluded on the other hand:
"" The official Russian investigation of the bombings was completed in 2002 and concluded that
all the bombings were organized and led by
Achemez Gochiyaev, who
remains at large, and ordered by Islamist warlords
Ibn Al-Khattab and
Abu Omar al-Saif, who
have been killed. Five other suspects have been killed and six have been convicted by Russian courts
on terrorism-related charges.
It's pretty shocking to me -- myself having mixed feelings about Chechnya until Beslan (2004)
and as I recall at that time there was no suggestion that the apartment bombing and Chechen suppression
had been a "false flag" to put Putin into power -- rather that he had shown impressive leadership.
... Wikipedia has even more conspiracies within conspiracies that make 09/11 Truther Movement's main
tenets appear boy-scout simple
Am I remembering wrong? As far as I can tell, there was a drastic sea change -- likely spurred
by the death/assassination of
Alexander Litvinenko, but involving allegations from that camp apparently dating back to 1998.
{wiki Litinenko: "In 2007,
Sergey Dorenko provided
The Associated Press
and The Wall Street
Journal with a complete copy of an interview he conducted in April 1998 for
ORT, a television
station, with Litvinenko and his fellow employees."" }
I am at a loss to understand that "honeymoon" period Cohen speaks of in light of what I what I
would guess was freely shared intelliegence by Putin's rivals (including the late Mr. Nemtsov ---
widely interview in the Frontline prior to his death -- who as I recall lost-out-to Putin -- also
back in 1998). It feels like the Russian people don't buy into this false flag conspiracy somehow
only gained currency 5-6 years after the event, despite claimed "evidence" almost immediately.
Putin is getting the Saddam Hussain treatment in which the past cooperation and applause is erased
in favor of a damning portrait of a ruthless murderer to rival the Borgias, etc. -- or as Cohen references
Ivan the Terrible. As I felt wrt to the Truther movement, It's really "something" to accuse a sitting
administration of the deliberate murder of hundreds or thousands of citizens for political gain ...
I'm fascinated by the repetition of "Putin's alleged crimes" -- seems so reckless.
Oh, and the martyred Litvinenko also claimed Beslan was another false flag ... making him sound
like Thierry Meyssan or something ... Unified theory of everything
wiki Beslan
"Several hostage-takers, including one of the leaders,
Vladimir Khodov had been
previously involved in terrorist activities, but released from government custody prior to the attack
despite their high profiles. According to a publication in Novaya Gazeta, "the
so-called Beslan terrorists were agents of our own special forces – UBOP [Center for Countering Extremism]
and FSB."[236]According to FSB defector
Alexander Litvinenko,
the Russian secret services must have been aware of the plot beforehand, and therefore they themselves
must have organised the attack as a
false flag operation.
He said that the previously arrested terrorists only would have been freed if they were
of use to the FSB, and that even in the case that they were freed without being turned into FSB assets,
they would be under a strict surveillance regime that would not have allowed them to carry out the
Beslan attack unnoticed"
In for a penny, in for a pound. Looking forward to next week -- Thank you Patrick ...
The BBC has been ramping up the alarm for the last few days wrt to the imminent entire breakdown
of that oh-so-imperfect cease fire which has already exceeded everyone's dire predictions at its
inception.
If you've read Cohen before, there won't be any surprises here. He obviously has a valid point in
reference to the US overplaying it's hand in the Ukraine and generally with the expansion of NATO. It
was clumsy and shortsighted thinking to believe a former (now-semi) superpower wouldn't respond to our
attempt at militarizing its borders.
On the flip side, the author complains about Cohen being branded 'Putin's apologist', but Cohen rarely
delves into Putin's failures as a leader. And Cohen's bugle call that were on the edge of a 'more dangerous
Cold War' is pure talking-head hyperbole. The world has changed a bit since the last Cold War and most
of that change has diminished Russia's ability to project power. Unfortunately, with Putin in charge
for the foreseeable future, we are left with tried and true 'containment' as our best policy going forward.
Pushing beyond containment just plays into Putin's hands and makes him appear a 'strong' leader at home
(and to Fox News).
@Hifisnock Have you factored TPP in your calculations? Between TPP and TIPP, we're doing our
damnedest to lock Russia in and out ... and we're actively courting China and India -- Pretty chilly
obviously this article thinks both are Tony Tiger grrrreaaaat ... but there's no subtlety
""First, Russian aggression is an unpleasant balance of power problem that is unlikely to go away
any time soon. TTIP isn't a panacea, but it would strengthen the West's balance of power position.
It would help European economies grow, provide more opportunities for European companies to turn
from Russia to the United States and enhance the prospects for further trans-Atlantic economic policy
coordination. The United States and its European allies need to prepare for more rounds of economic
sanctions against Russia in the near term, and they have to build a stronger, more united economic
front for the long haul.
Second, turning to the Pacific, the rise of China is the great balance of power challenge of our
time. The TPP isn't a Pacific panacea, but it is an important part of the equation. It would reinforce
the United States' position in the region and provide strategic reassurance to the many Asia-Pacific
countries that worry about China's rise – that is, everyone except North Korea. It would be a new,
strong multilateral accord in a region that very much needs more multilateral frameworks. These would
be stability-enhancing developments.""
@susan sunflower
@Hifisnock Yes, TPP and TTIP are more or less transparent schemes to lock down Europe and East
Asia before they drift into the Russo-Chinese orbit. That's why they both exclude Russia and China.
It is no secret that nowadays many alternative media activists face appalling state-sponsored censorship in many nominally free
and democratic Western countries. Now it seems that such censorship has penetrated much deeper than we have come to expect. Art itself,
the truest form of free expression, is being silenced.
Valentina Lisitsa is a brilliant musician, a famous virtuoso pianist, also known for publicly expressing her
opinion on the Ukrainian conflict through her Twitter account. She is
a good friend of the Slavyangrad Team and has kindly translated a number of articles for our publication. Her views are always insightful
and she has never made them a secret. We are lucky to have Valentina's first-hand account about dealings with the
Toronto Symphony Orchestra ("TSO"), which has decided to cancel her concert because
of her political opinions. The TSO's decision to silence Valentina's music because she has exercised her inviolable right to express
her beliefs is a message to all artists that the next time it could be them.
Valentina is Ukrainian. She was born on March 25, 1970, in Kiev. Her family comes from Odessa-her mother is a Russian citizen,
and her father was Ukrainian. Valentina graduated from the Lysenko music school and the Tchaikovsky National Music Academy of Ukraine
(the Kiev Conservatory). She married Alexey Kuznetsov from Taganrog. In 1991, they represented Ukraine in the Murray Dranoff Two
Piano Competition in Miami, Florida, and won the first prize. In 1992 they moved to the USA to study and subsequently decided to
remain there. In 2001 they became American citizens. Since last year, Valentina has been living in Paris.
Valentina is one of the most frequently viewed pianists on YouTube, with over 177,000 subscribers, and she performs all over the
world. Now Valentina's concert in Toronto, which was scheduled for April 8 and 9 at the Roy Thomson Hall, has been cancelled for
an outrageous reason-her political views. In an email sent to Valentina's agent, the TSO stated: "the Toronto Symphony Orchestra
received some messages from ticket buyers and others expressing concern over pianist Valentina Lisitsa's public political
statements."
In its correspondence, the TSO also accused Valentina of nothing less than public incitement of hatred contrary
to section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and went as far as to insinuate that Valentina, a citizen of the United States,
could be barred from entering Canada by the immigration authorities. The TSO attempted to base its charges on Lisitsa's public social
media posts, attaching a copy of some of her tweets, along with a brief and exceedingly shallow legal opinion by the TSO's counsel
at Borden Ladner Gervais LLP.
Despite being provided with a substantive legal response on the merits of these allegations, the TSO has since mustered neither
a single sentence in support of its accusations, nor a single word of apology. It was only after the legal opinion supplied by Valentina
underscored that the TSO could not unilaterally dissolve the contract that the TSO's counsel clarified that all her fees would be
paid. To all appearances, the TSO seemed to believe that it could not only silence Valentina's music, but also renege on its contractual
obligations and thus walk away from their commitments.
With the TSO finally making a decision to cancel Valentina's concert at the Roy Thomson Hall in Toronto, Valentina has appealed
to her fans and friends on her public Facebook page,
today, on April 6. With full support for Valentina's courage and strength, we have excerpted the full text of her appeal below. Valentina
Lisitsa has never been one to hide her political views. It is time for the TSO to acknowledge that they can no longer hide their
own biases and to stop kowtowing to ferociously reactionary political lobbies.
I have a confession to make and a huge favor to ask all of you. I really REALLY need your help now.
But first, my confession.
Over the last year I have been leading a double life. There was me-a "celebrity" pianist hopping from concert to concert, all
over the world; learning new pieces, meeting fans, recording, chirping about my happiness in upbeat interviews.
But there was another me: not a musician but a regular human being-a daughter, a mother, a wife. And this human being was watching
helplessly how the country of my birth, of my childhood, of my first falling in love-this country was sliding ever faster into the
abyss. Children die under bombs, old ladies die of starvation, people burned alive…
The worst thing that can happen to any country is fratricidal war, people seeing each other, their neighbours as enemies to be
eliminated. This is what has befallen my beautiful Ukraine. My heart was bleeding. You all saw on TV screens all over the world a
magnificent revolution, the people of Ukraine raising in fury against their corrupt rulers, for a better life. I was so proud of
my people! But the ruling class doesn't let go easily. They managed to cunningly channel away the anger, to direct it to other, often
imaginary, enemies-and worse, to turn people upon themselves. A year later, we have the same rich people remaining in power, misery
and poverty everywhere, dozens of thousands killed, over a million of refugees.
So, I took to Twitter (how many of you know I have a Twitter account?) under a name "NedoUkraďnka"-a word roughly meaning "Sub-Ukrainian",
a stab at Ukrainian Prime Minister who called Russian-speaking southern and eastern Ukrainians "SUBHUMANS"! Yes, I kid you not. In
an official written document. I am a subhuman, my husband, my mum…. I mastered Ukrainian language perfectly, far better than a so-called
"president" of Ukraine. But I don't speak it to my family, I didn't sing lullabies to my son in Ukrainian, when I sleep I never see
the dreams in Ukrainian, when I will be dying my last words will NOT be in Ukrainian…
Sorry, I got carried away telling you those things… To get back to my story-I took to Twitter in order to get the other side of
the story heard, the one you never see in the mainstream media-the plight of my people, the good and bad things that were happening
in Ukraine. I translated news stories from Ukrainian language websites, I translated eyewitness accounts of atrocities…. I became
really good in unmasking fakes published by Western media in order to make one side of the civil war look whiter and softer than
the Easter bunny, and the other-like sub-humans, not worthy of mercy, the "collateral damage".
To give you just one example: one of my feats was to confront French fashion magazine "Elle" who published a glowing cover story
about women in Ukrainian army. After the research I have shown to the magazine in my Twitter posts that the "cover girl" they have
chosen to show was in fact a horrible person, open Neo-Nazi, racist, anti-Semite who boasted of murdering civilians for fun! The
magazine issued a written public apology.
I was very proud! But with time my activities attracted a lot of vicious haters. I was a particularly important "target" because
of being Ukrainian, thus-a traitor. I thought I knew hate-my playing on YouTube certainly "attracted" a fair share of hate mail.
But I was mistaken. Death threats, wishes for my family to die, calling me "paid Kremlin wh*re"… the list goes on and on.
My haters didn't stop there. Trying, in their own words, to teach me a lesson, they have now attempted to silence me as a musician.
I am scheduled to play Rachmaninoff Concerto #2 with Toronto Symphony Orchestra this week. Back in December someone in the orchestra
top management, likely after pressure from a small but aggressive lobby claiming to represent the Ukrainian community, has made a
decision that I should not be allowed to play. I don't even know who my accusers are, I am kept in the dark about it. I was accused
of "inciting hatred" on Twitter. As the "proof", ironically enough, they presented to the orchestra my tweets containing, of all
things, Charlie Hebdo caricatures depicting lying media!!! We all know what those who can't tolerate free speech did to Charlie Hebdo
journalists.
Now, the orchestra based in one of the freest democratic countries is bending over to the same kind of people, helping them to
assassinate me-not as a living person yet , but as a MUSICIAN for sure.
Yes, Toronto Symphony is going TO PAY ME NOT TO PLAY because I exercised the right to free speech. Yes, they
will pay my fee but they are going to announce that I will be unable to play and they already found a substitute. And they
even threatened me against saying anything about the cause of the cancellation. Seriously. And I thought things like this
only happen in Turkey to Fazil Say?
Now, the plea.
Before you decide to help me-If you wish, please take time and read my tweets. You might find some of them offensive-perhaps.
Satire and hyperbole are the best literature tools to combat lies. Bear that in mind when reading.
Here is what I ask you to do for me and in defense of freedom, even if you disagree with me on politics.
I ask you to raise your voice and tell Toronto Symphony that music can't be silenced. Ask them to let me play. If you want to
write something-great! Or just share a photo I made ( sorry, I made it on my phone, nothing fancy). Ask your friends to join in.
If they do it once, they will do it again and again, until the musicians, artists are intimidated into voluntary censorship. Our
future will be bleak if we allow this to happen.
What utter, bloody nonsense. I hope the citizens of Toronto will boycott the TSO in droves. The TSO is supposed to promote
art, not politics. I am fully expecting the TSo to now schedule pianist Harper singing – Hey Jude. What crap!
The decision by the management of the TSO to cancel Valentina Lisitsa's Rachmaninoff concert on political grounds is a ghastly
blunder. Surely it will be reflected in declining ticket sales. Following that will come lay-offs and labour struggles.
I for one will not cock an ear in the direction of this orchestra until the situation is rectified in the interests of fairness
and justice.
Bravo Lisitsa! All of Canada's political parties actively support the US-installed regime in Kiev and the powerful ultranationalist
lobby the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Like the pro-Israel lobby which also dominates our politicians in Ottawa, institutions
like the TSO, which receive government and corporate funding, are wary of displeasing them.
In German history we had something like "degenerated art" and "degenerated music" during 3rd Reich. Artists had been oppressed
because the kind of music did not fit into the NAZI view of culture or they were simply of Jewish descent. Some were killed, others
could emigrate. Looking at the names you find composers like Bela Bartok, Hans Eisler, Paul Hindemith, Arnold Schönberg, Igor
Stravinsky and more who left Europe to survive.
Nowadays it is not as easy anymore, oppression is more subtle. But having a kind of employment ban on artists because of
their political opinion is the first step into that direction. What will be next? Having the wrong cultural bloodline?
The term "fascism" was initially defined as a local phenomenon - the regime of Italian dictator
Benito Mussolini. Later, the term changed its meaning and has become synonymous with Nazism (national
socialism) of the Third Reich. During 1950-1990-Western political science began to call fascism any
repressive regime and introduced the term "totalitarianism". This was done in order to combine Nazism
and communism, those two social phenomenon were ideologically polar and has had a different social
base despite using similar cruel methods.--[ I do not see much difference
in enslavement via Gulag with ensavement via decration of undermench -- NNB] In
one case, the the driving force was large industrialists and the middle class, in another - mostly
the urban poor and part of intelligencia, especially Jewish intelligencia.
The theory of binary totalitarianism has no serious scientific status. The term "fascism" has
now been returned to its historical meaning. It is a synonym of racism and all of its varieties -
crops-racism (the idea of cultural superiority), the social racism (the idea of social inequality
as the nature of this division of people into masters and slaves), etc.
Usually researchers try to distill the signs of fascism. For example, the Italian philosopher
Umberto Eco counted 14. But this approach only blurs the subject. The myth of superiority is a key
symptom. The rest is optional. Additional definitions are generated by the desire to "attach" to
fascism more than that.
For example, "nationalism". Normal people are proud of their nation and its culture, but do not
seek to destroy other peoples. This is the difference between nationalism and Nazism.
Or "traditionalism". If fascism were based in the traditions of the peoples, then some nations
would have dwelt for centuries in the fascist state of fever. Tradition is the enemy of the "voice
of blood", and there is no logic of exclusion of other people in traditions, while fascism lives
this logic . Not coincidentally, he is associated with the Protestant line in Christianity and its
idea of "chosen for salvation". Apart from the idea of exclusiveness, fascism is born with the spirit
of renewal, the destruction of the weak and "unnecessary" for the sake of winning power, novelty
and rationality. I repeat: tradition is the main enemy of fascism.
The idea of a strong state accompanies fascism, but does not define it. The Olympics of 1936,
"Olympia" by Leni Riefenstahl are symbols of a strong statehood. But Hitler's fascism was not
defined by the Olympics, but by the Nuremberg racial laws, summary execution of Slavs, Jews and Gypsies,
the plans of the colonization of the Eastern territories.
Yes, the war of 1941-1945 was the war between two authoritarian States, but only from the German
side it was an ethnic war. There were no intentions to carry out the genocide of "inferior Aryans"
in minds of Soviet soldiers or Joseph Stalin.
In Europe in recent decades, it was fashionable to talk about fascism as "a reaction to Bolshevism".
Indeed, the growing influence of leftist ideas in Europe in the first half of the twentieth century
caused activation of right-wing forces. But the roots of fascism are more ancient then Marxist and
Bolshevik. Fascism arose as a justification for colonial expansion. Hitler didn't invent anything
new. He just moved to the center of Europe bloody colonialist methods of the British, the French,
the Spaniards, and made the destruction of people fast and technically perfect: gas chambers, mass
graves. In a way fascism is application of colonial methods to the part of population of the country,
internal colonization so to speak.
The regime of the 1930-ies in Germany is the legitimate child of the European liberal capitalism.
But this conclusion is seriously injures European sense of identity. That's why this statement is a strict
taboo in the West --[not really, the hypothesis of intrinsic connection
of fascism with European (colonial) culture are pretty common --NNB]. But the truth
eventually comes out. Authors from European left now more frequently touch this connection and try
to develop this hypothesis.
Today we are witnessing a return to archaization of neoliberal society and slide of neoliberalism
into "new barbarism." Hence the reasoning of the European politicians about Ukraine as an "Outpost
of civilization". However, the assertion that Russia "does not meet democratic standards", those
days unlikely will deceive anyone. Euphemisms is a product of distortion of the language, not political
reality. This phrase marks Russia as a "defective" state, inhabited by "inferior" people - "watniks",
"colorado bugs". Neo-fascist model within the framework of liberalism is often built by shifting the boundaries
of tolerance. To some people tolerance applies, to other - no. The protection of the rights of one
group in this case means the destruction of the rights of another.
Political myth about the deep opposition between liberalism and Nazism have always refuted by
independent historians. Today this myth is completely discredited.
There are obvious interplay and close relationship between the two ideas - fascist and liberal
- obviously. They both go back to the idea of natural selection, transferred to human society. In
other words, the strongest must survive at the expense of the weakest. this doctrine is often called
"Social Darwinism". Indeed, the principle of "preservation of the fittest races", transposed into
social sciences, resulted in the adoption of the Nuremberg laws designed to protect the "purity of
race and blood" - the "law of the citizen of the Reich" and "Law on the protection of German blood
and German honor."
The return of fascism is a symptom of a certain historical tendencies. To such radical measures
economic elites resort only for the postponement of the final world crisis. But in the end it is
fascism that might again bring Western societies to the wedge of collapse.
As time goes on, the things that made the militias useful for Ukraine will also make them dangerous.
Their strength and autonomy in eastern Ukraine, particularly compared to the relatively weak government,
could potentially give them tremendous power there. These are the conditions for warlordism - for militias
turning their pieces of territory into little fiefdoms that they or their wealthy patrons would be free
to govern, or exploit, as they wished.
The eastern Ukraine conflict is typically seen as a war between the Ukrainian military, on one
side, and Russian-backed rebels, fighting alongside unacknowledged Russian forces, on the other.
But there is another faction fighting as well, one that has gone largely overlooked: the dozens of
private "volunteer" militias that share Ukraine's goal of crushing the separatists, but that aren't
necessarily operating under its control. These groups have proved useful to the Ukrainian government's
war effort, but they pose a serious threat to the long-term stability of Ukraine.
By many estimates, there are approximately 30 of these private armies fighting on the Ukrainian
side. Their fighters are accused of serious human rights violations, including kidnappings, torture,
and extrajudicial executions.
The longer these groups continue to operate, the greater the chances that their leaders will exploit
their power for personal or political gain, and cement their own power to operate without constraint
from the central government. That undermines the power of Ukraine's government, risks chaos in a
part of the country that has already suffered too much, and raises the possibility that even if separatist
forces are defeated, eastern Ukraine might be left as an ungoverned collection of warlord-dominated
fiefdoms.
Volunteer militias are fighting on the front lines - and growing in power
There are estimated to be about 30 volunteer, pro-Ukraine militia groups operating in eastern
Ukraine. And while they collectively field thousands of fighters, their exact numbers are uncertain.
Some, like the right-wing Azov Battalion, grew out of pre-existing groups that militarized when the
conflict broke out in eastern Ukraine in 2014. Others, such as the oligarch-funded Dnipro Battalion,
were created more recently.
The militias are allies of Ukraine's central government, and most coordinate with it, but they
are not under its full control. The Azov Battalion, for instance, answers to the Ministry of the
Interior, and receives considerable government support. By contrast, the unaffiliated Right Sector
operates independently, and has refused to even register with the government.
As the conflict has gone on, these groups have proliferated and grown more powerful, making them
useful in Ukraine's war effort, but also more of a long-term threat to the country and its government.
Although most of the groups nominally report to either the Ministry of the Interior or the Ministry
of Defense, that can break down on the battlefield. Steven Pifer of the Brookings Institution told
me he found that military commanders on the front line cannot rely on the militias to follow orders.
That is a worrying sign that the government does not have full control over the volunteer militias
now, and that they could grow more independent in the future.
How Ukraine's political chaos created the militia networks
... ... ...
The militias have also gained more power because the Ukrainian government, led by new President
Petro Poroshenko, brought them friends in high places. For instance, Arsen Avakov, Poroshenko's Minister
of Internal Affairs, was previously the leader of former Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko's political
bloc in eastern Ukraine. He has a longstanding alliance with members of the Azov Battalion, a far-right
organization whose members have a history of promoting anti-Semitism and neo-Nazi views. Avakov has
has used his position to support the group, going so far as to appoint Vadim Troyan, an Azov deputy
leader, as the chief of police for the whole Kiev region. And Azov's leader, Andriy Biletsky, is
now a member of parliament as well.
Igor Kolomoisky, an oligarch who is now the governor of the Dnipropetrovsk region of eastern Ukraine,
funded the Dnipro Battalion, a private army that, according to the Wall Street Journal, has 2,000
battle-ready fighters and another 20,000 in reserve. Newsweek reported that he also publicly backs
the Aidar battalion and has funded other militia groups as well, including the Azov, Donbas, Dnepr-1
and Dnepr-2 battalions.
The militias pose a serious threat to Ukraine's future
At some point, the Ukrainian government needs to be able to govern Ukraine. It can't do that if
parts of the country are dominated by militias that don't obey any official authority.
The fact that powerful oligarchs are supporting some of the militias - and that Ukraine's oligarchs
have a long history of resisting the state - raises the worrying possibility that these wealthy Ukrainians
could use the militias to protect their interests from state interference.
Simply by existing, those private armies could be "creating enough of an implicit threat that
the government can't move against, say, corrupt schemes," Karatnycky warned.
These groups pose a serious threat to Ukrainian civilians as well. In December 2014,
pro-Kiev militias blocked humanitarian aid from reaching rebel-held areas of eastern Ukraine. Amnesty
International researcher Denis Krivosheev said in a statement that the militias were starving
civilians as a weapon of warfare, calling the tactic a war crime.
Another militia, the Aydar Battalion, has kidnapped and tortured civilians in eastern Ukraine.
On dozens of occasions, militia members abducted civilians, tortured and interrogated them, and stole
their money and valuables before either releasing them or handing them over to the Security Service,
Amnesty International reported in 2014. The battalion was also reportedly running a secret detention
center in the city of Severodonetsk, in which "detainees were forced to recite the Ukrainian national
anthem and beaten if they failed."
Local police told Amnesty International that they had registered more than 38 criminal cases against
Aydar members, but that they lacked the power to take any further action against the group - a worrying
sign of the militias' power.
As time goes on, the things that made the militias useful for Ukraine will also make them dangerous.
Their strength and autonomy in eastern Ukraine, particularly compared to the relatively weak government,
could potentially give them tremendous power there. These are the conditions for warlordism - for
militias turning their pieces of territory into little fiefdoms that they or their wealthy patrons
would be free to govern, or exploit, as they wished.
Inevitably, Ukraine's government will have to take on the militias - which could spark a new conflict
The experts I spoke to agreed that the militias represent a threat to the long-term stability
of Ukraine, and ought to be dissolved and incorporated into the regular security forces. But it's
not clear whether Poroshenko's government sees that as a priority - or whether the government is
equipped to take them on at all.
... ... ...
And it's not clear that he has the political capital to do so anyway. Avakov, his interior minister,
backs the Azov Battalion, so would be unlikely to support any policy that would undermine it. And
Avakov is a key supporter of Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who would likely need to be on board
with any major change in policy on the militias.
It is likewise unclear whether oligarchs like Kolomoisky would be willing to give up their ties
to militias and the power that they bring - and how they might respond if the Ukrainian government
moved to disperse the groups.
The militias themselves might not go quietly either. In early February, when Poroshenko was rumored
to be considering disbanding the Aydar battalion, the group marched on Kiev. Its fighters blocked
access to the ministry of defense and burned tires outside its gates until Poroshenko backed down.
In September 2014, The Guardian's Shaun Walker embedded with the Azov Battalion in Mariupol, and
found "almost all to be intent on 'bringing the fight to Kiev' when the war in the east is over."
If they get their wish, it could be yet another disaster for a country that recently seems to
have had little else.
Are Ukrainian-American children brought up to be Bandera followers? If the children of all the
Eastern European and Baltic emigre populations bring their children up in American this way, will
it have an effect on non-emigre children in the US? With a combined population of 20 million career
age emigre ultra nationalists according to their own estimates in the United States alone, you had
better find out.
"I think to the contrary that the Galicians are the foundation of the Ukrainian state,"
This definitely throws a damper on anyone in the EU or USA calling the Euro-maidan a pro-democratic
protest or revolution. The Galicians that Poroshenko is referring to formulated the ideology of Stepan
Bandera that is now the foundation of post Maidan Ukraine.
According to Ukrainian-American George Masni, a former UCCA Arizona state president
"The "simple nationalism" Poroshenko is talking about is love of ones nation that drives
to defend it from invaders. This type of nationalism is better known as patriotism."
If ultra-nationalist ideology wasn't part of the Ukrainian political landscape pre-Maidan, where
did it come from? Before 1991 this ideology was foreign in Ukraine except for a tiny minority in
the Lviv region.
According to George Masni, former State of Arizona president for the UCCA-OUNb "The type of
political brainwashing you are describing never happened to me and as far as I know, in the U.S.
at least, this simply does not occur.What I do remember is being taught Ukrainian language,
dances, songs, and a general overview of Ukrainian literature and history."
Below are excerpts from a young Ukrainian-American woman that grew up in the American heartland.
She is educated and has a Masters Degree. She knows America fought the 3rd Reich and Nazism/
nationalism. Her own statements are clear that Dr. Rudlings studies and the many other papers written
were in fact precise in describing the Bandera kids are even more committed to Ukrainian nationalism
within the countries they live in, molding their own culture and politics, as well as Ukraine.
This upbringing is reinforced with a life long cultural education and celebration of nationalist
Galician values, education, job support, and even the emigre choices of religion. The Ukrainian Greek
Catholic and Orthodox religions were reworked to promote Ukrainian nationalism and reinforce it to
adherents at the end of the 19th century. Later Protestant beliefs followed suit within
the communities and started going mainstream in the 1950's and 60's.
According to
the Manitoba Historical Society"...the establishment of a separate Ukrainian Catholic
episcopate was as much a statement of Ukrainian "nationalism" as was the rise of the Ukrainian
Greek Orthodox Church of Canada."
With this kind of regulated upbringing it is no shock that even childhood experiences like scouting
play a major role in development. Consider the following carefully against what you know about Maidan.
In this American girl's own words, her heroes from WWII are the genocidal Waffen SS OUNb Bandera,
the mass murderers of 500,000 people.
American Ukrainian Nationalist on Maidan:
" I have
often thought of my ancestors and how they must have felt during WWII (and earlier
liberation movements) and the partisan struggle to liberate Ukraine from totalitarian powers.
I've always been fascinated by WWII and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA), but never in my life
did I think I would feel what they felt, get a taste of war, death, and the fight for freedom,
such uncertainty, and love for Ukraine in a context similar to theirs...These sentiments which
were felt by Ukrainians in WWII have been transferred to a new generation of Ukrainians who are
reliving the liberation movement, re-struggling for a free, prosperous, and democratic Ukraine.
Of course, EuroMaidan and Russia's recent invasion of Ukraine .... I feel that I was guided to
Ukraine because the love for and attachment to Ukraine was passed down from my grandparents, and
as they couldn't return...My grandparents' generation fight for freedom didn't succeed, there
was no independent Ukraine after the war, and so being intelligentsia and having taken part in
the liberation struggle, my relatives would have been persecuted under the Soviets.
Thus in 1944 when the Soviets were again approaching western Ukraine, my grandparents had
to flee west...Eventually sotnias (defense/ military units) were formed during EuroMaidan and
I couldn't help but think that the last time sotnias were formed was during the war by the UPA...The
UPA slogan "Glory to Ukraine" and response "Glory to the Heroes" as well as the UPA songs sounded
from maidan's across the country, and the black and red UPA flags flew next to the yellow and
blue ones. There are in fact a lot more parallels between WWII and EuroMaidan/ the Russian invasion...And
once we finally had a taste of victory, finally ousted the corrupt president, finally felt we
had a chance to completely reboot the country, root out the Soviet mentality once and for all."-
Areta Kovalsky
Both PLAST and CYM hold multiple summer camps each year. CYM is more Ukrainian oriented than
PLAST but in addition to its education role, it is also a Ukrainian social organization were young
people go to meet and have fun.
The Plast organization is strongly modeled after the American Boy Scouts. It has various numbered
scout troops etc. Are the American Boy Scouts - the U.S. version of Nazi boot camps? When
an American Boy Scout camp is not readily available, Americans have been known to attend Plast
summer camps as a way of getting the same experiences they would get in with the American Boy Scouts
(hiking, merit badges etc.). They might get exposed to Ukrainian tradition but many of
them freely choose not to participate in those camp activities.- George Masni, former UCCA State
of Arizona president.
As noted in the UCCA press release in the link above dated 1999, OUNb leader Ivan Kobasa also
took responsibility of making sure the Ukrainian-Americans received the proper secondary education
at Ukrainian nationalist schools(MAUP) in Ukraine. From the mid 2000's enrollment in this educational
system has skyrocketed. Today almost all members of the current Ukrainian government are graduates
of this ideological system that was taught to them by moderates like David Duke who is also a graduate
of the MAUP system.
I consider myself to be a reasonably well educated and retired American of Ukrainian descent
who has been somewhat active in Ukrainian affairs for over 50 years. I have never been approached
to join the super secretive almost legendary OUNb or any of the OUN organizations. Why? I think the
answer is quite obvious. In the U.S., other than being referenced in propaganda or other obscure
publications, OUNb and its OUN peers are no longer functional organizations and have been completely
inactive for at least 4 or more decades. - George Masni UCCA former State of Arizona President.
This seems very unlikely considering the first Ukrainian Youth Group
in the USA that
defined Ukrainian
Scouting was literally
the scouting group
that taught Stepan Bandera his values and political beliefs is
PLAST and CYM. Below,
and at every CYM branch where its says "patron" it literally means "patron saint." Almost every Ukrainian
scout troop has a patron saint that is guilty of crimes against humanity. Most of these Greek Catholic
saints were in fact - Waffen SS.
Can Waffen SS officers and mass murderers like Stepan Bandera be Catholic patron saints in cities
like New York, Philadelphia, Stamford CT, or Boston in the year 2015?
"On October
16, 2011, members of the 54th branch of CYM "Khersones" in Stamford, CT attended a mass and
requiem service in honor of the great Ukrainian hero and freedom fighter, Stepan Bandera. It
was the first time since its' inception that the branches' members took part in an organized activity
together with the greater Ukrainian community of Stamford.
The SUM members and the faithful present that day enjoyed a beautiful and emotional homily about
the life and achievements of Stepan Bandera delivered by Reverend Bohdan Danylo, Rector of St. Basil's
Seminary in Stamford. He instructed the children on how they can model their own lives on Bandera's
by following his example of self-sacrifice and unwavering dedication to his country. Following
the homily, Father Bohdan distributed candles to each child which burned brightly during a stirring
execution of the prayer "Vichnaya Pam'yat" in honor of the great hero of the Ukrainian nation."
...CYM Geelong(Australia) under the
patronage of Stepan Bandera celebrated Stepan Bandera Day in remembrance of the OUN leader...CYM
Geelong opened up the event not only to its members but also the wider Ukrainian community not only
to remember Stepan Bandera but for all our Ukrainian heroes who lost their lives in the fight for
Ukraine's independence. Druh. Marko Tkaczuk showed video clips of the work of OUN and the life of
Stepan Bandera..
They were the SS units that did atrocities so great that Michael Wittmann, Gaupshturmfyurer SS,
one of Nazi Germany's most famous tank commanders shows the perspective the 3rd Reich had toward
the OUNb Ukrainian nationalists this young woman writes about adoringly.
"What are Ukrainians - a feral Russian that for the idea of gaining the Ukrainian state is
ready to kill even his Frau (wife, woman). They are the perfect fighters against the Red Army. But
after that they are subject to a total cleansing (destruction) because they are the worst type of
barbarians."
Wasyl Veryha, former SS officer and prominent Ukrainian historian Interviewed by the CBC Radio
in 1987- Veryha insisted, I have never felt to be a Nazi. I never believed in Nazism, and. . .I have
never been a fascist. I feel that I am and I always was a Ukrainian patriot. And that's what I am.
And if you would ask me another question,if I would do the same thing all over, I would. . .
When Mr. Masni said that CYM and PLAST was modeled on Boy Scouts did he mean that they are told
to model their lives on Nazi mass murderers too? Every scouting branch in the USA is named after
an SS officer or an OUNb murderer. One branch is named June 30, 1941 after the day the Nazi Yaroslav
Stetsko declared Galicia a free state under Adolf Hitler.
Each branch including those in the US has a "Patron" saint that was a Nazi war criminal. In the
case of Geelong, Australia it is Stepan Bandera.
Both youth groups were considered
a nazi terrorist organization from their inception and on the CIA's list of Nazi terrorist organizations.
In the decades before the Soviet Union absorbed West Ukraine the youth groups were covert terrorist
cells planting bombs and murdering the people in West Ukraine. In the decade after WWII the Ukrainian
youth groups provided the ultra-nationalists that murdered over 28,000 Ukrainians on Ukrainian soil.
Starting with "scouting" children are watched to see which areas they
excel in. As they progress with their Ukrainized education, they are also helped along as they start
their careers. This focus and help throughout their careers continues as long as they remain Ukrainian
nationalists wherever they are.
During the Cold War these children grew up and became the strategists that lectured at NATO command.
They helped develop the defense industry into what it is today. They gravitated into the military
and
developed Pysch Warfare in the US Army into what is today. By 1988 General John Hackett Commander
of NATO's Northern Army Group and great friend of OUNb leader Yaroslav Stetsko (took over OUNb after
Bandera) was convinced the only thing NATO needed to topple the Soviet Union was the Bandera networks
(ABN-UCCA-WACL-APCL) and groups.
If NATO had any credibility the Bandera groups are the worlds masters at infiltrating and manipulating
governments, societies, and intervening in protest movements and establishing themselves at the head
of the table.
Post 1991 independent Ukraine, Bandera group emigre kids started migrating en-mass
into the human rights field. They are the active groups and foot soldiers of the Color Revolutions.
The ABN (Anti-Bolshevik Nations) led WACL which was sustained with the resources of the emigres
and over 80 countries rolled back into the (WLFD) World League for Freedom and Democracy.
This was run by Taiwan's APCL. The APCL was formed by Yaroslav Stetsko and Chiang Kai-shek to
promote ultra-nationalism throughout the world. The WLFD which is still composed of ultra-nationalists
currently writes human rights reports for the UN.
Do you know who's been influencing your little cubbie lately?
EMMANUEL TODD GERMANY'S FASTHOLDON THE EUROPEAN An interview CONTINENTby Olivier Berruyer
OB: The integration of the Ukrainian population by the German system would represent a qualitative
jump in this dynamic unbalance. Granted, it is a numerous population, but it is poor and produces
little…
ET: Yes, but annexing the geographically contiguous and politically controllable poor, in a globalized
world craving low-cost labour forces, can be an advantage. Our world is now post-democratic and un-egalitarian;
it therefore fosters virtual expansion in zones of very low salary rates.
And Ukraine's advantage for the new German empire is precisely that it doesn't exist. It is double,
even triple. It is a disintegrating system. In reality, Ukraine has never existed as a correctly
functioning national entity. It's a false state, and it is bankrupt. The fundamental proof of Ukrainian
incapacity of statehood, and this has not been stressed, is the role played by the leaders of the
Western Ukrainians, at the periphery of the country. One sometimes gets indignant over this, and
starts counting their deputies, their ministers, but the Western Ukrainians, altogether, do not represent
much. However, what is striking, is the inaction of the central Ukrainians, that is, those who speak
Ukrainian, who do not like the Russians that much, who belong originally to the Orthodox religion
but who are not tempted by the far-right. The rise in power of Western Ukraine shows at what
point Central Ukraine, which is the majority, is atomised, incapable of organizing itself, in a state
of pre-statehood.
The confrontation playing itself out between the Ukrainian far-right and the pro-Russians in Eastern
Ukraine makes evident the historical inexistence of the country. The Western Ukrainians want to adhere
to Europe. This is perfectly normal as far as they are concerned: why would extreme-right movements
which have a tradition of collaborating with Nazi Germany refuse to join a Europe under German control?
All this said, this exceptional Ukrainian catch has not yet been bagged by Germany. The game,
or rather the war, is only beginning.
As for the Central Ukrainians, I think that the question has been taken care of. The system will
continue disintegrating: the GDP will contract, the situation will get worse, and I think that this
is the real reason why the Russians are so prudent, are so little inclined to go to war and, contrarily
to what is being asserted, do not want to annex bits and pieces of Ukraine. Russia is not afraid
of Western sanctions. But it does not want to become hated in Central Ukraine. In its central mass,
Ukraine is mistrustful of Russia at the present stage, but one must recognize to the Russians a great
historical capacity to play with space and time. After two years of being handled by German Europe,
what will the people of Kiev think? Maybe they will want to return to Moscow. A disintegrating system
does not adhere, it continues disintegrating.
... ... ...
OB: In such a context, what future can there be for German-American relations?
ET: If you live in the enchanted world of the presently dominant ideology of the newspaper Le
Monde, of François Hollande, which is also the ideology of naive anti-imperialists, the Western block,
a union of America and Europe, with its ward Japan, must and can contain Russia. In the hypothesis
that presuppose a good strategic understanding and a strong collaboration between partners, the West
could defeat the Russian economy. Maybe… But then there is China, India, Brazil, the world is big…
But if we move into the world of strategic realism, which sees the reality of the relationships
of power without a reference to real or mythic values, we see that there exist presently two great
developed industrial worlds, America on the one side and this new German empire on the other. Russia
is a secondary question. We must therefore foresee a completely different future for the twenty years
to come than the East-West conflict: the rise in power of the German system suggests that the United
States and Germany are moving in the direction of conflict. This is an intrinsic logic founded upon
relations of force and domination. In my view it is unrealistic to foresee a peaceful co-existence
for the future.
Yet at this stage, we may reintroduce the notion of value. But precisely in order to stress that,
for an anthropologist, in his own way a realist, or for a historian of the long term, the United
States and Germany do not share the same values. Confronted with the economic stress of the Great
Depression, America, the country of liberal democracy, produced Roosevelt, whereas Germany, a country
of an authoritarian and non-egalitarian culture, produced Hitler.
Granted that the belief of Americans in equality is very relative. The United States are the leading
country in the rise of economic inequalities – even when putting aside segregation towards the Blacks,
a problem which is far from having been solved, as can be seen from the riots in Ferguson. But it
is also, at the present stage, a leading country
But it is also, at the present stage, a leading country in its attempt to create a unified world,
with populations of very diverse origins. In this sense, the election of Obama remains strongly symbolic,
despite the evident wear and tear shown by the President during his second term.
If one takes only into account the corpus of citizens of Germany, we can say that the rise of
inequalities remains very reasonable, much lower to what we can observe in the Anglo-American world.
But if one observes the German system in its European globality, integrating the low salaries of
Eastern Europe and the compressions of salaries in the South, one can identify a system of a much
stronger un-egalitarian domination in a state of gestation. The equality in this case is left as
a concern for only the dominant, German citizens.
At this stage, I will take up this concept of political science of the Belgian anthropologist
Pierre van den Berghe :the Herrenvolk democracy, that, is the democracy of the master people. Now
don't jump to the ceiling! These words are not going to bring down the world – I have recently expressed
myself in these terms in an interview with the German newspaper Die Zeit.
At the beginning, Pierre van den Berghe was applying this concept of an ethnic democracy to apartheid
South Africa, where there existed a corpus of equal citizens which was functioning perfectly well
according to the liberal and democratic rules, but whose liberty and democracy could only hold because
there existed these dominated groups. It was the same for America at the time of segregation: the
internal equality of the white group was assured by its domination over the Indians, the Blacks…
One could in the same way characterize Israel as being a Herrenvolk democracy. What cohesion and
liberty there is in the Israeli democracy is bolstered by the existence of an enemy mass of Arabs.
If I had to describe present day Europe, if I had to comment the economic map at the political
level, I would say that Europe,or the German Empire, is beginning to take the general shape of a
Herrenvolk democracy with, at its heart, a German democracy reserved for the dominating people and,
around it, a whole hierarchy of populations more or less dominated, whose votes no longer have any
importance. It is easier to understand, in such a model, why, when one elects a President in France,
nothing happens. Because he no longer has any power: particularly not on the monetary system.
So one finds oneself in a democracy in which the liberties of the press, of opinion, and others,
are perfectly respected; where there is no problem but where, fundamentally, the stability of the
system rests on the subconscious solidarity inside the dominating group. In the Europe taking shape,
one can see the Germans as the Whites in segregation America.
Presently, political inequality is evidently stronger in the German system than in the American
system. The Greeks and others cannot vote in the elections to the Bundestag, whereas the Blacks and
the Latinos can vote in presidential and congressional elections. The European Parliament is baloney,
the American Congress is not.
OB: After such an indictment,do you think that we should be more vigilant to-wards Germany?
ET:It's true that I am pessimistic. The probability that Germany will turn out right is getting
lower every day. It is quite small already. The authoritarian German culture generates a systemic
mental instability of the leaders when they are in a situation of domination – something that has
not happened since the war. Their frequent historical incapacity – in a situation of dominance –
of imagining a peaceful and reasonable future for everybody re-emerges today in the form of an export
mania.
To this is now added, for these leaders, the interaction with Polish absurdity and Ukrainian violence.
Sadly, the fate of Germany doesn't appear to me as a total unknown.
In what way will the Germans turn wrong? The median age or the absence of a military apparatus
may put a brake to the process, but one notices every week a radicalisation in the German posture.
Contempt for the English, for the Americans, shameless visit of Merkel to Kiev. The relationship
to the French, the voluntary servitude of whom is essential for the control of Europe, will be revelatory.
But we know already. With the affair of the sales of the Mistral to Russia: the German leaders
are now asking the French to liquidate whatever military industry they have left.
The Ukrainian army is essentially a 'NATO legion' which doesn't pursue the national interests
of Ukraine, but persists to restrict Russia, President Vladimir Putin says.
"We often say:
Ukrainian Army, Ukrainian Army. But who is really fighting there? There are, indeed, partially
official units of armed forces, but largely there are the so-called 'volunteer nationalist battalions',"
said Putin.
He added that the intention of Ukrainian troops is connected with "achieving the geopolitical
goals of restraining Russia." Putin was addressing students in the city of St. Petersburg.
According to Putin, the Ukrainian army "is not an army, but a foreign legion, in this case
a foreign NATO legion, which, of course, doesn't pursue the national interests of Ukraine."
Kiev has been reluctant to find political solutions to the crisis in eastern Ukraine and only
used the ceasefire to regroup its forces, the president stressed.
"Unfortunately official Kiev authorities refuse to follow the path of a peaceful solution.
They don't want to resolve [the crisis] using political tools," Putin said, adding that first
Kiev authorities had first used law enforcement, then security services and then the army in the
region.
"It is essentially a civil war [in Ukraine]. In my view, many in Ukraine already understand
this," Putin added.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has reacted to President Putin's words, calling his
statement "nonsense."
"The statement that there is a NATO legion in Ukraine is nonsense. There is no NATO legion,"
Stoltenberg told reporters.
Already tense situation in eastern Ukraine gone downhill in past 2 weeks. The escalation of
violence came after a controversial incident at a Kiev-controlled checkpoint near the town of
Volnovakha, where 12 passengers were killed on January 13.
Another 'pro-Putin troll' has revealed himself. This time, it is an American film director, Oliver
Stone, who calls to uncover the truth about the coup in Ukraine. He wrote about this on his Facebook:
There are many evidences of pro-Western, third party interference, beginning with Victoria
Nuland, John McCain, USAID, National Endowment for Democracy (who apparently organize very well on
Facebook and Twitter), etc. Why for instance are so many policemen dead and wounded, and yet no one
has investigated this in the new government?
A dirty story through and through, but in the tragic aftermath of this coup, the West has maintained
the dominant narrative of "Russia in Crimea" whereas the true narrative is "USA in Ukraine." The
truth is not being aired in the West. It's a surreal perversion of history that's going on once again,
as in Bush pre-Iraq 'WMD' campaign.
I saw the last movie made by Oliver Stone, Untold History of the United States, and I have
to say that the guy has balls. Though judging by the comments under the photos with Yanukovych on
his Facebook many believe that his balls are still too big. Well, people have always been more irrational
than rational. But now, in the hands of useful idiots, they fall into the so-called freedom of expression
on the Internet and other 'democratic' tools by which the unconscious farm of useful idiots realize
this or other implemented idea. You need only suitable amount of 'like' on Facebook. Fighting against
'pro-Putin trolls' in the name of liberty, democracy is now the main task of the 'guardians of European
values' who unconsciously put into practice 'first strike' doctrine created by the Deputy Secretary
of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz .
Comment, after which I could not control myself from laughing said lately Milos Zeman, Czech President,
commenting pro-Bandera march in Kiev:
"These demonstrators carried portraits of Stepan Bandera, which Reminded me of Reinhard Heydrich
'
"The parade was organized similar to the Nazi torchlight parade, where participants shouted
the slogan:" Death to the Poles, Jews and communists without mercy "
"Do not forget that Bandera is considered a national hero in Ukraine, his image is hanging
in the Maidan, his statue is in Lvov. In reality, he was a mass murderer," Zeman said last summer
on Czech Television.
Some Poles are begining to feel a little uncomfortable with this fact. The fact that our Ukrainians
neighbour walk through the streets with torches and pictures of Stephan Bandera, chanting his name.
Those sceptical about this, however, are called 'pro-Putin trolls', agents of the Kremlin, or people
standing on the road to 'European values'.
Well, however, the issue itself acknowledges Czech President Milos Zelman
"Something is wrong with Ukraine and the EU"
Bangladesh of the Old Continent invest its dollars in Banderastan
Ukraine, on satellite image is getting more darker spot due to problems with the supply of electricity
and coal. Despite neo-Bandera with torches on the streets of Kiev. As well as the fact that the country
is becoming less and less credible financially. An investor who will invest their dollars has been
found there. Poland will create a fund, aimed at supporting small and medium-sized businesses in
Ukraine. Introduction amount of the fund will be about $ 100 million, according to interview the
Minister of Finance and National Economy Bank PKO BP. Admitted on the radio RMF FM, advisor of president
Bronislaw Komorowski, Olgierd Dziekoński.
"We assume that during the first three years we enter the 30 to 50 projects, which means that
for each of them, we allot 250-300 thousand dollars to several millions"
Perhaps, the trade relations between Ukraine and Poland will already be concluded with the new
Ukrainian currency with the image of Stephan Bandera. Because for such an idea calls Parliamentary
party leader of Svoboda, who wants the OUN leader appear on the banknote of 1,000 hryvnia.
Investments will cost Polish taxpayers 359 800 000 zlotys, fortunately all Polish people will
be happy to help. Now, the whole country will be able to build the independence of Ukraine. Finally,
all Polish citizens are happy. Well, maybe not everyone, but I think the majority. We also have these
brave ones who for some strange reason (some say leak of money, but don't said it loudly) flees the
Polish ship quickly and in noiselessly way. Spreading silently, giving up the 'European values'.
According to data from the Central Statistical Office in 2013, 6000 committed suicide, 33% more than
in 2012. We are now the country with the highest number of suicides per 100 thousand residents. Poland
17.5. Germany 12.2 and plunged into economic depression Spain and Greece 7.6 to 3.5. In 2013, the
suicide rate among pensioners has increased by 50%, comparing to the year 2012. It is worse in Russia,
18.5 per 100 thousand people. According to official data, 80 percent of the Polish workers earn less
than the amount of the minimum wage in countries such as France, the Netherlands and Ireland. The
average German earns nearly 4 times more than the average Pole.
"Poland is now at the forefront of European countries and even at the cost impacts on the economy
fights for further sanctions against the Russian aggressor."
It was stressed by Mr. Petro Poroshenko in the Polish Parliament. However, he probably will get
his pension, being 931st of the richest people in the world. Now the whole Poland in the end will
have the opportunity to take part in the war against 'pro-Putin trolls' and green people (like
Polish media call Russian soldiers) and, paradoxically, can come closer to Russia. At least when
it comes to the level of suicides per capita. Although, we can already boast good indicators in promoting
European values, which 'cannot be exchanged for cash'. Polish fruit growers, as a result of
the policy of sanctions towards Russia will lose 317 million euros on sales, or 61% of their exports
of these products to countries outside the EU. Polish meat exporters will lose 162 million euros,
i.e. 20% of its trade with countries outside the EU. Milk producers will lose 142 million euros,
32% of exports to countries outside the EU.
Within the fight against green people, Poland will also support the Ukrainian army by 3
million euro. It will also educate Ukrainian soldiers in Poland, who will serve in the future, including
a joint brigade Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian. Their headquarters will be located in Lublin. It simply
means that Poland now quite openly and actively is involved in the conflict in Ukraine, standing
on the side of Kiev and the tightening of sanctions to Russia and consequently plunge Polish economy.
Russia's and China's friendly new political party in Poland
However, in Poland, a new political party, with the working title 'Change' was founded
by Mateusz Piskorski, founder of think thank Center for Geopolitical Analyse and, in the past, member
of parliament on behalf of the 'Self-Defense' party. Party's program is yet under development
by persons interested in membership. 'Change' also wants to compete in the next elections,
counting on 10% of the vote.
One of the main themes of the Party is coming out of NATO, increasing care for the citizens of
the country, nationalization, tightening cooperation with Russia and China. As the main reason for
the establishment of the party Mateusz Piskorski gives the argument that a very large amount of Poles
are dissatisfied with the Polish government. According to Piskorski, these people do not have any
representatives in the government. Party 'Change' is to be an alternative for them.
A few fragments of the party's program:
Exodus of Polish youth in search of a better life, 14% of citizens of working age are unemployed,
capital puppet attacks on workers' rights, the degradation of Polish agriculture, the impoverishment
of pensioners, the lack of prospects for talented young people in the country – all this makes it
necessary,as soon as possible, to put a dam to anti-human capitalism!
Infamous raids on Serbia, the invasion of Iraq, the attack on Afghanistan, serving the American
dying hegemon, setting fire to Ukraine, betrayal of Polish interests for lucrative jobs in international
institutions – are sufficient reasons to demand sovereign Polish!
Immediately leave NATO structures to take care of our own business and live together in peace
with our neighbours, and not to serve to capitalists from oversea.
In an time of increasingly spreading unrest in Europe. The potential win of the radical left in
Greece – party Syriza and coming out of this country from the euro zone. Former satellite
states of the former Soviet Union, Hungary and the Czech Republic, may leave the EU. In this context,
appointed by Piskorski movement does not have to be, just as some group think, only harmless lunatics.
In view of what is going on in other countries of Europe 'Change' can be a TNT for political
geriatrics in Poland for the more that openly speaks of cooperation with other parties in Europe,
such as Spanish Podemos. Making international character and oriented on one goal – the fight
against international capital and leaving NATO.
I can't imagine how the Ukrainian government is planning its undeclared war against Russia, especially
in the East which borders Russia.
The Maidan anarchy broke the Ukrainian army and all security services. Volunteer battalions are
useful against unarmed civilians and excel as marauders and executioners. But they do not know how,
do not like, and do not want to fight, withdrawing as soon as the fighting against militiamen and
Russian volunteers gets serious.
Our highly praised volunteer commanders tend to receive very timely wounds so as to be evacuated
from the battlefield ahead of the cannon fodder, in the same fashion as they disappeared (along with
Yatsenyuk, Turchinov, and Klichko) from the Maidan just before it was fired upon by snipers. Or,
even better, they became Rada deputies and are now defending Ukraine there, not at the front.
What is the Ukrainian government hoping for? NATO help? But NATO will not send its soldiers to
their deaths in the same fashion as Ukraine's leaders.
Maybe the Americans will defend us? Oh, sure, they'll fight willingly. But they also don't hurry
to help. US military personnel may not show up in Ukraine at all. It's obvious they'll get another
Vietnam or Afghanistan here. War against the Russians will once and for all bury the Hollywood myth
of the invincibility of the US Marines.
This myth is worth much more than the lives of Ukrainian soldiers and civilians. Far more billions
of dollars were invested in it than in the democratic dismantlement of the Ukrainian state through
"for sale" politicians, journalists, experts, sociologists, and economists. Five billion dollars
is small change for the US. They can easily write off the loss. No, the US intent is for Russians
to fight against Europe. The US wants to look at the slaughter from afar, participating in it just
as they participated in World War 2. They'll arrive in Kiev just as they arrived in Berlin. To divide
Germany, not fight against fascism.
I see only one natural exit from the dead end of the Maidan and civil war. Yatsenyuk, Turchinov,
Klichko ought to take poison or shoot themselves, like Hitler and Himmler. Their suicides saved the
Germans and Germany from complete annihilation. If Ukraine's leaders are patriots, as they claim,
they can simply leave the game. Thus saving Ukraine and Ukrainians from death, a total economic collapse,
and the destruction of Ukrainian cities.
The time to die for Ukraine has come. But not for simple workers and peasants. The time has come
for you. Weren't you the ones shouting for Yanukovych to leave? He left. Now it's your turn. Just
leave us once and for all. And then the war in Ukraine will end.
This news, supported by the USA,
Drang nach
Osten can proved to be costly to EU and, especially, Germany and ruinous to Ukrainian economy.
Quote: "As far as Ukraine's eastern Donbass region is concerned, any solution has to involve
very extensive autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, guaranteed by the international community
- not the ridiculous offer of temporary three-year autonomy which Kiev has offered so far... In
addition, the EU should back the guarantee of Russian language rights in Ukraine - not because Moscow
is demanding it, but because the West badly needs to assert its own values in the face of the growing
power of neo-fascist groups in Ukraine."
Russia badly overplayed its hand last year when it tried to bring Ukraine into the Eurasian Union
against the passionate opposition of many Ukrainians.
The European Union is now risking the same thing by trying to bring Ukraine into the West without
reference to economic reality or the willingness of European publics to bear the enormous costs involved,
and at a time when the EU itself is in deepening crisis.
Russia is suffering badly as a result of Western economic sanctions - but Ukraine's situation
is far worse, with a predicted fall in GDP of 7% this year.
If this decline continues, the Ukrainian state will face collapse,
Throughout the 23 years since the end of the Soviet Union, too many members of the Western media
and policy worlds have ignored or misrepresented key aspects of the Ukrainian-Russian economic relationship.
The West simply does not have the means or the will to integrate Ukraine into the West
while isolating it from Russia.
This allowed them in turn to ignore crucial features of the economic balance of power in Ukraine
between Russia and the West.
In their zeal to denounce Russia for putting pressure on Ukraine over gas supplies, Western commentators
usually neglected to mention that, through cheap gas and lenient payment terms, Russia was in fact
subsidising the Ukrainian economy to the tune of several billion dollars each year - many times the
total of Western aid during this period.
This allowed the same commentators not to address the obvious question of whether Western states
would be willing to pay these billions in order to take Ukraine out of Russia's sphere of influence
and into that of the West.
Russian trade vital
Western commentators were not wrong to portray Russia as supporting a deeply corrupt and semi-authoritarian
system of government in Ukraine - but they too often forgot to mention that trade with Russia has
also been responsible for preserving much of the Ukrainian economy.
It is not just that Russia remains Ukraine's largest partner, with trade in 2013 exceeding that
with the whole of the EU; it is also a question of what is being traded. Ukraine exports manufactured
goods to Russia, thereby supporting what is left of Ukrainian industry.
A gas pressure gauge on the main gas pipeline from Russia, in the village of Boyarka near the
capital Kiev, Ukraine. Russian gas has been key to the Ukrainian economy
To the European Union, Ukraine mostly sends raw materials and agricultural products - with the latter
in particular heavily restricted by EU quotas and tariffs.
Ignoring this enabled Western commentators to ignore the question of how - in order to move towards
the EU - Ukraine could restrict its trading relationship with Russia without ruining its economy
in the process; or, on the other hand, whether the EU would be willing to change its own rules so
as to admit Ukrainian imports.
Finally, very few Western commentators indeed have mentioned what is perhaps the most significant
aspect of the Ukrainian-Russian relationship, namely that Ukrainians are entirely free to move to
Russia to work, and to work in the vast majority of jobs and professions.
As a result of Russia's much more successful economy, more than three million Ukrainians are now
working in Russia, and sending remittances to their families in Ukraine - a vital contribution to
the economies of several Ukrainian regions.
This is at least three times the number of Ukrainians working legally in the whole of the European
Union.
In order to bring Ukraine into the West, would EU members be willing to allow free movement of
Ukrainian labour?
And - as is necessary if the EU is to turn Ukraine into a strong anti-Russian ally - to do so
not in some almost impossible future of Ukrainian EU membership, but tomorrow?
The answer is obvious.
No integration
The UK Independence Party is soaring in the polls and mounting a strong campaign to take Britain
out of the European Union in a referendum backed by the Conservatives and scheduled for 2017.
All over the EU, right-wing parties are gathering strength.
In France, sober commentators are warning that there is a real chance that in 2022 the National
Front could win the French elections and Marine Le Pen could become President of France.
And all of these developments are driven above all by hostility to immigration.
On the one hand, therefore, the West is clearly not prepared to make the economic sacrifices necessary
to support the Ukrainian economy in the face of Russian hostility.
The existing conflict in Ukraine makes it impossible for any Ukrainian government
to conduct the kind of economic and political reforms on which the EU is insisting
On the other, the existing conflict in Ukraine makes it impossible for any Ukrainian government
to conduct the kind of economic and political reforms on which the EU is insisting, and on which
Ukrainian progress towards the West depends.
By slashing subsidies and closing down much of Ukrainian industry, such reforms would drive much
of the population of eastern and southern Ukraine into the arms of Russia.
By attacking corruption, they would destroy the position of oligarchs in those regions who are
key to enforcing Kiev's authority there.
Kiev's dependence on these oligarchs and on nationalist militias to fight the war in eastern
Ukraine represents a serious and growing threat to Ukrainian democracy and to the spread of liberal
values in Ukraine.
A worrying sign in this regard was the appointment last month of Vadim Troyan as regional
chief of police in Kiev. His regiment, the Azov battalion, is known for links to the far right and
his promotion seems largely in reward for his group's participation in the fighting in eastern Ukraine.
This was counter-balanced by the appointment of a Jewish speaker in Parliament.
Compromise needed
But the lessons of all this should be obvious. The West simply does not have the means or the
will to integrate Ukraine into the West while isolating it from Russia.
The effort to do so is not strengthening but undermining Ukrainian democracy.
The time for blowhard posturing is over
If there is to be any chance of Ukrainian economic and political progress, a compromise must be
found whereby Ukraine can continue to trade as openly as possible with both the EU and Russia and
Ukrainians can continue to work freely in Russia.
That would leave Ukraine free to carry out the internal reforms that it needs to undertake, whether
or not it is headed for EU membership.
This will be impossible unless at the same time there is a political compromise with Russia; and
the terms of such a compromise are equally obvious.
In the first place, Ukraine should be neutralised.
This cuts both ways. Russia would formally have to abandon - as in effect it already has - hopes
to bring Ukraine into a Russian-led bloc.
The West would formally have to abandon the possibility of bringing Ukraine into Nato; and the
West too has in effect already done this by demonstrating again and again its unwillingness under
any circumstances to fight to defend Ukraine.
As far as Ukraine's eastern Donbass region is concerned, any solution has to involve very
extensive autonomy for the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, guaranteed by the international community
- not the ridiculous offer of temporary three-year autonomy which Kiev has offered so far.
In addition, the EU should back the guarantee of Russian language rights in Ukraine - not
because Moscow is demanding it, but because the West badly needs to assert its own values in the
face of the growing power of neo-fascist groups in Ukraine.
Opposition to such a deal in certain Western quarters will be bitter; but once again, these opponents
need to ask themselves just how much they are prepared to sacrifice and to risk in order to turn
Ukraine into a pro-Western and anti-Russian state.
The time for blowhard posturing is over. The time for hard economic calculation has begun.
Anatol Lieven is a professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service in Qatar.
He is author among other books of Ukraine and Russia: A Fraternal Rivalry.
Listen too much to Kremlin pronouncements, and one might get the impression that the Ukrainian
government in Kiev is comprised of nothing less than a malevolent and sinister fascist junta. In
light of Putin's own authoritarian tendencies, not to mention Russia's support for Ukrainian separatists,
such talk is highly ironic and that is putting it mildly. But while Kremlin propaganda should be
roundly dismissed, Ukraine still displays rightist-nationalist traits that are worrying and such
trends must be addressed forthrightly, without resort to white-washing or side-stepping.
For some time now, the political right in Ukraine has been gaining visibility. That, at least,
is the impression I get after speaking with local activists on the independent left circuit in Kiev.
During a recent research trip, I caught up with
Denis Pilash, a
veteran of student politics who participated in last year's Maidan protests which helped to topple
the unpopular government of Viktor Yanukovych. Pilash tells me he first came into contact with the
hard right long before Maidan ever took place.
Rise of Svoboda
"All the trouble started when rightists started targeting blacks, even though there were very
few of them here in Ukraine," Pilash says. He adds that far right party Svoboda tried to stir up
"anti-migrant hysteria" by holding rallies. Indeed, the party has sought to halt immigration and
reserve civil service positions for "ethnic Ukrainians." In 2006, Pilash adds, he attended a punk
rock concert in Kiev and at one point witnessed Nazi skinheads attacking an Azeri man. Pilash and
his friends flew to the aid of the gentleman, which prompted the rightists to turn against them in
turn and attack.
According to
Anton Shekhovtsov, a visiting fellow at the Institute of Human Sciences in Vienna and an
expert on Ukrainian
politics, Svoboda exhibits several ideological strands, "including anti-communism, anti-liberalism,
racism, anti-Russian sentiments, glorification of Ukrainian historical right-wing extremism and fascism,
and heterosexism." In 2012, Svoboda was able to exploit the notion that it was the most radical party
opposing Viktor Yanukovych, and the outfit garnered more than 10% of the vote in parliamentary elections.
Some believe that Svoboda is ideologically inchoate. Take for example
Tetiana Bezruk of
the Congress of National Communities of Ukraine. At a local Kiev café, I catch up with Bezruk, a
researcher who is writing her thesis on Svoboda. The party, she says, isn't right wing precisely
but more populist in orientation. Svoboda pretends it is nationalist but it favors European integration.
"How do you reconcile such a strange contradiction?" I ask. "Exactly," Bezruk chimes in.
Whatever the case, Svoboda espouses many traditional and conservative views. For instance, the
party has argued that religious affiliation and ethnicity should be listed on official identity documents.
Socially conservative, Svoboda also seeks an end to abortion in Ukraine. Moreover, the party has
glorified Ukrainian partisans from
World War II and
brandishes rightist
flags.
Rightists On The Maidan
Perhaps, the far right realized that its anti-immigrant messaging had been only modestly successful
in Ukraine and so it shortly changed tack by opposing anarchists, feminists, and the LGBT community.
According to the BBC,
"ultra-nationalists, and their extreme right fringe," were "a small part of the overall campaign
- a subgroup of a minority" during Maidan protests. Nevertheless, "for its numbers," the right has
"played an outsized, though not decisive, role."
Furthermore, "Euromaidan's political heads have at various points seemed unable, unwilling or
even afraid to rein in the radical right." The BBC adds that many EuroMaidan supporters "bristle
at, or deny, any claim that the movement contains an influential ultra-nationalist element, fearful
this will be used to tar the entire movement...they simply call them 'patriots.'"
During Maidan, Pilash began to feel a little politically uncomfortable. A native of the culturally
diverse western Ukrainian region of
Transcarpathia [also
known as Ruthenia or Zakarpatts'ka Oblast'], Pilash has mixed ethnic roots. Over the course of
protests, Pilash observed how many Ukrainians uttered nationalist slogans such as "glory to the nation
and death to enemies." A couple of years ago, he adds, "this slogan was only used by a couple of
fringe right wing groups." In Maidan, however, the slogan was embraced by a wider cross-section of
people.
The
Guardian writes that Ukraine has paid a high price for tolerating right wing political theater.
Though the right was very visible in Kiev during the Maidan, it played an even bigger role in eastern
and southern regions of Ukraine where the protest coalition did not enjoy majority support. As a
result, the local population became alienated and was pushed "even further away from the protest
message." The Guardian adds, "This was not a Russian media invention. On the contrary,
it happened as a result of the preceding protest coalition of the centrist opposition parties with
Svoboda."
Rightists in the Fold
In the wake of Maidan, some leftist activists grew concerned that the right might achieve real
political power. Take for example Denis Gorbach, an organizer with
Autonomous Workers' Union,
an anarcho-syndicalist group which seeks to organize industrial workers around Ukraine. At the end
of February, 2014 Gorbach tells me, "there was a dangerous point when the entire governmental apparatus
lay in ruins and the neo-Nazis were one of the few organized forces on the ground. So, that was kind
of scary."
Fortunately the right never took over the reins of power, though later Svoboda was incorporated
into the new government and party members acquired various cabinet positions. Shortly thereafter,
Svoboda suffered an electoral defeat in further parliamentary elections when the party failed to
garner a 5% barrier to qualify. Nevertheless, the BBC notes that if far right parties had banded
together and not splintered the vote, they might have qualified. The Guardian meanwhile
notes "it is short-sighted and formalistic to conclude that the Ukrainian far right is insignificant
based on the lack of electoral success. The rhetoric of many politicians which could be called centrist
or even liberal has moved significantly to the right, competing for the increasingly patriotic and
even nationalist voters."
Indeed, an ominous air of impunity has seemed to descend upon Ukraine and leftists tend to agree
with such interpretations. After Maidan protests ended, Pilash says, he was physically assaulted
by a local right wing blogger. The man spotted Pilash on the street and beat the leftist activist
while repeatedly shouting "communist!" Fortunately, Pilash managed to escape and wasn't severely
injured.
Nationalism and War
If anything, the war with Kremlin-supported eastern separatists has made it even more difficult
to question Ukrainian nationalism. Speaking in a local café near Maidan square, Bezruk tells me there's
been a recent surge in patriotic feeling. For example, people are speaking more Ukrainian these days,
and it's become important to demonstrate one's patriotism in school. Bezruk says that in some, but
not all public elementary schools children are singing the national anthem more so than before. "It
all forms part of this cute patriotism," she says, "where you supposedly love your country so much
that you are willing to sing the anthem several times a day."
To be sure, such a surge in patriotism may be natural in light of the war with Russian backed
separatists and the very real possibility that Vladimir Putin might succeed in splintering Ukraine
even further. The question, however, is whether the current government has gone too far in seeking
to appease the nationalist right in the midst of hostilities. In light of recent developments, there's
some evidence that President Poroshenko has done exactly that.
Indeed, according to human rights activists Poroshenko has provided a Ukrainian passport to a
Belarusian neo-Nazi. The man, Serhiy Korotkykh, served as a fighter in the eastern conflict zone
and helped to defend Donetsk airport from Russian separatists. During a ceremony, Poroshenko awarded
a medal to Korotkykh and praised the Belarusian as "courageous and selfless." Experts however claim
that Korotkykh was a founder of a neo-Nazi group in Russia and point out the Belarusian had been
charged for involvement in a Moscow bombing and was also detained in Minsk for allegedly stabbing
an anti-fascist organizer. Needless to say, top Ukrainian authorities reject such claims as defamatory.
Far Right and Azov Battalion
Perhaps, Poroshenko is trying his utmost to get on the good side of volunteer battalions fighting
in the east. As it turns out, Korotkykh is a member of the so-called Azov Battalion which espouses
far right nationalism. According to the BBC, Azov is run by an extremist patriot group which considers
Jews and other ethnic minorities "sub-human." The outfit has called for a white Christian crusade
against such minorities, and sports Nazi symbols on its insignia. While Azov is only one of many
volunteer groups fighting in the east, it has the backing of some top authorities in Ukraine.
One infamous Azov commander is Andriy Biletsky, who has been promoted to the rank of lieutenant
colonel in the police. The military figure has
openly admitted that some men in his unit "are interested in their historical roots," though
this may be difficult to understand for more modern, "uprooted" nations such as the United States.
Biletsky moreover makes no apology for his controversial military insignia, which he says goes back
some 600 years in Ukrainian heraldry.
Though figures like Korotkykh and Biletsky are promoted by official circles, the Ukrainian media
is notoriously shy about taking on rightist politics. According to the
BBC, prominent Ukrainian newspapers ask no controversial questions when interviewing notable
right-wingers. What is more, another news agency airbrushed out accusations of extremism when
reporting on Poroshenko's awarding of a new passport to Belarusian Korotkykh. "There are significant
risks to this silence," notes the BBC. "Experts say the Azov Battalion, which has been widely reported
on in the West, has damaged Ukraine's image and bolsters Russia's information campaign."
Left Activists' Growing Concern
As the far right gains respectability in wider society, left activists watch with growing unease.
When asked if he's concerned about the Azov battalion, Pilash remarks "Of course. These people attacked
us even before the war and committed hate crimes. But now, they have real combat experience and have
actually killed people. It's very dangerous when they return, and such fighters are glorified as
heroes because they struggled for Ukraine and therefore one shouldn't question their loyalty or credentials.
The mainstream has no real problem with these figures, and to the contrary fighters are promoted
as heroes and true patriots."
"There's no danger of the far right coming to power in Kiev," notes Denis Gorbach of Autonomous
Workers' Union, though in a long-term strategic sense rightists may hope to install a dictatorship
once the war is over. For the time being, the activist adds, there's an alliance of convenience between
Kiev authorities and far right groups. Nevertheless, Gorbach says the authorities would like to rid
themselves of extremists and "the army and police are trying to suppress the rightists. It's kind
of obvious that all these far right folks are being sent to the front to make them die in high numbers
and thereby lessen the threat to the government."
In a report, the BBC
sums up the situation in Ukraine quite succinctly. "The question of the presence of the far-right
in Ukraine remains a highly sensitive issue, one which top officials and the media shy away from,"
notes the news outlet. "No-one wants to provide fuel to the Russian propaganda machine." Such "blanket
denials," however, also hold dangers since this allows ultra-nationalists to "fly under the radar."
Rather astoundingly, many Ukrainians are totally oblivious of the far right and don't even know what
a neo-Nazi or fascist really is.
"Nevertheless," the BBC adds, "neo-Nazis are indeed a fixture in Ukraine's new political landscape,
albeit in small numbers. As a result, they have achieved a level of acceptance, even though most
Ukrainians are unfamiliar with their actual beliefs. Ukraine's public is grossly under-informed about
this. The question is, why doesn't anyone want to tell them?"
It's a well taken question, and one which is certainly on the minds of Ukraine's independent left
activists.
Mark Duncovich · High School Math Teacher at Gloucester County Institute of Technology
(GCIT)
It is hard to take seriously when Russia calls every Ukrainian who opposes the Russian occupation
of their country a "Nazi" or "Fascist", when in fact they are a small percentage of the population,
and Neo-Nazis exist in Russia too.
Irina Shvayakova · Top Commenter
It's only about those supporting killing own citizens. There is no russian occupation, there
is a civil war. Go there and see yourself.
Finally some honesty in the mainstream media about the true nature of the fiasco that unfolded
in the past year or so in Ukraine.
I think no one should have had any doubt about the nature of the new regime from the day after
Yanukovic fled. What did the new Kiev regime do the first day in power? Did they address the dire
state of the economy? Did they address concerns about corruption, the low living standards? The
answer to all those questions is NO!!!!
Their very first priority the first day after they took power was to repeal minority rights.
That was their most pressing concern.
Since then, we had dozens of people burned to death in Oddesa and no one to my knowledge has
been held accountable.
They had two elections, but hardly democratic considering the violence and intimidation employed
against all opposition.
They introduced the ministry of truth in December, 2014, which is a measure not seen in Europe
since the times when a guy with a funny mustache was in charge of Germany.
These are just a few of the highlights of the new "Democratic Ukraine" that all western media
and politicians advocate total and unconditional support for.
Rusty Art · Niagara-On-The-Lake, Ontario
Comparing a country to a human body, nationalism would be something like an immune system response
in times of danger. Rise of ultra-nationalism in Ukraine is regretful but understandable - the
country is in war. Prior to the past year in Ukraine there were no single person killed by skinheads,
the incomparable record to that of neighboring Russia, where skinheads where beating up and killing
non-Russians with consistency through the years in times of peace.
Stefan CG Martinovic
They are junta because they overthrown legitimate government and president.
And they did because they (maidaun) had in front right wing fascists and militants. And they
had help of CIA who put billions of dollars in this project, we all remember what Victoria F..K
EU Nuland and John ISIS McCain did and said in Kiev.
So that is the fact that no CIA propaganda can reverse regardless of all the money they are
putting in now.
Dmitry Yarosh, deputy of the Ukrainian Parliament and the leader of the Right Sector, claims that
he regularly takes a grenade to sessions of the parliament. He said it in the interview to Gromadske
TV channel.
According to Yarosh, he did not want to be a deputy but it was an order of the organization. Leader
of the Right Sector called the effective convocation of the Parliament to be a 'vestige of the regime
of internal occupation which was active in Ukraine during last 23 years.'
Yarosh does not consider that the new convention has changed the Ukrainian Parliament in some
way. 'I feel certain discomfort being in one assembly hall with open enemies of Ukraine. Well, I
have a grenade and I'll throw it in extreme case. Seriously, I have it. They cannot frisk us, the
members of the parliament. The security asks if I have weapons on me and I answer that I don't and
just go,' Korrespondent web site quotes
Yarosh.
The politician says that he has not left his house without weapon for a year already. Yarosh complains
that independent MPs have no influence on the Parliament work at all. He thinks that today his main
purpose in the Parliament is to adopt a law about social protection of volunteers.
On its face the article below is a travel log of one person who visited Lviv - his father's original
hometown.
Beneath it is the outraged, desperate cry for truth and justice of one Jew who can not stand the
whitewashing of the holocaust or the glorification of its perpetrators on display in Ukraine, and
most of all the support for people who do so by the West and even his own state - Israel.
Essay by Arkady Molev. Translation and introduction by
Vladimir
Golstein.
Introduction
The
warnings, published as early as March of this year, in Tablet, a leading Jewish journal, and
that explicitly claim that "Supporting Ukraine Means Opposing Anti-Semitic Nationalism Now, Not Later,"
has fallen on the dead ears.
Instead, the press prefers to take the easy way out that the three prominent historians, the authors
of this warning, have specifically described: the nearsightedness of criticizing Russia, while ignoring
the real dangers posed by the Far Right in Ukraine.
They wrote: "the far right is building influence and symbolical capital at this very moment, cleverly
exploiting both the successful Maidan revolution and Russia's threat to its sovereignty."
In other words, by resorting to the endless criticism of Russia when discussing Ukrainian issues,
the press acts as an accomplice to the Far Right; it helps them to accumulate "influence and symbolic
capital."
It gives credibility to the Far Right's exploitation of "Russia's threat."
Nowhere can it be better seen than in the recent
article ran by the same journal that have published the early warning: The Tablet.
In a rather cavalier fashion, this recent article takes at face value the nationalistic whitewashing
of reality provided to them by the Right Sector party speaker and the newly elected member of Ukrainian
parliament, Borislav Bereza.
By giving the space to Bereza's anti-Russian diatribes, it allows him to divert the attention
from the dangers that its extreme nationalism poses for everyone Ukraine. Here is the quotation:
"Look at this country where the governor of Dnipropitrovsk [Kollomoisky] is a Jew, where numerous
heads of administration are Jews, where the speaker of Right Sector is a Jew! How can one speak
of anti-Semitism? How can one speak of fascism?
To be a Jew is to yearn for freedom; that is why we left Egypt. To be a Jew is to reject being
a slave. This is the essence of Judaism. That is also why we stand strong against Russian imperialism,
which is a form of enslavement.
With some exceptions like [Boris] Nemtsov or the dearly departed [Valeriya]
Novodvorskaya who see through the propaganda, the Russians are currently slaves."
When I asked the editor of the Tablet – simply to publish a complimentary piece to the Bereza
revelations, the travel notes that suggest that not all the Jews who live or visit Ukraine agree
with Bereza, the Tablet wasn't interested.
It is a rather straightforward piece that simply describes what one eye-witness saw in Lviv.
I believe that the readers of the Tablet, and the western readers in general, besides their usual
staple of "Russian Imperialism" warnings should know what a rather objective observer, an Israeli
blogger, named Arkady Molev, has experienced in Ukraine.
That type of description does address the situation in Ukraine, rather than hiding behind the
usual staple of Russophobia.
Here is my slightly abbreviated translation. (It is as a travel diary so I deleted several paragraphs
that describe logistics of traveling).
Vladimir Golstein
Main article
by Arkady Molev
Between September 26 and 29, 2014, I visited the town of Lviv in Ukraine. Let me be clear: I am
a Jew, I live in Israel since 1991 and I am a committed Zionist. I have no sympathy for Vladimir
Putin. I don't like what he has done with Russia. And my previous attitude toward him was expressed
in my articles. Here are the links:
http://maxpark.com/community/ukraine/content/2945285
and http://maxpark.com/community/ukraine/content/2953856).
I thought that the fascism that takes place in Ukraine is the marginal phenomenon exaggerated
by Russian press. I have visited both Kiev and Odessa and didn't witness any signs of it there. But
my visit to Lviv has totally changed my views. I had several free days and I decided to visit the
city. There were holidays in Israel, I am divorced, and so I wanted to meet a Ukrainian from Vinnitsa.
Furthermore, my grandfather was born is a small Jewish town 25 km from Lviv. He owned a kosher
butcher shop, and for being an owner, he was exiled to Siberia in 1939 when Bolsheviks occupied Eastern
Poland or Western Ukraine, if you wish. That exile saved his life. The rest of my family who stayed
in the area, perished in Holocaust.
So the visit was also an attempt to go back to my roots. What did I see? The city is truly beautiful
and so is the nature around it, but it didn't really interest me. .. My hotel was right in the center
of the city, and during the first outing, I immediately encountered a giant memorial to Stepan Bandera
and UPA fighters.
I knew about it, and was morally ready for it, after all, there are sculptures to German soldiers
all over Europe. This is history and it is never simple. Many people didn't understand what they
were doing or were scared. Our generation cannot judge the previous one, people are not expected
to be heroes.
So I was ready to see a giant cross on the grave that would say, "God, accept the soul of Bandera
and other fighters and forgive them their sins. Humans are weak and do not always know what they
do." But there was no remorse there at all.
There was a 20 meter giant in the style of Stalinist art. He looked like a hero, a father of the
nation, and so were the graves around it – they all were buried like heroes, the pillars of their
society, the saintly figures whose cherished memory forms the nation. With the inscription: "Glory
to Heroes." And the main street in town is Bandera Street.
First I was scared, but then I was overwhelmed by disgust. I felt such an outrage that I wanted
to approach the sculpture and spit into the face of this werewolf.
In 1991, when I came to Israel and wanted to get into University, we had to take a on history
of Jewish people. And we were told about the way German Nazis conducted their genocide through the
hands of UPA – Ukrainian Insurgent Army, the Bandera nationalist organization.
We've been shown documents and photographs that revealed that the Jews were taken to Baby Yar
by UPA soldiers, that Germans shot the Jews together with UPA soldiers, that the guards in Auschwitz
were UPA soldiers. And even more, that Germans were mostly organizers, and that the all dirty work
was carried out by UPA soldiers.
I was told about this not by Soviet Communists but by the Zionists of Israel, and these pictures
were shown at Jerusalem institute of Holocaust, Yad Vashem. I don't trust KGB or Putin, but I do
believe in Yad Vashem. But in that case, what kind of heroes these guys are?
They are rather murderers, jackals. I have more respect to German Nazis. Germans might be bloody
wolves, but they were not jackals. Germans For their insane ideas Germans paid with blood in the
Stalingrad battle. But the UPA fighters preferred to join the police guards. And they have to be
glorified? "Glory to Heroes?" I guess, the people deserve their heroes.
But lets go on. We took a three hour trip around Lviv. There were neither Russian nor English
groups so we had to listen to the Ukrainian guide. And according to the guide, the Bandera movement
was the pinacle of Lviv history. We were taken to the prison, where on July 27 of 1941, Red Army,
before withdrawing from Lviv, executed the arrested UPA soldiers.
After Soviet Army left, Ukrainian Nationalists declared Independent Ukrainian State that lasted
seven days, until the Germans took over. And these seven days were presented as the heroic page of
Ukrainian history. Except that from my Jewish History classes I remembered what happened during these
seven days. And there are documents, pictures and films that record the massacre.
At least 10 thousand Jews were tortured, raped, and killed during this time. And the murder also
spread to Poles, Russians, and Hungarians. The bloodshed was stopped only by the German arrival.
Why? Germans didn't want an independent State of Ukraine. They also knew that the bloodshed would
demoralize the army. German Army didn't want to participate in it. It was the task of SS, and special
groups, including the local volunteers. …
I asked the guide what does he know about the Lviv pogrom? He answered to me that the Lviv pogrom
story was made up by Putin's propaganda. At the end of the excursion, I asked him what does he know
about genocide of Jews in the region and if there is a memorial to the Jewish victims. He said, that
Jewish genocide was solely German fault, that he knows nothing about it, and that these topics are
not part of the excursion.
Just think about it: Before the WWII, Lviv had 130 thousand Jews as part of its 300 000 population.
After the war, only 300 left. It is a tragedy, no matter how you slice it. The city could afford
at least one memorial. Or did they spend all their money to Bandera Memorial.
I guess, where they honor the murderers, there is no place for memory of the victims. In fact,
I eventually searched the net, and found out that there is a sculpture to honor the victims of Lviv
Holocaust. But judging by pictures, it is much smaller than that of Bandera, and they don't take
tourists there. …
The walk on the streets of the town brought new shocks. There are graffiti on the walls: "Hang
the Moscovite", "Putin is an A..Hole", "Let Bandera come and introduce some Order." There are bookstores
with nationalist literature, including the bookstore right in the center of the city where Hitler's
Mein Kampf is exhibited in the window.
I was leaving the city with an awful feeling. It is the city whose streets are sprinkled with
blood of my relatives...Yet, the executioners are not remorseful, they are surrounded by love and
admiration, and when they die, the monuments are being erected in their honor..
As an Israeli, I have a question to my government, to the Jerusalem Museum, to the Wiesenthal's
Center. You who chase the Nazi criminals all over the world… how can you miss the Lviv Nazi Renaissance?
Why do I pay taxes? Don't you know who Bandera and UPA are? Why didn't you scream about it all over
the world, why didn't you require the boycott of Ukraine?
In the year 2000, you recalled our Austrian ambassador, only because some neo Nazi came to power
in one region and said that under Hitler it was easier to get a job than under current government?
He didn't erect a 20 meter sculpture to Herring? Didn't call SS people heroes And yet, we forced
this governor to quit politics. Why are we so blind toward the events in Ukraine? Let me say something
heretical here. Maybe for the members of Israeli Establishment, for all these Holocaust officials
– all this Holocaust business is just that – profitable business….
Maybe the Ukrainian Banderites are good partners, they want to join EU and NATO, they are against
Russia. To fight with them means to fight with America? And that's why their fascism has to be ignored?
If that's the case, I hate you.
I am convinced that morality should be above politics. No political dividends justify the pact
with the Devil. I love my land, my people, my Israel. And this week, when I am in Jerusalem, I will
go to Yad Vashem and present them with Mein Kampf and the pictures and the souvenirs from Lviv. And
I'll ask them why are they silent. I have to do it for my people… "
The Donbas Battalion declares: "Should a single city be surrendered, the president will fly
off his chair, there will be a military coup and the soldiers will take power into their own hands."
In an interview with channel TVi, the commander of the Donbas Battalion, Taras Konstanchuk, stated
that if the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, surrenders a single kilometer of Ukrainian land
in negotiations with the "DNR" and "LNR", he can expect a military coup and the central government
will be seized by soldiers.
He added that every time the soldiers feel that the deputies of the Verkhovna Rada are adopting
incorrect or useless laws, they will come and set fire to tyres before the parliament building.
"Until we start controlling what they actually do, nothing will make sense. We should come into
the building and say: "What kind of laws are you adopting, you lazy bums? There's only one way you'll
leave here, and that's feet first."- said Konstanchuk.
On Tuesday, October 4, the President of Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, repealed the law on the special
status of Donbas.
But I understand that this might pave the way to Kyiv for Putin and his troops
Dmytro Yarosh, leader of Pravy Sector arrived in Lviv in a huge jeep with 'PTN-PNKh' plates and,
as he admitted, with a grenade in his pocket. He said that he was starting his political campaign
journey across Ukraine. However, if the situation on the eastern front changes, he will have to go
back to his deployment position.
In an exclusive brief interview with iPress.ua, Dmytro Yarosh told us what he would do in the
Verkhovna Rada if Pravy Sector got the required percentage, about his relations with the current
government and about the legalization of the Voluntary Ukrainian Corps.
You said that Right Sector is on the verge of getting into the Verkhovna Rada. Do you
have any idea of what you'll be doing in Parliament?
We see our mission in Parliament this way – we'll be the pike that won't allow the carp to fall
asleep, we'll stir up all that parliamentarian mud bog – 70% of which will probably be shuffled around
anyway, we'll do everything to ensure that those people are working for Ukraine, and not for their
own pockets. Of course, we'll propose conceptual ideas to reform the power block of the government.
We'll rely on community support because a small group of people can't do anything without the people.
If it's a question of bringing several thousand people to the Verkhovna Rada and blocking its
activity in case an important strategic bill is rejected, this will be perfectly realistic. Moreover,
Right Sector has extensive experience in organizing such events. You saw our rally and march on the
Feast of Pokrova. Kyiv has never seen anything like it. We have a lot of human resources that we
can count on and thus push through needed bills.
Right Sector today – these are people with weapons and military experience who now have
political objectives? Do you really understand how to make use of such influence on the government?
We were able to achieve certain goals. They were more tactical. There's the lustration bill, which
we've supported since the Maidan. We managed to talk to certain people in the government and make
sure that this law was passed. That is also our contribution. At present, we're doing all we can
to have the law on weapons approved; it would allow law-abiding citizens to possess and use firearms.
We'll push it through, I'm sure. We have some leverage here. We have a common language with police
and security forces and in the MIA and SBU.
The Volunteer Ukrainian Corps (DUC) has not been legalized like other battalions – do
you want this to happen or are you just a thorn in the government's side?
Perhaps the government doesn't want us around. DUC is a unique military-political movement. The
government is well aware that such a movement may be the beginning of a kind of modern Kozak group,
not the 'sharavary' kind (wide loose pants worn by Kozaks-Ed.), but more active and effective. We
held talks with Turchynov and his administration in March and asked them to give us this status.
They keep blocking it, delaying it, presenting different options that don't suit us.
What are these options?
For example, we'll never be a division of the MIA. Although it could've happened…
What about the Ministry of Defense?
We talked to the General Staff. We came to an agreement that we would work under the Central Intelligence
Administration. But, the next day they completely changed the schedules and gave us the option to
defend a territory that didn't suit our purposes.
How many soldiers in DUC?
About seven thousand men.
You constantly remind everyone that Right Sector will take appropriate action if the government
fails to fulfill certain requirements. What actions do you mean and what is stopping you from organizing
such actions?
I really don't want to destabilize the situation in the country when there's fighting on the front
lines. We're all well aware that I can send several battalions to Kyiv and resolve the government
issue. That's real. Our citizens dislike the government so much that it would be easy for us to do.
But, I also understand that it will pave the way to Kyiv for Putin and his troops. This cannot be
allowed. That's why we strongly opposed the soldiers' rebellion, and I even sent several of our front-line
soldiers to talk to them, to tell them we shouldn't organize such actions.
What do you think of the events in Donbas – is it peace, a truce, calm before the storm?
There have been no active offensive operations in the Donbas this month. And there was no ceasefire
either. I repeat… there was not one day or night that we did not have to fight. When they say that
it was quiet, that it was silent, that there was no artillery fire, that's all a lie. The truce was
not respected by the other side, so naturally we shot back.
But, this 'truce' has several positive aspects. The first – the exchange of prisoners. This should
be done; we can't just abandon our guys; there are still 500 of them in enemy hands. Second – it
enabled us to stabilize the front lines, re-equip the brigades that were surrounded, reformat our
forces and bring in more hardware. But, let's wait and see what happens now because intelligence
has sent out information that they are preparing a large-scale offensive on our positions on all
fronts. Our troops are ready; they're undergoing heavy defense training.
Do you expect that there will be a time when the DUC and Right Sector may be the only
forces fighting against the enemy under the provisions of President's peace plan?
I'm very well aware of the mood prevailing in army divisions that we fought with and are still
fighting with. I know that many brigades of the Ukrainian Armed Forces don't want to listen to ridiculous
orders about a truce and so on. In any case, we won't be alone. There are even some jokes going round
about some brigades… that such and such a brigade of the Armed Forces is really Right Sector. We
have some authority in the army.
Is it really necessary for Right Sector to be so radical? Like on October 8 in Troieschina
when your guys destroyed illegal slot machines and then got into a fight on the streets?
If we wanted everybody to like us, we'd be like walking dollar signs. Everyone likes dollars.
We do what the government doesn't do. If the state does not respond in a civilized way, the citizens
will do so. I don't see anything positive about throwing corrupt officials into garbage bins. It's
best to send them to prison. So, if the government doesn't do that, ordinary people will throw these
thieves who are still in power into garbage containers.
Why should the Donetsk Airport be defended?
The airport has become a symbol of resistance of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. We were able to build
an effective defense at airports. We're taking more specific measures, but I can't talk about that
now. The General Staff has deployed reinforcements. The 93th Brigade, the 17th Tank Brigade and Right
Sector were stationed there previously. Now, there are troops from the 79th and 95th Brigades. The
17th Tank Brigade… these are amazing guys. Their combat operations are heroic. Our defense is relatively
effective.
There was a very important assault one and a half weeks ago. We managed to make mincemeat of their
group. 450 terrorists took part in this battle, but only 18 got out. We also lost two guys from Right
Sector, and about ten were wounded. You can see for yourself the difference in losses. I mean, the
enemy can be beaten if plans and objectives are clearly and correctly defined. I wouldn't advise
the generals to give up the airport because it's a symbol of our war. We've taken revenge for Ilovaisk
by inflicting incredibly heavy losses on the terrorists at the airport.
What do you think of the presidential decree on pardoning the terrorists?
Negative. When we liberated territories during the summer offensive campaign and were squeezing
the separatists into a corner, we entered towns and villages and saw what those monsters had done
to peaceful ordinary people. Avdiyivka is located just north of Donetsk. We enter the town… it's
a torture chamber – people handcuffed to posts, dead bodies, spilled intestines, blood everywhere…
Forgive those who did this? That's utterly unacceptable and wrong. I hope that all these laws and
the so-called truce are just a game that our President is playing. If not, we'll see it as a betrayal
of national interests and our response will be adequate.
Is Ihor Kolomoisky financing the Right Sector?
I saw him early June. The Right Sector political party doesn't take a nickel from the oligarchs.
I think that Kolomoisky will confirm that. Oligarchs can't talk to me about money. But, we're actively
collaborating with the Dnipropetrovsk Regional State Administration, in two ways. In May, Right Sector
subdivisions entered several districts of Donetsk oblast at the request of the administration – Krasnoarmiysky,
Dobropilsky, Velykonovoselkivsky – drove out the terrorists and created a buffer zone. Since the
beginning of the war, the administration has given us about 200,000 hryvnias to equip our rear base.
This is all the money that we got from Kolomoiskiy, so to speak. These are not such great amounts
that we can talk about. Today, the Regional State Administration has a patriotic position. We also
have quite a few wounded, more than a hundred since the war started. We get full support and assistance
at Dnipropetrovsk hospitals. They get everything they need from the Regional Administration and Kolomoisky.
Ukraine's president approved a disputed anti-graft measure on Thursday that could see up to a
million civil servants with alleged links to past Soviet or pro-Russian governments immediately sacked.
The so-called "lustration law" follows the example of other eastern European nations that broke
free of decades of Moscow's domination at the end of the Cold War.
It was also a rallying cry of the protests that convulsed Kiev last winter and led to the ouster
of pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovych and a secretive band of Ukrainian tycoons.
The law removes anyone who held a federal or regional government position for more than a
year under Yanukovych, who is now in self-imposed exile in Russia.
It also sets up a special commission to investigate judges and law enforcement agents suspected
of living lavish lifestyles on humble government wages.
Another provision prevents anyone unable to explain their sources of income or assets
from holding office for five to 10 years.
Lawmakers' initial failure to adopt the legislation last month sparked violent protests outside
parliament that engulfed the building in the black smoke of burning tyres and brought riot police
out on the streets.
The bill itself says it was drafted to help "restore trust in the authorities and create a new
system of government that corresponds to European standards".
"This is a historic day for Ukraine," President Petro Poroshenko posted on his Facebook account.
"The state machine will be cleansed. Glory to Ukraine!"
Way to settle scores?
But the legislation has been bitterly fought by lawmakers representing Russian-speaking eastern
regions -- the powerbase of the former regime and now partially controlled by separatist rebels.
Its legality has also been questioned by the Council of Europe and business leaders who fear
it will lead to a damaging exodus of competent bureaucrats.
Even the president's own special representative on children's issues complained that it "violates
basic rights and freedoms of citizens, is anti-constitutional and does not correspond to European
judicial procedures or standards."
"It provides a way to settle scores with your (political) opponents," children's ombudsman Yuriy
Pavlenko wrote on his Facebook account.
Other clauses in the law bar anyone found guilty of backing separatist causes and anyone who worked
as a prosecutor or held a top office when state agents shot dead nearly 100 protesters during the
Kiev unrest.
The commission can additionally probe civil servants' links to the Soviet-era secret service and
Communist Party.
The measures have already prompted the resignation of two top finance and economy ministry officials
who are respected by the business community but were hired during Yanukovych's 2010-2014 presidency.
A succession of recent governments have been riven by squabbles and business clan rivalries that
stalled the adoption of crucial economic restructuring measures and left the country nearly bankrupt
and dependent on foreign help.
Yanukovych and his allies were accused of persecuting their predecessors and jailing former prime
minister Yulia Tymoshenko for political reasons.
Communist Party leader Petro Symonenko -- his post-Soviet group facing a nationwide ban in court
-- said the law "subjects almost any civil servant to repression".
Did everyone see that US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, the Satanic mastermind
of the entire coup d'état that threw out a legitimate government elected by the majority of the
people and put in one hand selected by the US, showed up in Kiev this week to tell Poroshenko
to sign this illegal and unconstitutional law that stacks the deck against the government that
the people had previously chosen and makes none of the rulers the people had voted for before
eligible to run again?
This will only result in more social upheaval and more civil war and that is exactly what the
NeoCons who support Victoria Nuland want anyway.
NeoCons thrive on death and destruction anywhere and especially in Ukraine.
Commenter
"Even the president's own special representative on children's issues complained that it "violates
basic rights and freedoms of citizens, is anti-constitutional and does not correspond to European
judicial procedures or standards."
B
The Western Ukrainians from former Polish-Austrian-Hungarian lands are in power in Kiev, they
are sending soldiers across the steppes of old Ukraine of 1654 in middle to attack and kill civilians
in the 1922 south and east region added to soviet Ukraine from Russia. These people from ex-Polish-Austrian-Hungarian
lands can not figure why the 1922 regions feel Russian. They feel Russian because they were a
Russian culture for centuries. These West Ukrainians need to have autonomy and leave the rest
of the Ukraine alone. Why are the West Ukrainians killing their fellow citizens because they had
a different history?
Steve
Just look at the events...the Parliament was FORCED to sign this bill because of the riots
in front of the Parliament. Now they enact laws to not only discrimminate against Pro-Russian
Parties and Communist supporters, they want to surpress them.
Here's the reality, this isn't going to solve the issues in Ukraine. The Radical groups such
as Right Sector, Svoboda still has less than 2% of the vote, yet wants full control of the military...and
the minute Poroshenko goes against their wishes, HE WILL BE NEXT targetted to oust.
And all of these event can't be blamed on Putin or all of Russia since they are being abolished
from Ukrainian Govt.
Alex
The main reason why the east is fighting the west is simply because once the west came into
power they passed an anti-Russian language law. Eastern Ukraine saw this as a personal attack
on them and fought back. Now that Western Ukraine just passed a law to expel anyone they feel
has ties to Eastern Ukraine or Russia what do you think is going to happen? Ukraine must be split
into two countries if it's ever going to have any peace.
smlslk
So called "lustration" law? A previous article called it the "loyalty Law. No "so called" either.
Is this another attempt by the western media to mitigate Kiev's fascism?
The corruption law and loyalty law are set up to cleanse the country of those that do not agree
with Poroshenko.
Anyone can see whats really happening in the Ukraine. Its called ethnic cleansing. They want
the Russian speaking Ukrainians out, and wont let them keep their possessions like the east. Poroshenko
would rather destroy it then let the ethnic Russians have it.
Aaron
Joe Biden allowed his son to become a board member on a Ukrainian energy company in March 2014.At
the same time Ukrainian Mig 29's were firing rockets at civilian schools and town squares. There
is a video that shows the rocket attack hit a park and you see trees and Ukrainians dying together
as some rockets bounce and skip off the cobblestone parkway.
A middle aged women is on the ground in a white dress with her leg blown almost off is writhing
in agony and dies right there! A young women who had a future, a family and now is gone! Meanwhile
Hunter Biden smiles for the camera as this women died choking on her on breath. Poroshenko I hope
you taste a Moskit for breakfast you Nazi!!!
British trade unions take a position in solidarity with anti-fascist struggle in Ukraine
The fragmentation of Kiev made a ceasefire inevitable, and likewise does not contain the very fragmentation
itself. Kiev is now split irreparably, this is what collapse looks like -- in reality all the cards
are in the hands of the Neo-nazis.
They cannot of course win, but they can destroy and they have now NATO as their ally. The panic that
led NATO into this is also signs of a collapse of the US/EU and the question is whether this will spin
out of control into a new European war, or an opportunity for good sense to prevail.
Guangian hnchos are moving to a "cover exposed backsides" mode after
all their shilling for the same zio sponsored nazis seriously bit into their already poor credibility.
It's standard operating proceedure for Western MSM.
The battalion's far-right volunteers' desire to 'bring the fight to Kiev' is a danger to post-conflict
stability
"I have nothing against Russian nationalists, or a great
Russia," said Dmitry, as we
sped through the dark Mariupol night in a pickup truck, a machine gunner positioned in the back.
"But Putin's not even a Russian. Putin's a Jew."
Dmitry – which he said is not his real name – is a native of east
Ukraine and a member of the
Azov battalion, a volunteer
grouping that has been doing much of the frontline fighting in
Ukraine's war with pro-Russia
separatists. The Azov, one of many volunteer brigades to fight alongside the Ukrainian army in the
east of the country, has developed a reputation for fearlessness in battle.
But there is an increasing worry that while the Azov and other volunteer battalions might be Ukraine's
most potent and reliable force on the battlefield against the separatists, they also pose the most
serious threat to the Ukrainian government, and perhaps even the state, when the conflict in the
east is over. The Azov causes particular concern due to the far right, even neo-Nazi, leanings of
many of its members.
Dmitry claimed not to be a Nazi, but waxed lyrical about
Adolf Hitler as a military
leader, and believes the Holocaust never happened. Not everyone in the Azov battalion thinks like
Dmitry, but after speaking with dozens of its fighters and embedding on several missions during the
past week in and around the strategic port city of Mariupol, the Guardian found many of them to have
disturbing political views, and almost all to be intent on "bringing the fight to Kiev" when the
war in the east is over.
The battalion's symbol is reminiscent of the Nazi
Wolfsangel,
though the battalion claims it is in fact meant to be the letters N and I crossed over each other,
standing for "national idea". Many of its members have links with neo-Nazi groups, and even those
who laughed off the idea that they are neo-Nazis did not give the most convincing denials.
"Of course not, it's all made up, there are just a lot of people who are interested in Nordic
mythology," said one fighter when asked if there were neo-Nazis in the battalion. When asked what
his own political views were, however, he said "national socialist". As for the swastika tattoos
on at least one man seen at the Azov base, "the swastika has nothing to do with the Nazis, it was
an ancient sun symbol," he claimed.
The battalion has drawn far-right volunteers from abroad, such as Mikael Skillt, a 37-year-old
Swede, trained as a sniper in the Swedish army, who described himself as an "ethnic nationalist"
and fights on the front line with the battalion.
Despite the presence of these elements, Russian propaganda that claims Kiev's "fascist junta"
wants to cleanse east Ukraine of Russian speakers is overblown. The Azov are a minority among the
Ukrainian forces, and even they, however unpleasant their views may be, are not anti-Russian; in
fact the lingua franca of the battalion is Russian, and most have Russian as their first language.
Indeed, much of what Azov members say about race and nationalism is strikingly similar to the
views of the more radical Russian nationalists fighting with the separatist side. The battalion even
has a Russian volunteer, a 30-year-old from St Petersburg who refused to give his name. He said he
views many of the Russian rebel commanders positively, especially
Igor Strelkov, a former FSB officer who has a passion for military re-enactments and appears
to see himself as a tsarist officer. He "wants to resurrect a great Russia, said the volunteer; but
Strelkov is "only a pawn in Putin's game," he said, and he hoped that Russia would some time have
a "nationalist, violent
Maidan" of its own.
On one afternoon earlier this week the Guardian travelled with a group of Azov fighters to hand
over several boxes of bullets to Ukrainian border guards. During an artillery attack outside Mariupol
in the days before, the border guards had come to the rescue of a group of Azov fighters, and the
bullets were their way of saying thank you. "Everything in this war is based on personal links; Kiev
does nothing," explained the Azov's Russian volunteer, as we sped towards a checkpoint in a civilian
Chevrolet; the boot full with the boxes of bullets and rocket-propelled grenade launchers; one of
the windows shot out by gunfire during a recent battle.
"This is how it works. You go to some hot spot, they see you're really brave, you exchange phone
numbers, and next time you can call in a favour. If you need an artillery strike you can call a general
and it will take three hours and you'll be dead. Or you can call the captain or major commanding
the artillery battalion and they will help you out straight away. We are Azov and they know that
if they ever needed it, we would be there for them."
For the commanders and the generals in Kiev, who many in Azov and other volunteer battalions see
as responsible for the awful losses the Ukrainian army has suffered in recent weeks, especially in
the
ill-fated retreat from Ilovaysk, there was only contempt. "Generals like those in charge of Ilovaysk
should be imprisoned for treason," said Skillt. "Heads are going to roll for sure, I think there
will be a battle for power."
The Ukrainian armed forces are "an army of lions led by a sheep", said Dmitry, and there is only
so long that dynamic can continue. With so many armed, battle-hardened and angry young men coming
back from the front, there is a danger that the rolling of heads could be more than a metaphor. Dmitry
said he believes that Ukraine needs "a strong dictator to come to power who could shed plenty of
blood but unite the nation in the process".
Many in the Azov battalion with whom the Guardian spoke shared this view, which is a long way
from the drive for European ideals and democracy that drove the protests in Kiev at the beginning.
The Russian volunteer fighting with the Azov said he believes Ukraine needs "a junta that will restrict
civil rights for a while but help bring order and unite the country". This disciplinarian streak
was visible in the battalion. Drinking is strictly forbidden. "One time there was a guy who got drunk,
but the commander beat him in his face and legs until he could not move; then he was kicked out,"
recalled one fighter proudly.
"The failure to stop abuses and possible war crimes by volunteer battalions risks significantly
aggravating tensions in the east of the country and undermining the proclaimed intentions of the
new Ukrainian authorities to strengthen and uphold the rule of law more broadly," said Salil Shetty,
Amnesty International secretary general, in Kiev.
Fighters from the battalion told the Guardian last month they expected a "new revolution" in Ukraine
that would bring a more decisive military leader to power, in sentiments similar to those of many
Azov fighters.
Despite the desire of many in the Azov to bring violence to Kiev when the war in the east is over,
the battalion receives funding and assistance from the governor of Donetsk region,
the oligarch Serhiy Taruta. An aide to Taruta, Alex Kovzhun, said the political views of individual
members of Azov were not an issue, and denied that the battalion's symbol had Nazi undertones.
"The views of some of them is their own affair as long as they do not break the law," said Kovzhun
in written answers to questions. "And the symbol is not Nazi. Trust me – some of my family died in
concentration camps, so I have a well-developed nose for Nazi shit."
As well as their frontline duties, the Azov battalion also functions as "a kind of police unit",
said a platoon commander who goes by the nom de guerre Kirt. A medieval history buff who
takes part in Viking battle reenactments and once ran a tour firm in Thailand, Kirt returned to east
Ukraine to join the Azov. He took the Guardian on an overnight patrol through the outskirts of Mariupol
and the villages around the front line.
Part separatist hunters, part city cops with no rules to restrain them, they travelled in a convoy
of three vehicles, all heavily armed. As midnight approached we set off across the bumpy tarmac roads
to the outskirts of Mariupol, and soon came across a parked car by the side of the road that the
men found suspicious.
Fighters dashed from the front two cars and rushed at the vehicle pointing their guns at it. A
startled man got out of the passenger seat, then a sheepish looking woman in a cocktail dress and
holding a half-smoked cigarette emerged, smoothing her hair. The Azov fighters apologised, but only
after demanding documents and thoroughly searching the car.
As we edged closer to the front line, Kirt and the others scanned the skyline with binoculars,
on the lookout for snipers and separatists. Later, fighters sprinted towards a suspicious jeep parked
on the beach while the sea was scanned for hostile support vessels, but it turned out that again
the men had stumbled upon people just trying to have a good time: a group of women drinking sparkling
wine out of plastic cups on the beachfront.
The Azov have been partially brought into the military and officially function as a special police
unit. There are discussions that Azov and other battalions could be integrated into the army or special
forces when the conflict is over.
Some of them, however, are hoping Ukraine will look very different in the not-so-distant future.
And while they may be a tiny minority when it comes to Ukraine as a whole, they have a lot of weapons.
President Petro Poroshenko will be killed in a matter of months, Dmitry said, and a dictator will
come to power.
"What are the police going to do? They could not do anything against the peaceful protesters on
Maidan; they are hardly going to withstand armed fighting units."
The Azov causes particular concern due to the far-right, even neo-Nazi leanings of many
of its members.
So, The Guardian is finally admitting that neo-Nazis are prominent in the Ukrainian government's
campaign against the rebels. Better late than never. A month ago, people who spoke about this
were ridiculed by columnists and reporters in this newspaper and called Putin propagandists.
Far-right radicals and even neo-Nazis were also prominent in the armed clashes on the Maidan
that resulted in the overthrow of the democratically elected (albeit corrupt) Yanukovych. They
did not hide their presense - they flew their neo-Nazi flags, carried their their neo-Nazi banners,
wore their neo-Nazi armbands, and chanted their their neo-Nazi slogans openly on the Maidan, but
the media chose to pretend that they were not there.
Neo-Nazism: the real face of American-backed Ukraine.
PeterBrit 10 September 2014 1:59pm
Hang on. I seem to remember loads of people below the line warning about the danger of neo-fascists
in Ukraine after the Maidan toppling of Yanukovych but at the time the Guardian was fairly relentlessly
pro-EuroMaidan and very gung-ho for the revolution. That now seems to be changing sonewhat.
ID5252799 PeterBrit 10 September 2014 2:00pm
And you were complaining about bias coverage and yet now you're still complaining. Pot kettle?
PeterBrit -> ID5252799 10 September 2014 2:11pm
It's wrong to wonder why the Guardian didn't pay more attention to Ukrainian neo-fascists months
ago? Or why it was so enthusiastic about the Libyan rebels originally and has now noticed they're
a mixture of Islamists and tribal warlords? Or why it was so keen on the Syrian rebels until Jabat
al-Nusra (terrorist jhadis allied to the 'moderate' west-supported rebels) and ISIS became a bit
too blatantly unpleasant?
Maratyunusov 10 September 2014 1:59pm
Stupidity of Kiev's politicians is giving of "freedom to kill" to every gang of jerks over of
all Ukraine. Any of thes bandit groups is under control of local oligarhs like Taruta, Kolomoisky,
Baluta .... Now IMF loans are finishing, so not only Ukrainian army nothing to eat, but these
gangs are also in needs of drugs and vodka. No surprise if they go to rob Kiev. So NATO will have
to send troops to fight Right Wings soldiers in Ukraine and ask Russia for help to get rid of
neo-nazies.
But there is an increasing worry that while the Azov and other volunteer battalions ...pose
the most serious threat to the Ukrainian government, and perhaps even the state, when the conflict
in the east is over.
I can't imagine anyone advocating Ukrainian reliance on groups with such repellent views for
the very reason given but some vague idea of numbers would be really helpful in giving some idea
of the scale of the threat surely?
Maybe I'm woefully naive, but if Azov et al make up a tiny fraction of those fighting the seperatists
then while it doesn't necessarily negate the threat, surely it makes it may be less serious than
if they make up a sizeable proportion?
In the run up to the regime change several thousand
were recruited from Ultras hooligan groups across Ukraine, they even had a meeting to put their
(football club) rivalries aside. People like Dimitry Yarosh were key leaders.
A group of about 90 leaders, at the time referred to as Pravy Sektor, were
given riot and regime
change training in Poland. Just after the coup at least two government arsenals were looted,
one at the Interior Ministry in Kiev.
After the regime change many of these recruits were assembled into a new paramilitary force, the
"National Guard" under the control of the newly installed Secretary for Security and Defence (left
post in August) Andriy Parubiy who was also implicated in the Odessa Massacre.
Subsequently at least two private militias (maybe more) were established and funded by oligarchs.
Dimity Yarosh heads up the "Donbass Battalion" private neo-nazi militia run by (Israeli!) Kolomoisky.
after speaking with dozens of its fighters and embedding on several missions during the past
week in and around the strategic port city of Mariupol, the Guardian found many of them to have
disturbing political views,
So the penny finally drops. Well it's only taken 6 months from what was happening during the
putsch in Kiev to reveal the type of political pondlife which has been conducting a racially motivated
war against the Don Bass people in the east. It seem though the using the coy N-word (Nazi) is
a step too far for the Guran. Let these gentlemen speak for themselves therefore.
Led by the battalion's leader Biletsky calls for the expansion of Ukraine, the "struggle
for the liberation of the entire White Race," and seeks to "punish severely sexual perversions
and any interracial contacts'. The Azov men use the symbol that resembles Wolfsangel (Wolf's
Hook) symbol on their banner, and some members of the battalion are open white supremacists, or
anti-Semites.[15] The battalion commander Biletsky wrote that the historic mission of Ukrainian
nation "is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival against
the Semite-led Untermenschen." A former member of the battalion also claims that only men
with National Socialist views may join.
But hey, they're on 'our' side so let's waive any objections here. Well their presence convinces
me that 'our' side, is the wrong side.
Exclusive: The mainstream U.S. media is hazing German Chancellor Merkel and President Obama
for sidestepping the "I-word" – invasion – in reference to Russia and Ukraine. But the MSM goes mute
on Ukraine's "N-word" for "Nazi" so as not to disrupt the pro-Kiev "group think," says Robert Parry.
The New York Times, in its ceaseless anti-Russian bias over the Ukraine crisis, now wants everyone
to use the "I-word" – for "invasion" – when describing Russia's interference in Ukraine despite the
flimsy supporting evidence for the charge presented by Kiev and NATO.
The evidence, including commercial satellite photos lacking coordinates, was so unpersuasive that
former U.S. intelligence analysts
compared the case to the Iraq-WMD deception of last decade. Yet, while ignoring concerns about
the quality of the proof, the Times ran a front-page story on Friday mocking Western political leaders,
including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Barack Obama, for not uttering the "I-word."
The Times' article by Andrew Higgins essentially baited Merkel and Obama to adopt the most hyperbolic
phrasing on the crisis or risk being denounced as weak. The Times couched its criticism of their
"circumspect" language – or what it called "terminological fudges" – as a victory for Russian President
Vladimir Putin.
But the Times and other U.S. mainstream news outlets have engaged in their own "terminological
fudges" regarding Ukraine's "N-word" – for Nazi – by hiding or burying the fact that the Kiev regime
has knowingly deployed neo-Nazi militias to wage bloody street fighting against ethnic Russians in
eastern Ukraine.
This grim reality has become one of the most sensitive facts that U.S. State Department propaganda
and MSM coverage have sought to keep from the American people who surely would recoil at the notion
of siding with modern-day Nazis. Yet, to fully understand the role of these neo-Nazi extremists,
Americans would need a translator for the circumlocutions used by the Times and other U.S. news outlets.
Typically, in the U.S. press, Ukraine's neo-Nazis are called "nationalists," a term with a rather
patriotic and positive ring to it. Left out is the fact that these "nationalists" carry Nazi banners
and trace their ideological lineage back to Adolf Hitler's Ukrainian auxiliary, the Galician SS,
and to Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose paramilitary forces slaughtered thousands upon thousands
of Poles and Jews.
Other MSM references to the Nazis are even more obscure. For instance, the neo-Nazi militias are
sometimes called "volunteer" brigades, which makes them sound like the Boy Scouts or the Rotary Club.
But usually there is just the simple omission of the Nazi "N-word." On Thursday, for instance,
the Times published a contentious article critical of Putin's plan for resolving the Ukraine crisis
while also noting that the peace talks faced obstacles from elements of both sides: "Moscow does
not fully control the separatists; nor is it clear that Kiev can automatically rein in the armed
militias it has unleashed alongside its military in the east."
Filtered out of that sentence was the "N-word." The reason that those "armed militias" might resist
peace is because they consist of neo-Nazi ideologues who want a racially pure Ukraine. They are not
reasonable people who favor living with ethnically diverse neighbors.
Ukraine's militias include openly neo-Nazi battalions such as the Azov brigade, which flies a
version of the "wolfangel" banner that was favored by the Nazi SS. Azov leaders espouse theories
of racial supremacy deeming ethnic Russians to be "Untermenschen" or subhumans.
Sidestepping the N-word
But the Times sidesteps the Nazi "N-word" because otherwise readers might start doubting the "white
hat/black hat" narrative that the Times has spun since the beginning of the crisis last winter. Usually
whenever Ukraine's neo-Nazis are mentioned, it is in the context of the Times dismissing their presence
as a myth or as simply "Russian propaganda."
Other times, the reality is buried so deep in articles that very few readers will get that far.
For instance, an Aug. 10
Times article by Andrew E. Kramer mentioned the emerging neo-Nazi paramilitary role in the final
three paragraphs of a long story on another topic.
Given how extraordinary it is that armed Nazi storm troopers are being unleashed on a European
population for the first time since World War II, you might have thought that the Times missed the
lede. But the placement of this juicy tidbit fit with the newspaper's profoundly unprofessional treatment
of the Ukraine crisis throughout.
You had to get to the third-to-the-last paragraph to learn: "The fighting for Donetsk has taken
on a lethal pattern: The regular army bombards separatist positions from afar, followed by chaotic,
violent assaults by some of the half-dozen or so paramilitary groups surrounding Donetsk who are
willing to plunge into urban combat."
Then, the next-to-the-last paragraph told you: "Officials in Kiev say the militias and the army
coordinate their actions, but the militias, which count about 7,000 fighters, are angry and, at times,
uncontrollable. One known as Azov, which took over the village of Marinka, flies a neo-Nazi symbol
resembling a Swastika as its flag." [See Consortiumnews.com's "NYT
Discovers Ukraine's Neo-Nazis at War."]
The conservative London Telegraph provided more details about the Azov battalion in
an article by correspondent Tom Parfitt, who wrote: "In Marinka, on the western outskirts [of
Donetsk], the [Azov] battalion was sent forward ahead of tanks and armoured vehicles of the Ukrainian
army's 51st Mechanised Brigade. …
"But Kiev's use of volunteer paramilitaries to stamp out the Russian-backed Donetsk and Luhansk
'people's republics', proclaimed in eastern Ukraine in March, should send a shiver down Europe's
spine. Recently formed battalions such as Donbas, Dnipro and Azov, with several thousand men under
their command, are officially under the control of the interior ministry but their financing is murky,
their training inadequate and their ideology often alarming. The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel
(Wolf's Hook) symbol on their banner and members of the battalion are openly white supremacists,
or anti-Semites."
In interviews, some of the fighters questioned the Holocaust, expressed admiration for Adolf Hitler
and acknowledged that they are indeed Nazis, a fact known by Kiev authorities, the Telegraph reported.
Andriy Biletsky, the Azov commander, "is also head of an extremist Ukrainian group called the
Social National Assembly," according to the Telegraph article which quoted a recent commentary by
Biletsky as declaring: "The historic mission of our nation in this critical moment is to lead the
White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the Semite-led
Untermenschen." [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ignoring
Ukraine's Neo-Nazi Storm Troopers."]
Russian Claims 'Essentially True'
Recently at the port city of Mariupol, Foreign Policy's reporter Alec Luhn also encountered the
neo-Nazis of the Azov and other Ukrainian government militias. He
wrote: "Blue and yellow Ukrainian flags fly over Mariupol's burned-out city administration building
and at military checkpoints around the city, but at a sport school near a huge metallurgical plant,
another symbol is just as prominent: the
wolfsangel ('wolf trap') symbol that was widely used in the Third Reich and has been adopted
by neo-Nazi groups. …
"Pro-Russian forces have said they are fighting against Ukrainian nationalists and 'fascists'
in the conflict, and in the case of Azov and other battalions, these claims are essentially true."
But this inconvenient truth is not something that the U.S. State Department and the mainstream
U.S. press want you to know. Instead they have spun a false narrative that blames the entire Ukraine
crisis on Russia's President Putin and his diabolical design to reclaim countries to his west for
a revival of the Soviet Union.
The actual reality was that Putin wanted to maintain the status quo in Ukraine by supporting elected
President Viktor Yanukovych. It was the West that stirred up trouble in Ukraine with neocon U.S.
officials like Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Sen. John McCain actively supporting
a coup – spearheaded by neo-Nazi street fighters – that overthrew Yanukovych on Feb. 22.
After the coup, in recognition of the crucial role played by the neo-Nazis, they were given several
ministries and their militias were later incorporated into the Ukrainian military for the offensive
into eastern Ukraine to crush the uprising of ethnic Russians who had supported Yanukovych and favored
closer economic ties to Russia. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Ukraine's
'Dr. Strangelove' Reality."]
But that more nuanced narrative – recognizing the complicated reality of Ukraine's history and
politics – would destroy the white hat/black hat storyline favored by the New York Times and the
MSM, making the coup regime in Kiev the "good guys" and making Putin and the ethnic Russians the
"bad guys."
To protect that narrative, everyone has to go silent on Ukraine's "N-word."
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush
Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America's
Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click
here.
Certainly, but the CIA for much, much longer. I probably telling you what you already know,
as its pretty common knowledge, but it bears repeating.
There are deep, deep connections between the US and this particular brand of Ukrainian Nazis,
that go back to OSS/CIA work with the "Ghelen Organization" - that being the remainders of the
Nazi intelligence apparatus on the Eastern Front. And, quite openly and with former SS and Gestapo
officers - it was the organization out of which official West German intelligence was created.
Which, frankly, begs the question as to wether the Nazis were defeated or, perhaps, co-opted.
And wether de-Nazification was more of a fiction than anything.
Imagine the Soviets seeing these ex-Nazis and war criminals put back in charge in the top intelligence
spots in Germany so soon after the war that caused the death of 24 million of your citizens.
And the connections are open and obvious - this from Wikipedia:
The predecessor of the BND was the German eastern military intelligence agency during World
War II, the Abteilung Fremde Heere Ost or FHO Section in the General Staff, led by Wehrmacht
Major General Reinhard Gehlen. Its main purpose was to collect information on the Red Army.
After the war Gehlen worked with the U.S. occupation forces in West Germany. In 1946 he set
up an intelligence agency informally known as the Gehlen Organization or simply "The Org" and
recruited some of his former co-workers. Many had been operatives of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris'
wartime Abwehr (counter-intelligence) organization, but Gehlen also recruited people from the
former Sicherheitsdienst, SS and Gestapo, after their release by the Allies. The latter recruits
were later controversial because the SS and its associated groups were notoriously linked to
many Nazi atrocities during the war.[3] The organization worked at first almost exclusively
for the CIA, which contributed funding, equipment, cars, gasoline and other materials. On 1
April 1956 the Bundesnachrichtendienst was created from the Gehlen Organization, and transferred
to the West German government, with the recruits of the former Sicherheitsdienst, SS and Gestapo.
Reinhard Gehlen became President of the BND and remained its head until 1968.[4]
And Stepan Bandera himself, the ideological (and genocidal) forefather of these same fascists
who are busy murdering civilians today much like they did 70 years ago, was killed by Soviet intelligence
in Munich, Germany in 1959, still walking free, apparently, under the watchful eye of the CIA
and BND.
.....
Allow me some freedom here, perhaps It goes a little too far (perhaps not), but: In some ways,
I see a lot of parallels between the creation of ISIS and the German far-right during the 1930s.
Both received much support from the the powerful to give them power, yet both have gotten "out
of control". Both are useful enemies for the United States to go into war posture, but both have
as their primary enemy the major enemy of the United States. And both, I imagine, will
be used to the extent that they can be, while at the same time being attacked and wiped out once
they've done their job of attacking the enemies of the US.
In August one of Russian TV channels presented a documentary film by Radik Kudoyarov True
Story. Sharp Turn in Polish History. Archives, photo and cinema material is used to highlight
some burning problems of Polish foreign and internal policy in the period between the two world wars.
The half-fascist dictatorship led by Pilsudski closely cooperated with Hitler's Germany. The both
governments reached a full understanding on the Munich collusion, the conquest of Austria and the
division of Sudetenland. The authors of the film have come to a right conclusion saying that if Poland
had joined the Soviet Union against Germany, the humanity could have been spared the horrors of the
Second World War. Since Poland stopped being a part of Russian empire to become independent in 1918
the country's leadership stepped on the path of confrontation with Russia, especially after the Red
Army held a victory near Warsaw and Ukraine was divided into two parts. Germany developed friendly
ties with Pilsudski playing a double game. On the one hand, Berlin was pushing the Polish government
to support the German policy of occupying Austria and Czechoslovakia; on the other hand, it incited
Ukraine's nationalists to strike Poland from behind.
The film proves that Ukraine's nationalists, including well-known OUN (the Organization of Ukrainian
Nationalists) leaders like Bandera and Lebed, had contacts with German intelligence since 1923. According
to some Polish and German historians, they were involved in the assassination of Polish Minister
of Internal Affairs Bronisław Wilhelm Pieracki on July 16, 1934. The very next day the Polish government
announced the establishment of the first concentration camp in Bereza Kartuska (Kartuz Bereza Biaroza
Kartuskaja), the territory of contemporary Belarus, near Kobrin or Kobryn, a city in the Brest oblast
of Belarus and the center of the Kobryn region.
For the next five years they sent there all who expressed dissent. The Bereza Kartuska camp was
no different from German concentration camps, including the use of extremely cruel tortures. Perhaps
it even went farther than what they did in Germany. For instance, the torture called "red lane" when
a prisoner had to cross crawling along a 50 meters long lane covered by brick rubble and beaten glass
to be locked in isolation cell afterwards without any medical help. Isolated prisoners were given
food once in two days. Beighner, the first commandant of the camp, and some prison guards had received
training in Germany by the time had experience of running such camps.
The assassination of the Polish Minister of Internal Affairs was aimed at establishing a strong
hand regime in the country and intensifying tough repressions against the people of West Ukraine
and West Belarus sparking resistance as a result. It led the Polish government into a trap of its
own making; it had nothing to do but to implement the policy of indulgence in the relationship with
the more powerful Western partner.
In the period between the two world wars the Polish leaders were unable to see reality. They were
late to start preparations for German intervention. Actually no resistance was offered to German
mechanized troops. The Polish ruling circles wanted to take revenge on Russia and return to the days
of Poland being a great power. For this purpose they came up with the Intermarium concept which is
revived by some political forces in Poland and Belarus.
The film touched upon such a sensitive issue for Poland as its cooperation with German fascist
regime pursuing and exterminating Jews.
Belarusians accounted for a large part of prisoners. All requests of their successors for compensations
and justice, as it was done in Germany, have been left without reply. It's impossible to understand
why the contemporary Polish authorities refuse to be responsible for the criminal deeds of their
predecessors. There is no difference between the crimes committed in Polish and German concentration
camps.
The Polish government is not ready to admit the responsibility for the past in the year of 75th
anniversary since the start of the Second World War. So it never said it was sorry and never paid
compensations to the descendants of prisoners held in Polish concentration camps those days. But
the history proves that sooner or later the Polish government will have to answer for the crimes
of the past.
* * *
The film is shot very professionally, a well done job. It is acute nowadays. Today the Polish
elite are too flush with haughtiness to care about national interests. That is something the Polish
people have paid for dearly in the past. As a result the country has been divided three times in
its history. The dramatic history of Poland should never be rewritten to serve as a warning to the
people of the country.
The war in Ukraine became predictable when the great Muslim Brotherhood Project in Syria failed
during the summer of 2012. It became unavoidable in December 2012, when the European Union and Russia
failed to agree on the EU's 3rd Energy Package. The geopolitical dynamics which are driving the war
in Ukraine were known in the early 1980s.
Hundred years after the shots in Sarajevo ignited WW I, Europe is again being driven
towards disaster. Hundred years ago the presence of true statesmen could have prevented the war.
Today many of the selected front figures of western democracies dress up in pilot uniforms while
they hardly have the qualifications needed for a job as flight attendant.
The handling of the tragedy surrounding the crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 prompted Malaysian
PM Najib Razak to leash out at those behind the geopolitical chess game that led to the death of
the 298 on board the Boeing 777-200. Showing true statesmanship, PM
Najib Razak said:
"As a leader, there has never been an occasion as heart-breaking as what I went through
yesterday. Wives losing their husbands, fathers losing their children. Imagine their feelings
from such a great loss. … This is what happens when there is a conflict, whatever conflict that
cannot be resolved through negotiations, with peace. In the end, who becomes the victim"?
The War in Ukraine Began in Libya and Syria.
In 2007 the discovery of the world's largest known reserves of natural gas, shared by Qatar and
Iran, led to the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project that was sold under the trade mark "The Arab Spring".
A joint Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian pipeline project was supposed to transport Iranian gas from the
PARS gas fields in the Persian Gulf to Syria's eastern Mediterranean coast and further on to continental
Europe. It was this development that played midwife to the birth of the Great Muslim Brotherhood
Project.
The completion of the Iran – Iraq – Syria pipeline would have caused a cohort of developments
which were unacceptable to the US, UK, Israel and Qatar. Several continental European countries,
including Germany, Italy, Austria, Czech Republic saw much more favorably at it. Together with the
Russian gas which the EU received via Ukraine and the North Stream pipeline, the EU would have been
able to cover some 50 percent of its requirements for natural gas via Iranian and Russian sources.
It would be naive to assume that Israel was not gravely concerned about the prospect of Iran becoming
one of the European Union's primary sources of natural gas. Energy security concerns influence foreign
relations and foreign policy. EU – Israeli relations and the influence Tehran would have attained
with regard to the EU's position on Palestine and the Middle East are no exception to that rule.
The US and UK were not interested in competition to the Nabucco project. Qatar, the main center
of gravity with regard to the international Muslim Brotherhood, eyed its chance to become a regional
power to be recogned with and sent a 10 billion US dollar check to Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmed
Davotoglu. The money was reportedly earmarked, to be spent on preparing the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood
for the Great Project.
An additional dimension that was overlooked by many, if not most analysts, was that the US/UK
never would allow Russian – continental European relations to be dominated by an interdependence
that had some 50 percent of continental Europe's energy security at its heart. To explain that point,
allow me to refer to a conversation the author has had with a top-NATO admiral from a northern European
country during a day of sailing on a sailing yacht in the early 1980s. Discussing European security
issues, out of the reach of curious ears and microphones he said that (paraphrased):
"American colleagues at the Pentagon told me, unequivocally, that the US and UK never would allow
European – Soviet relations to develop to such a degree that they would challenge the US/UK's political,
economic or military primacy and hegemony on the European continent. Such a development will be prevented
by all necessary means, if necessary by provoking a war in central Europe".
It is safe to assume that the discontinuation of the USSR with help of the US and UK has not significantly
changed the principle premises of this doctrine and that it is still valid today.
By 2009 the implementation of the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project was already in high gear. The
former French Foreign Minister
Roland Dumas recalled during an appearance on the French TV Channel LPC in July 2013. (audio
recording).
"I'm going to tell you something. I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other
business. I met with top British officials, who confessed to me that they were preparing something
in Syria. … This was in Britain, not in America. Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into
Syria. They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister of Foreign Affairs, if I would like
to participate. Naturally, I refused, I said I am French, that does not interest me. …
" This does not make sense. … There are some sides who have the desire to destroy Arab States,
like what happened in Libya before, particularly given Syria's special relations with Russia., …(emphasis
added)…That if an agreement is not reached, then Israel will attack and destroy the governments that
stand against Israel".
Note Dumas' reference to Libya. Note that the statement came after NATO abused UN Security Council
Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya to implement the Great Muslim Brotherhood Project in that country.
The then U.S. Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo H. Daalder and then NATO Supreme Allied Commander
Europe and Commander of the U.S. European Command James G. Stavridis published an article in the
March/April 2012 issue of Foreign Affairs, calling NATO's "intervention" in Libya "A teachable moment
and model for future interventions".
The statement was repeated at NATO's 25th Summit in Chicago that year. As
Ivo H. Daalder also explained
in a Forestal Lecure that year, there was a need for a new warfare, special warfare. Traditional
conventional war had become impossible. Moreover,
Libya was necessary as a hub for the shipment of arms and the recruiting and training of mercenaries
for Syria, Mali, and beyond.
Defeat in Syria Made the Ukraine War Unavoidable.
In June and July 2012 some 20,000 NATO mercenaries who had been recruited and trained in Libya
and then staged in the Jordanian border town Al-Mafraq, launched two massive campaigns aimed at seizing
the Syrian city of Aleppo. Both campaigns failed and the "Libyan Brigade" was literally wiped out
by the Syrian Arab Army.
It was after this decisive defeat that Saudi Arabia began a massive campaign for the recruitment
of jihadi fighters via the network of the Muslim Brotherhoods evil twin sister Al-Qaeda.
The International Crisis Group responded by publishing its report
"Tentative Jihad". Washington had to make an attempt to distance itself "politically" from the
"extremists". Plan B, the chemical weapons plan was hedged but it became obvious that the war on
Syria was not winnable anymore. This, and nothing else was why the British parliament turned down
the bombing of Syria in August 2013.
The
war on Ukraine had become predictable from that point onwards and the timing of the developments
in Ukraine during 2012 and 2013 strongly suggest that plans to overthrow the Yanukovich government
and to aim at a long-term destabilization of Ukraine were launched after July 2012.
There was one last opportunity to turn the tide with regards to Ukraine in late 2012, during negotiations
about the European Union's 3rd Energy Package. Relations between Russia and the EU were stressed
by a primarily British-sponsored initiative within the EU that was targeting Russia. The "EU" or
UK/US should not accept that a major energy provider like Russia or Gazprom had the majority ownership
over both the gas and the transportation System.
On 21 December 2012 the leaders of the 27 EU member states and Russia held a summit in Brussels
but failed to resolve the issue. It was from this point onward that the war in Ukraine had become
unavoidable, which means that it was from here on, that powerful lobbies in the US and UK became
hellbent on starting a 4th generation war in Ukraine. On
December 22, 2012, nsnbc published the article "Russia – E.U. Meeting in Brussels: Risk of Middle
East and European War Increased". The December 2012 article stated
"The sudden pullout of the Ukraine on Tuesday is by energy insiders with whom the author
consulted perceived as yet another Ukrainian, US and UK backed attempt to force the expansion
of NATO and to drive a wedge between an increased integration of the Russian and E.U. Economies.
As it will become obvious below, it is related to an aggressive attempt to save the value of the
petro dollar".
By February 9, 2013, relations between Russia and core NATO members had deteriorated so much over
Syria and the lack of convergence in energy issues, that Russia's Ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grutchko
said:
"Someone here in Brussels made a most profound point by saying that if you are holding a hammer,
you should not think that every emerging problem is a nail. We think the world has ample opportunity
to engage in energy cooperation and to ensure energy security without making use of military-political
organizations as an instrument".
There were not many who at that time understood the bearing of the Russian NATO Ambassador's words.
On February 21 the Ukrainian parliament was seized by masked gunmen. The president was removed
from office in a vote held in the presence of gunmen. One of the first official statements of the
new powers at be was that the Russian language would no longer be accepted as the second official
language in the predominantly Russian speaking eastern regions of Ukraine.
The statement was bound to and didn't fail to elicit a response that would tear Ukraine apart.
On February 22, 2013, some 3,500 governors from southern and eastern Ukrainian regions convened in
Kharkov and rejected the legality of the putchist parliament and any of the laws it adopted.
Was the tragedy surrounding MAS Flight MH17 another Sarajevo moment and will it be used to throw
an additional spanner into attempt to peacefully integrate the Russian and European economies?
Michael Emmerson, associate senior research fellow at the Centre for European Policy Studies
suggests "After MH17, the EU must act against Putin and stop importing Russian gas".
Dr. Christof Lehmann an independent political consultant on conflict and conflict
resolution and the founder and editor in chief of nsnbc,
exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern
Outlook".
...On Sunday, a Times article by Andrew E. Kramer mentioned the emerging neo-Nazi paramilitary
role in the final three paragraphs:
"The fighting for Donetsk has taken on a lethal pattern: The regular army bombards separatist
positions from afar, followed by chaotic, violent assaults by some of the half-dozen or so paramilitary
groups surrounding Donetsk who are willing to plunge into urban combat.
"Officials in Kiev say the militias and the army coordinate their actions, but the militias,
which count about 7,000 fighters, are angry and, at times, uncontrollable. One known as Azov,
which took over the village of Marinka, flies a neo-Nazi symbol resembling a Swastika as its flag.
"In pressing their advance, the fighters took their orders from a local army commander, rather
than from Kiev. In the video of the attack, no restraint was evident. Gesturing toward a suspected
pro-Russian position, one soldier screamed, 'The bastards are right there!' Then he opened fire."
In other words, the neo-Nazi militias that surged to the front of anti-Yanukovych protests
last February have now been organized as shock troops dispatched to kill ethnic Russians in the east
– and they are operating so openly that they hoist a Swastika-like neo-Nazi flag over one conquered
village with a population of about 10,000.
Burying this information at the end of a long article is also typical of how the Times and other
U.S. mainstream news outlets have dealt with the neo-Nazi problem in the past. When the reality gets
mentioned, it usually requires a reader knowing much about Ukraine's history and reading between
the lines of a U.S. news account.
For instance, last April 6, the New York Times published a human-interest profile of a Ukrainian
nationalist named Yuri Marchuk who was wounded in the uprising against Yanukovych in February. If
you read deep into the story, you learn that Marchuk was a leader of the right-wing Svoboda from
Lviv, which – if you did your own research – you would discover is a neo-Nazi stronghold where Ukrainian
nationalists hold torch-light parades in honor of World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera.
Without providing that context, the Times does mention that Lviv militants plundered a government
arsenal and dispatched 600 militants a day to Kiev's Maidan square to do battle with the police.
Marchuk also described how these well-organized militants, consisting of paramilitary brigades of
100 fighters each, launched the fateful attack against the police on Feb. 20, the battle where Marchuk
was wounded and where the death toll suddenly spiked into scores of protesters and about a dozen
police.
Marchuk later said he visited his comrades at the occupied City Hall. What the Times doesn't mention
is that City Hall was festooned with Nazi banners and even a Confederate battle flag as a tribute
to white supremacy.
The Times touched on the inconvenient neo-Nazi truth again on April 12 in an article about the
mysterious death of neo-Nazi leader Oleksandr Muzychko, who was killed during a shootout with police
on March 24. The article quoted a local Right Sektor leader, Roman Koval, explaining the crucial
role of his organization in carrying out the anti-Yanukovych coup.
"Ukraine's February revolution, said Mr. Koval, would never have happened without Right Sector
and other militant groups," the Times wrote.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America's Stolen Narrative, either
in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry's trilogy on the Bush
Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes
America's Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer,
click
here.
Joe Tedesky on August 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm
Ernst Julius Günther Röhm, and his Sturmabteilung had a shelve life that expired in 1934. I
think someone wrote in the comment section here a while back how the Ukraine bully's would probably
meet the same fate as Rohm. Could the NYT be a prelude to us witnessing the end of these thugs.
Let's hope so.
fosforos, on August 10, 2014 at 1:32 pm
What followed Rohm was much worse. Let's hope that you're wrong.
Joe Tedesky, on August 10, 2014 at 3:08 pm
Let's put it this way, if I were any of those guys I would not book a room at any hotel for
a party meeting!
Jacob, on August 10, 2014 at 8:27 pm
Ernst Roehm was the leader of the socialist faction within the Nazi party. Thus, initially,
the presence of party socialists, who appealed to Germany's middle class, is where the name National
Socialist came from. The SA, of which Roehm was the leader, had about 3 million men and thus he
was perceived to be a potential threat to Hitler's leadership of the Nazi party. Hitler's capitalist
big business supporters (e.g. Kirdorf, Krupp, Voegler, Thyssen) disliked Roehm's socialistic views
on the economy and his claims, typical of socialists, that the real revolution was still to come;
thus, they wanted Hitler to get rid of him. So, after Roehm was eliminated, the only socialism
in the Nazi party was socialism for big business – in the form of corporatism.
Bob- Thanks for another great article and for hammering the Times on a very important point
that the West and its mainstream media have consistently ignored, downplayed, and have even accused
Russia of trying to manufacture or conflate.
Kramer also fails to add that the Azov militia is Oleg Kolomoyski's private army, or that,
while the Ukrainian army may 'feel emboldened'- reports are that they are getting desperately
needed US and NATO technical help and supplies (e.g.- a recent shipment by the Canadian government
to Kharkov), and that NATO troops are present in increasing numbers to help Ukrainian Army that
already greatly outnumbers the resistance in manpower and equipment- it is also reported from
the Donbass side that the freedom fighters are defeating the junta forces when they engage, resulting
in large numbers of junta casualties, and the capture of large caches of equipment, and also that
they have been otherwise squeezing the junta forces in encirclements (cauldrons) and that already
hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers have surrendered with many seeking to resettle in Russia. This
is in contrast to U.S. claims that the Russians are supplying junta forces, which is more consistent
with the West's positive spin that Kiev is winning and the resistance is only surviving through
the efforts of Russia). Even in the Ukrainian media there are reports of widespread losses and
discontent among the soldiers about the their lack of adequate preparation, supplies and ordinance,
and the incompetence of the military leadership. So, the Times, to its disgrace is peddling yet
another skewed and misleading narrative.
Great article and I totally respect Robert Parrish's professionalism, but even more historical
context would not, I think, tarnish that professionalism. I'm thinking of the research that has
been done on the ties that have existed between our intelligence agencies, the Gehlen Group that
we signed on after they left Hitler's employ for Great Britain's, and the continuing ties between
Ukrainian nationalists and our government's anti-communist crusade. A stopover on the subject
of Operation Gladio would be a worthwhile detour also. I was impressed by "America's Nazi Secrets"
by former DOJ Nazi prosecutor John Loftus.
Somebody mentioned Ernst Roehm, so I'll take that topic as fair game. This is a difficult needle
to thread, but if you sift through the haystack long enough, it's impossible to ignore.
Roehm, the Strasser brothers (Otto and Gregor), Kurt Luedecke, Ernst Hanfstaengl and even to
an extent Hess represented what might be called the "left wing" or "socialist" leg of the National
Socialist movement. The Strassers were sympathetic to Bolshevism, and they along with Roehm believed
the "revolution needed to continue" in order to advance socialist principles and improve the lot
of common people. Don't get me wrong – they were just as looney as the rest of the gang – but
they didn't come close to the distilled evil represented by the cloistered masterminds. They were
the foot-soldiers, and most of what was known about the mass psychosis of the inner circle is
owed to the fact that Otto, Ernst and Kurt escaped. Self preservation more than honesty no doubt
prevailed, but they painted a gruesome enough picture.
As it turned out, the picture they painted wasn't near gruesome enough. Today in Ukraine, typical
of such movements, Parry is revealing the distasteful truth about the foot-soldiers.
Eventually, we'll have to confront horrors which dwarf what we know now. Functioning after
the war as a kind of "stay-behind" Gladio operation, the OUN and international support groups
such as UCCA masterminded as many as 30,000 political assassinations inside USSR. As a closed
society, that reality was carefully guarded. As I've mentioned, sooner or later the masterminds
will begin exporting some of their less desirable commodities. MH-17 was "previews of coming attractions".
Pillar mentions the "difficulty of mustering international support for enforcement of a standard
if one appears to be flouting it elsewhere". That's kind of like bombing Tripoli because Gaddafi
was threatening civilians in Benghazi. Russia would wisely introduce R2P, but Susan Rice will
staunchly object. She's OK with the happy couple. Just wait till she "meets the in-laws".
Mr. Parry: Is there any evidence the Obama Administration's open support of the Ukrainian neo-Nazis
and its implicit support-by-tolerance of U.S. hard-right militias are each manifestations of some
new federal policy of brazen, across-the-board alignment with violently reactionary forces everywhere?
If so, could this be a prelude to a public declaration of overtly fascist governance - no doubt
euphemized as "patriotic Christianity" or something similar - here at home?
(Obviously the U.S. government has, in its role as capitalism's goon squad, always favored
fascism abroad, if only because fascism and/or Nazism are the ultimate forms of capitalism - the
logical end results of capitalism's Ayn Rand ideology. But in the past, the U.S. downplayed these
realities abroad and, domestically, generally appeared to regard members of the armed right as
public enemies, hence the events at, for example, Ruby Ridge and Waco. Now however under Obama,
the message of the Bundy Ranch incident seems to be that even the domestic pretense of opposition
to storm-trooper elements is being dropped. Which raises questions hitherto unthinkable: is the
government, now openly allied with neo-Nazis abroad, also clandestinely seeking the U.S. hard-right
militias as allies? Could this indeed be preparation for some final putsch to eliminate the few
remaining vestiges of constitutional governance? )
The observation that Obama and his maladministration continue to support in every way the violence,
illegality and lies of the Netanyahu régime make it clear that he is determined to exceed the
misdeeds of his predecessor in a spectacular way. Ukraine, Colombia, Honduras, "good" Syrian rebels,
Libyan chaos-any interference will do.
As to illustrate a common Ukrainian sense of mentality, there's a cafe in Kiev with a macabre
(or 'creative') menu, serving – I quote – 'Colorado Bugs Fried a la Odessa' (!)
You can dismiss the 'Praviy Sektor' (many often misleadingly do), but it's not about Muzichko
or Yarosh or The Right Sector, or even 'Svoboda' – as not being very popular – but it's also about
Azov, it's about the far-right parliament member Oleg Lyashko, recently 'black listed' by Amnesty
International, who has collected 8.3% of the presidential votes and his 'Radical Party' (yes,
that's the official name) who, at the moment, are the political frontrunners according to some
polls, more popular than Timoshenko's and Yatsenyuk's 'Batkivshchina'.
@ Loren Bliss re: Ayn Rand – Years ago, I came across an out-of-print book in a used bookstore.
It's been misplaced, but I'd recognize the author if I saw his name. As I recall, he was a French
political exile.
In addition to all Hitler's speeches between 1933 and 1941, he included significant press excerpts
released by major Western news services following each speech. Virtually every one glad-handed
and soft-soaped Hitler as a rational actor serving reasonable German national interests. They
referred to him frequently as, "the German statesman". Behaving as a completely spineless and
self serving tool of corporate interests is not a new phenomenon for them.
There have only ever been a handful of real correspondents. George Seldes, Robert Fisk, John
Pilger, Richard Hottelet, William Shirer, Martha Gellhorn, Peter Arnett, and of course, Robert
Parry would all qualify. Anderson Cooper and Christiane Amanpour are not journalists; they'r political
hacks. But, I digress.
The other interesting thing I learned was the source from which Ayn Rand PLAGIARIZED or PARAPHRASED
all her work. ALL of it. Every self-serving rhetorical greed infested line of prose or twisted
reasoning has a mirror image somewhere in passages from those speeches. She superimposed them
on low-minded soap opera plots and sold it as original work.
It should come as no surprise that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilley think it's
terrific stuff. Ayn was so bitter that the Bolsheviks appropriated her family's wealth that she
was willing to take up the Nazi mantle, but her admirers are not likely to ever admit that.
Unfortunately the prominent role of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine is also ignored in the European
media. The only reference to Nazis that most people will see is a comparison between Putin and
Hitler. The media is just reflecting the consensus that is shared by politicians, even those who
are considered to be left of centre and opposed to intolerance.
There have been a few times however when the Nazi-worshipping ideology gets some coverage.
A TV program (sorry only in German
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW4xvuYTi7w)
showed an interview with the Ukrainian education minister Serhiy Kvit praising Bandera and also
a group of school children being taught that Bandera was a role model (of course they play down
his Nazi collaboration). Serhiy Kvit is a member of the Bandera's Trident organisation which is
closely linked to the Right Sector.
One thing leads to the next.
American corporate MSM hammers the propaganda to make the coup that overthrew an elected President
seem like no big deal, White Hats triumphing over Black Hats.
Then, when a faction of this neo-Nazi infested Government shoots down a commercial airliner,
and commits war crimes against civilians in the East, and constantly lies about "Russian provocations"
to try to get more military assistance from the US and her client states, American citizens barely
hear about it, don't believe it, think "neo-Nazi" is just a slogan that must come from Moscow
"propaganda".
The "news" is a constant battlefield of American propaganda – what they win one week from "hearts
and minds" is used the next week, and the next, and the next to construct the next story, or the
next chapter of an ongoing story, or the next round of sanctions, or the next war.
Kolomoisky's battalion is "dniepro". The head of the azov battlion is Andriy Belitsky w
ho also leads the Social-National Assembly of Ukr., whose ideology is, guess what: National Socialism.
Their flag is a wulfsangel w/lions. In addition, he is the head of Patriots of Ukr, the paramilitary
branch of the SNA, flag: wulfsangel.
Besides being neo-nazi nationalists committed to violence, they are white supremacists. They
have supposedly recruited prominent Swedish nazi, white supremacists to help w/ the slaughter.
The video that links to the NYT story is mischaracterized by Kramer. Oddly, at 7:23 a male voice
is heard saying, "Run!, Run!, Run!" in American accented English. ?
I forgot to say, Kravchuk is Marchuk's real name. This article is a mere crack in the monolith
of disinformation. If they ever openly acknowledge the role played by nazis it will probably mean
that the whole project is becoming too expensive to continue.
In my search for independent, objective information, I've been reading the daily press releases
from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) special monitoring mission
to Ukraine (SSM). MSM have quoted them selectively – or in some glaring cases misquoted them –
primarily in articles about the inspection of the MH 17 crash site.
However, the OSCE briefings contain a lot more info. One might think they'd be biased toward
EU interests, but they actually seem to be pretty objective, and they are there on the ground,
doing what reporters should be doing.
Here are a couple of excerpts that support Bob's reporting above:
From August 5 briefing: http://www.osce.org/ukraine/122446 The mayor of Velykomykhailivka (165km southeast of Dnepropetrovsk city) told the SMM that
Right Sector activists, based in a training camp at a village close to the boundary with the Donetsk
region, had been harassing local people. He alleged that some of the activists, sometimes drunk,
had specifically fired shots in the air, stolen vehicles at checkpoints manned by them, and had
entered houses, and intimidated women. The police, he said, were powerless to act, and the authorities,
at a higher level, were doing nothing to stop this behaviour. Similar allegations were made by
local inhabitants in mid-July.
From August 8 briefing: http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/122495 Two senior officials from Luhansk City Administration and from SBU corroborated an account
given to the SMM that the mayor of Luhansk had been detained in Shchastya (23km north of Luhansk)
by members of the voluntary Aidar Battalion, fighting with the Ukrainian army against the 'LPR'.
The shelling of Donetsk continued. The SMM visited two high-rise residential
buildings and a local hospital in the city centre, showing damage consistent with the use of artillery
projectiles; and saw traumatised and crying civilians and medical staff (see SMM Report evening
of 7 August). The scene was photographed by SMM.
If I'm not mistaken, a "terrorist" is someone who terrorizes. It sure sounds like the people
of eastern Ukraine are being terrorized by these drunken neo-Nazi "activists," self-styled militia
on the side of the coup-led government, and the Ukrainian military itself.
The CIA Allen Dulles post war anti-Soviet "captive nations" apparatus was based upon protection
of these fascists in Ukraine and many other countries. Now NATO is openly arming them. If you
know this history that is not surprising. Chapter 5 of "Hitler's Shadow" deals with this CIA collaboration
in Ukraine, but the whole book is well worth reading on the unknown history swept under NATO's
rug. http://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/hitlers-shadow.pdf
First of all I'd like to complement everyone on the high quality of the comments made above.
I've learned a tremendous amount simply by reading the article and your comments. Secondly,
I'd like to ask anyone if they know any more about the 'filtration camps' that were raised some
time ago and have since dropped out of sight. My concern is that with the right Sector or extreme-nationalist
volunteers manning the front line in front of regular Ukrainian Army artillery, there will be
outright massacres and mss deportations once the advancing front line has overrun Donestk and
Lugansk. Those Russian speakers who were unable to get away may end up in the 'concentration camps'
operated by the factions in Kiev. My other concern is that if such 'pogroms' start Putin may be
driven to send in forces to rescue them, thereby giving the Americans a pretext for rampling up
a general war between NATO and Russia. Again, great, intelligent postings.Let's have more.
PS I have just finished "Alliance For Murder" edited by B.F.Sabrin, which is subtitled "The
Nazi-Ukrainian Nationalist Partnership in Genocide". Uneven, but excellent in parts.
The self-censorship that Robert Parry observes in the U.S. media is in play big time in Canada.
The role of fascist and far-right militias and political movements in Kyiv's war in southeast
Ukraine is absent from mainstream media, as is the horror of the bombings and shellings of civilian
populations by the army and its allied militias.
Yesterday, Canada's Globe and Mail national daily editorialized in favour of the aggressive,
NATO posture that wants Russia to forget about domestic public opinion and let the slaughter in
eastern Ukraine continue unabated. In remarkably frank language, the Globe editors say that Russia
should be given some space to back away in order that "we" may win want "we" want–a pliant, "independent"
Ukraine. The Canadian government is backing its words with action–last week, it shipped $5 million
in "non-lethal" military equipment to Ukraine and it is pledging more. It is running to catch
up with the $31 million in assistance being provided by Washington, plus the $19 million now pledged
to train Ukraine's National Guard.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/putin-has-trapped-himself-in-a-quagmire-of-his-own-making/article19969244/#dashboard/follows/
The progressive Toronto Star columnist Thomas Walkom made a rare foray for a Canadian columnist
into the subject of the Ukraine war in his column yesterday. Unfortunately, he repeats a lot of
the misinformation and outright falsehoods about events over the past months, so his welcome,
cautionary note about the folly of Canada backing Kyiv's war gets lost.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/08/08/canadian_military_aid_adds_more_fuel_to_ukraine_crisis_walkom.html
A Guardian writer, meanwhile, mused on Aug 5 about what will happen when the fascist and rightist
militias being armed to the teeth by Kyiv and NATO return home from the battlefront. He wrote:
The proliferation of these battalions also poses important questions for the postwar settlement,
and Poroshenko will need to find a way to integrate the groups either into the army or back into
civilian life when the conflict in the east is over.
"A new Maidan could pose a danger to the very nature of Ukrainian statehood, and of course
there will be a major issue about what happens to all of these volunteer battalions when they
return from the east. They are heavily armed, and many have links to oligarchs or political forces,"
says Fesenko. On Monday, there was an early warning of what could be to come, when the Kiev-1
battalion, back from the front, raided a cafe in central Kiev in order to evict other activists
who had allegedly taken it over. (End quote.)
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/05/ukraine-revolution-dream-stalling-war-east
"Could the NYT be a prelude to us witnessing the end of these thugs. Let's hope so." Joe Tedesky
on August 10, 2014 at 12:11 pm .
Wishful thinking Joe as the NYT has been a constant neocon promoter .
.
BTW as for the phone evidence one should be highly suspicious because of the "Trojan" which is
a special communication device that could be planted by commandos deep inside enemy territory.
The device would act as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation
unit in the Mossad, called LAP, and intended to be received by American and British listening
stations.
Remember Lybia ?
Originating from a distant IDF control center , the prerecorded digital transmissions could
be picked up only by the Trojan. The device would then rebroadcast the transmission on another
frequency, one used for official business in the "enemy country", at which point the transmission
would finally be picked up by American ears in Britain.
Hillary, that was an interesting link. I will need to go online and buy that book.
Yeah, maybe my take on the NYT article is wishful thinking. Although, there does seem to be
many moving parts whirling around within the Ukraine junta. Revolutions always tend to create
a certain kind of who's in, and who's out kind of atmosphere. Add to that, how things are not
what they always seem to be.
Always good to read your comments, and I find your reference links some of the best to read…take
care J.T.
Who supports these Nazis? Kiev is broke? History repeats itself…Ford Motor enthusiastically
supported the Reich, but resisted calls from Roosevelt and Churchill to increase war production
for the Allies.
GM collected $33 million in "war reparations" because the Allies had bombed its German facilities.
Senior executives for GM, Ford and Thomas Watson, chairman of IBM, received the Grand Cross of
the German Eagle:
To sin by silence, when we should protest, makes cowards of men. The human race has climbed
on protest. Had no voice been raised against injustice, ignorance, and lust, the inquisition yet
would serve the law, and guillotines decide our least disputes.
Ella Wheeler Wilcox, "Protest"
"In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears
on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we
neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are
thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations."
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago
Even Human Right Watch, despite its selective concern for human rights based on its political
underpinnings, is
beginning
to get uncomfortable with the ongoing butchery in eastern Ukraine at the hands of "Poroshenko
the Pragmatist". I'll say he's pragmatic; he's an exterminator. Ukraine under his rule is spiraling
down, down to a hellish inferno where the basest appetites for cruelty are rewarded and no opposition
is tolerated.
"A live interview with an HRW representative on Ukraine's Hromadske TV came to an unexpected
close when the host terminated the conversation after the guest refused to validate claims of Russia's
alleged "indisputable war crimes." Hromadske TV journalist Danilo Janevsky abruptly cut off a live
interview with Tatiana Lokshina, a representative of HRW after she refused to provide what she called
a "political assessment" on the situation in eastern Ukraine. HRW is tasked with the objective reporting
of human rights violations as set out by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These impartial
reports do not produce a political verdict; rather, they are used as the basis for drawing international
attention to abuses. The interview, which began on a predetermined note to blame Moscow for the internal
armed struggle in Ukraine, ended with the sudden, uncommon practice of cutting the guest off live
on-air. It happened just as Lokshina was about to provide an impartial assessment of the abuses in
the ongoing Ukrainian conflict. Janevsky asked his program's guest:
How do you estimate rocket, heavy artillery and air attacks on the territory of the bordering
sovereign state? Does it constitute a war crime, from your point of view? Yes or no?
Lokshina tried to explain that HRW does not comment on matters of political responsibility.
Just as she began to say "If you want to hear what we have found," the conversation was abruptly
cut off by Janevsky. He said:
Thank you very much, our conversation is over."
Many of the west Ukrainians, who fancy themselves descended from a nobler strain than their grunting,
subhuman Russian-speaking eastern cousins, support Kiev's brutal ethnic cleansing operations, and
only became piqued when it appeared western Ukraine's sons and brothers and fathers would be thrown
into the meat-grinder at the front as the desperate battle for Donetsk enters its final chapters
and the dictatorship throws everything it has into crushing this last bastion of its fellow citizens.
While North America and the European Union continue to smile paternally and ward off feeble attempts
at criticism with the off-key Greek chorus, "President Poroshenko has a right to protect his country",
the state brings
up short-range ballistic missiles. Useless against moving targets such as troops in the field,
these are used against cities and towns to frighten defenders into capitulation with the sheer scale
of indiscriminate carnage (thanks for the tip, Paul).
Most who have been watching the conflict in Ukraine slowly go pear-shaped and explode out of control
were of the opinion that the "government" would never dare to use tanks against civilians. That opinion
looks delightfully antiquated now and sort of comical – how little we all knew of the true depravity
of this cancerous ruling body! Tanks are now as routine for the civilian populace in the east to
deal with as shooing cows out of the cornfield, and not even particularly frightening compared with
ground-attack aircraft indiscriminately shooting up towns and bombing residential areas, leaving
innocent noncombatants lying legless and writhing in the street, some of them
dead alongside their infants. And
now, ballistic missiles. Could any one of us, in his or her wildest dreams, ever have imagined a
situation in which a nation supported to the hilt by the Anglosphere could fire ballistic missiles
at its own cities, without a murmur of complaint from its watching patrons? Jesus Christ; I remember
the United States of America throwing a complete wobbler when Assad's troops were supposedly shooting
into crowds of protesters with heavy machine guns, and that didn't even happen. There's no doubt
this is happening, and…crickets.
Bogdan Boutkevitch: It's perfectly simple. 1.5 million people living in Donbas have to be killed.
Bogdan Boutkevitch: Ok, you ask me "How can this be happening?" Well, it happens because Donbass,
in general, is not simply a region in a very depressed condition, it has got a whole number of
problems, the biggest of which is that it is severely overpopulated with people nobody has any
use for. Trust me I know perfectly well what I am saying.
If we take, for example, just the Donetsk oblast, there are approximately 4 million inhabitants,
at least 1.5 million of which are superfluous. That's what I mean: we don't need to [try to] "understand"
Donbass, we need to understand Ukrainian national interests.
Donbass must be exploited as a resource, which it is. I don't claim to have a quick solution
recipe, but the most important thing that must be done – no matter how cruel it may sound – is
that there is a certain category of people that must be exterminated.
The regime has repeatedly carried out artillery and air attacks on city centers, creating a
humanitarian catastrophe-which is all but ignored by the US political-media establishment.
For weeks, the US-backed regime in Kiev has been committing atrocities against its own citizens
in southeastern Ukraine, regions heavily populated by Russian-speaking Ukrainians and ethnic Russians.
While victimizing a growing number of innocent people, including children, and degrading America's
reputation, these military assaults on cities, captured on video, are generating pressure in Russia
on President Vladimir Putin to "save our compatriots."
The reaction of the Obama administration-as well as the new cold-war hawks in Congress and in
the establishment media-has been twofold: silence interrupted only by occasional statements excusing
and thus encouraging more atrocities by Kiev. Very few Americans (notably, the independent scholar
Gordon Hahn) have protested this shameful complicity. We may honorably disagree about the causes
and resolution of the Ukrainian crisis, the worst US-Russian confrontation in decades, but not about
deeds that are rising to the level of war crimes, if they have not already done so.
* * *
In mid-April, the new Kiev government, predominantly western Ukrainian in composition and outlook,
declared an "anti-terrorist operation" against a growing political rebellion in the Southeast. At
that time, the rebels were mostly mimicking the initial Maidan protests in Kiev in 2013-demonstrating,
issuing defiant proclamations, occupying public buildings and erecting defensive barricades-before
Maidan turned ragingly violent and, in February, overthrew Ukraine's corrupt but legitimately elected
president, Viktor Yanukovych. (The entire Maidan episode, it will be recalled, had Washington's enthusiastic
political, and perhaps more tangible, support.) Indeed, the precedent for seizing official buildings
and demanding the allegiance of local authorities had been set even earlier, in January, in western
Ukraine-by pro-Maidan, anti-Yanukovych protesters, some declaring "independence" from his government.
Considering those preceding events, but above all the country's profound historical divisions,
particularly between its western and eastern regions-ethnic, linguistic, religious, cultural, economic
and political-the rebellion in the southeast, centered in the industrial Donbass, was not surprising.
Nor were its protests against the unconstitutional way (in effect, a coup) the new government had
come to power, the southeast's sudden loss of effective political representation in the capital and
the real prospect of official discrimination. But by declaring an "anti-terrorist operation" against
the new protesters, Kiev signaled its intention to "destroy" them, not negotiate with them.
On May 2, in this incendiary atmosphere, a horrific event occurred in the southern city of Odessa,
awakening memories of Nazi German extermination squads in Ukraine and other Soviet republics during
World War II. An organized pro-Kiev mob chased protesters into a building, set it on fire and tried
to block the exits. Some forty people, perhaps many more, perished in the flames or were murdered
as they fled the inferno. A still unknown number of other victims were seriously injured.
Members of the infamous Right Sector, a far-right paramilitary organization ideologically aligned
with the ultranationalist Svoboda party, itself a constituent part of Kiev's coalition government,
led the mob. Both are frequently characterized by knowledgeable observers as "neo-fascist" movements.
(Hateful ethnic chants by the mob were audible, and swastika-like symbols were found on the scorched
building.) Kiev alleged that the victims had themselves accidentally started the fire, but eyewitnesses,
television footage and social media videos told the true story, as they have about subsequent atrocities.
Instead of interpreting the Odessa massacre as an imperative for restraint, Kiev intensified its
"anti-terrorist operation." Since May, the regime has sent a growing number of armored personnel
carriers, tanks, artillery, helicopter gunships and warplanes to southeastern cities, among them,
Slovyansk (Slavyansk in Russian), Mariupol, Krasnoarmeisk, Kramatorsk, Donetsk and Luhansk (Lugansk
in Russian). When its regular military units and local police forces turned out to be less than effective,
willing or loyal, Kiev hastily mobilized Right Sector and other radical nationalist militias responsible
for much of the violence at Maidan into a National Guard to accompany regular detachments-partly
to reinforce them, partly, it seems, to enforce Kiev's commands. Zealous, barely trained and drawn
mostly from central and western regions, Kiev's new recruits have reportedly escalated the ethnic
warfare and killing of innocent civilians. (Episodes described as "massacres" soon also occurred
in Mariupol and Kramatorsk.)
Initially, the "anti-terrorist" campaign was limited primarily, though not only, to rebel checkpoints
on the outskirts of cities. Since May, however, Kiev has repeatedly carried out artillery and air
attacks on city centers that have struck residential buildings, shopping malls, parks, schools, kindergartens
and hospitals, particularly in Slovyansk and Luhansk. More and more urban areas, neighboring towns
and even villages now look and sound like war zones, with telltale rubble, destroyed and pockmarked
buildings, mangled vehicles, the dead and wounded in streets, wailing mourners and crying children.
Conflicting information from Kiev, local resistance leaders and Moscow make it impossible to estimate
the number of dead and wounded noncombatants-certainly hundreds. The number continues to grow due
also to Kiev's blockade of cities where essential medicines, food, water, fuel and electricity are
scarce, and where wages and pensions are often no longer being paid. The result is an emerging humanitarian
catastrophe.
Another effect is clear. Kiev's "anti-terrorist" tactics have created a reign of terror in the
targeted cities. Panicked by shells and mortars exploding on the ground, menacing helicopters and
planes flying above and fear of what may come next, families are seeking sanctuary in basements and
other darkened shelters. Even The New York Times, which like the mainstream American media
generally has deleted the atrocities from its coverage, described survivors in Slovyansk "as if living
in the Middle Ages." Meanwhile, an ever-growing number of refugees, disproportionately women and
traumatized children, have been fleeing across the border into Russia. In late June, the UN estimated
that as many as 110,000 Ukrainians had already fled to Russia and about half that many to other Ukrainian
sanctuaries.
It is true, of course, that anti-Kiev rebels in these regions are increasingly well-armed (though
lacking the government's arsenal of heavy and airborne weapons), organized and aggressive, no doubt
with some Russian assistance, whether officially sanctioned or not. But calling themselves "self-defense"
fighters is not wrong. They did not begin the combat; their land is being invaded and assaulted by
a government whose political legitimacy is arguably no greater than their own, two of their large
regions having voted overwhelmingly for autonomy referenda; and, unlike actual terrorists, they have
not committed acts of war outside their own communities. The French adage suggested by an American
observer seems applicable: "This animal is very dangerous. If attacked, it defends itself."
* * *
Among the crucial questions rarely discussed in the US political-media establishment: What is
the role of the "neo-fascist" factor in Kiev's "anti-terrorist" ideology and military operations?
Putin's position, at least until recently-that the entire Ukrainian government is a "neo-fascist
junta"-is incorrect. Many members of the ruling coalition and its parliamentary majority are aspiring
European-style democrats or moderate nationalists. This may also be true of Ukraine's newly elected
president, the oligarch Petro Poroshenko. Equally untrue, however, are claims by Kiev's American
apologists, including even some academics and liberal intellectuals, that Ukraine's neo-fascists-or
perhaps quasi-fascists-are merely agitated nationalists, "garden-variety Euro-populists," a "distraction"
or lack enough popular support to be significant.
Independent Western scholars have documented the fascist origins, contemporary ideology and declarative
symbols of Svoboda and its fellow-traveling Right Sector. Both movements glorify Ukraine's murderous
Nazi collaborators in World War II as inspirational ancestors. Both, to quote Svoboda's leader Oleh
Tyahnybok, call for an ethnically pure nation purged of the "Moscow-Jewish mafia" and "other scum,"
including homosexuals, feminists and political leftists. And both hailed the Odessa massacre. According
to the website of Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh, it was "another bright day in our national history."
A Svoboda parliamentary deputy added, "Bravo, Odessa…. Let the Devils burn in hell." If more evidence
is needed, in December 2012, the European Parliament decried Svoboda's "racist, anti-Semitic and
xenophobic views [that] go against the EU's fundamental values and principles." In 2013, the World
Jewish Congress denounced Svoboda as "neo-Nazi." Still worse, observers agree that Right Sector is
even more extremist.
Nor do electoral results tell the story. Tyahnybok and Yarosh together received less than 2 percent
of the June presidential vote, but historians know that in traumatic times, when, to recall Yeats,
"the center cannot hold," small, determined movements can seize the moment, as did Lenin's Bolsheviks
and Hitler's Nazis. Indeed, Svoboda and Right Sector already command power and influence far exceeding
their popular vote. "Moderates" in the US-backed Kiev government, obliged to both movements for their
violence-driven ascent to power, and perhaps for their personal safety, rewarded Svoboda and Right
Sector with some five to eight (depending on shifting affiliations) top ministry positions, including
ones overseeing national security, military, prosecutorial and educational affairs. Still more, according
to the research of Pietro Shakarian,
a remarkable young graduate student at the University of Michigan, Svoboda was given five governorships,
covering about 20 percent of the country. And this does not take into account the role of Right Sector
in the "anti-terrorist operation."
Nor does it consider the political mainstreaming of fascism's dehumanizing ethos. In December
2012, a Svoboda parliamentary leader anathematized the Ukrainian-born American actress Mila Kunis
as "a dirty kike." Since 2013, pro-Kiev mobs and militias have routinely denigrated ethnic Russians
as insects ("Colorado beetles," whose colors resemble a sacred Russia ornament). More recently, the
US-picked prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, referred to resisters in the Southeast as "subhumans."
His defense minister proposed putting them in "filtration camps," pending deportation, and raising
fears of ethnic cleansing. Yulia Tymoshenko-a former prime minister, titular head of Yatsenyuk's
party and runner-up in the May presidential election-was overheard wishing she could "exterminate
them all [Ukrainian Russians] with atomic weapons." "Sterilization" is among the less apocalyptic
official musings on the pursuit of a purified Ukraine.
Confronted with such facts, Kiev's American apologists have conjured up another rationalization.
Any neo-fascists in Ukraine, they assure us, are far less dangerous than Putinism's "clear aspects
of fascism." The allegation is unworthy of serious analysis: however authoritarian Putin may be,
there is nothing authentically fascist in his rulership, policies, state ideology or personal conduct.
Indeed, equating Putin with Hitler, as eminent Americans from Hillary Clinton and Zbigniew Brzezinski
to George Will have done, is another example of how our new cold warriors are recklessly damaging
US national security in vital areas where Putin's cooperation is essential. Looking ahead, would-be
presidents who make such remarks can hardly expect to be greeted by an open-minded Putin, whose brother
died and father was wounded in the Soviet-Nazi war. Moreover, tens of millions of today's Russians
whose family members were killed by actual fascists in that war will regard this defamation of their
popular president as sacrilege, as they do the atrocities committed by Kiev.
* * *
And yet, the Obama administration reacts with silence, and worse. Historians will decide what
the US government and the "democracy promotion" organizations it funds were doing in Ukraine during
the preceding twenty years, but much of Washington's role in the current crisis has been clear and
direct. As the Maidan mass protest against President Yanukovych developed last November-December,
Senator John McCain, the high-level State Department policymaker Victoria Nuland and a crew of other
US politicians and officials arrived to stand with its leaders, Tyahnybok in the forefront, and declare,
"America is with you!" Nuland was then caught on tape plotting with the American ambassador, Geoffrey
Pyatt, to oust Yanukovych's government and replace him with Yatsenyuk, who soon became, and remains,
prime minister.
Meanwhile, President Obama personally warned Yanukovych "not to resort to violence," as did, repeatedly,
Secretary of State John Kerry. But when violent street riots deposed Yanukovych-only hours after
a European-brokered, White House–backed compromise that would have left him as president of a reconciliation
government until new elections this December, possibly averting the subsequent bloodshed-the administration
made a fateful decision. It eagerly embraced the outcome. Obama personally legitimized the coup as
a "constitutional process" and invited Yatsenyuk to the White House. The United States has been at
least tacitly complicit in what followed, from Putin's hesitant decision in March to annex Crimea
and the rebellion in southeastern Ukraine to the ongoing civil war.
How intimately involved US officials have been in Kiev's "anti-terrorist operation" is not known,
but certainly the administration has not been discreet. Before and after the military campaign began
in earnest, CIA director John Brennan and Vice President Joseph Biden (twice) visited Kiev, followed,
it is reported, by a continuing flow of "senior US defense officials," military equipment and financial
assistance to the bankrupt Kiev government. Despite this crucial support, the White House has not
compelled Kiev to investigate either the Odessa massacre or the fateful sniper killings of scores
of Maidan protesters and policemen on February 18–20, which precipitated Yanukovych's ouster. (The
snipers were initially said to be Yanukovych's, but evidence later appeared pointing to opposition
extremists, possibly Right Sector. Unlike Washington, the Council of Europe has been pressuring Kiev
to investigate both events.)
As atrocities and humanitarian disaster grow in Ukraine, both Obama and Kerry have all but vanished
as statesmen. Except for periodic banalities asserting the virtuous intentions of Washington and
Kiev and alleging Putin's responsibility for the violence, they have left specific responses to lesser
US officials. Not surprisingly, all have told the same Manichean story, from the White House to Foggy
Bottom. The State Department's neocon missionary Nuland, who spent several days at Maidan, for example,
assured a congressional committee that she had no evidence of fascist-like elements playing any role
there. Ambassador Pyatt, who earlier voiced the same opinion about the Odessa massacre, was even
more dismissive, telling obliging New Republic editors that the entire question was "laughable."
Still more shameful, no American official at any level appears to have issued a meaningful statement
of sympathy for civilian victims of the Kiev government, not even those in Odessa. Instead, the administration
has been unswervingly indifferent. When asked if her superiors had "any concerns" about the casualties
of Kiev's military campaign, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki has repeatedly answered "no."
Indeed, at the UN Security Council on May 2, US Ambassador Samantha Power, referring explicitly to
the "counterterrorism initiative" and suspending her revered "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine,
gave Kiev's leaders a US license to kill. Lauding their "remarkable, almost unimaginable, restraint,"
as Obama himself did after Odessa, she continued, "Their response is reasonable, it is proportional,
and frankly it is what any one of our countries would have done." (Since then, the administration
has blocked Moscow's appeal for a UN humanitarian corridor between southeastern Ukraine and Russia.)
Contrary to the incessant administration and media demonizing of Putin and his "agents" in Ukraine,
the "anti-terrorist operation" can be ended only where it began-in Washington and Kiev. Leaving aside
how much power the new president actually has in Kiev (or over Right Sector militias in the field),
Poroshenko's "peace plan" and June 21 cease-fire may have seemed such an opportunity, except for
its two core conditions: fighters in the southeast first had to "lay down their arms," and he alone
would decide with whom to negotiate peace. The terms seemed more akin to conditions of surrender,
and the real reason Poroshenko unilaterally ended the cease-fire on July 1 and intensified Kiev's
assault on eastern cities.
The Obama administration continues to make the situation worse. Despite opposition by several
NATO allies and even American corporate heads, the president and his secretary of state, who has
spoken throughout this crisis more like a secretary of war than the nation's top diplomat, have constantly
threatened Russia with harsher economic sanctions unless Putin meets one condition or another, most
of them improbable. On June 26, Kerry even demanded ("literally") that the Russian president "in
the next few hours…help disarm" resisters in the Southeast, as though they are not motivated by any
of Ukraine's indigenous conflicts but are merely Putin's private militias.
In fact, from the onset of the crisis, the administration's actual goal has been unclear, and
not only to Moscow. Is it a negotiated compromise, which would have to include a Ukraine with a significantly
federalized or decentralized state free to maintain longstanding economic relations with Russia and
banned from NATO membership? Is it to bring the entire country exclusively into the West, including
into NATO? Is it a vendetta against Putin for all the things he purportedly has and has not done
over the years? (Some behavior of Obama and Kerry, seemingly intended to demean and humiliate Putin,
suggest an element of this.) Or is it to provoke Russia into a war with the United States and NATO
in Ukraine?
Inadvertent or not, the latter outcome remains all too possible. After Russia annexed-or "reunified"
with-Crimea in March, Putin, not Kiev or Washington, has demonstrated "remarkable restraint." But
events are making it increasingly difficult for him to do so. Almost daily, Russian state media,
particularly television, have featured vivid accounts of Kiev's military assaults on Ukraine's eastern
cities. The result has been, both in elite and public opinion, widespread indignation and mounting
perplexity, even anger, over Putin's failure to intervene militarily.
We may discount the following indictment by an influential ideologist of Russia's own ultra-nationalists,
who have close ties with Ukraine's "self-defense" commanders: "Putin betrays not just the People's
Republic of Donetsk and the People's Republic of Lugansk but himself, Russia and all of us." Do not,
however, underestimate the significance of an article in the mainstream pro-Kremlin newspaper
Izvestia, which asks, while charging the leadership with "ignoring the cries for help," "Is
Russia abandoning the Donbass?" If so, the author warns, the result will be "Russia's worst nightmare"
and relegate it to "the position of a vanquished country."
Just as significant are similar exhortations by Gennady Zyuganov, leader of Russia's Communist
Party, the second-largest in the country and in parliament. The party also has substantial influence
in the military-security elite and even in the Kremlin. Thus, one of Putin's own aides has publicly
urged him to send fighter planes to impose a "no-fly zone"-an American-led UN action in Qaddafi's
Libya that has not been forgotten or forgiven by the Kremlin-and destroy Kiev's approaching aircraft
and land forces. If that happens, US and NATO forces, now being built up in Eastern Europe, might
well also intervene, creating a Cuban missile crisis–like confrontation. As a former Russian foreign
minister admired in the West reminds us, there are "hawks on both sides."
Little of this is even noted in the United States. In a democratic political system, the establishment
media are expected to pierce the official fog of war. In the Ukrainian crisis, however, mainstream
American newspapers and television have been almost as slanted and elliptical as White House and
State Department statements, obscuring the atrocities, if reporting them at all, and generally relying
on information from Washington and Kiev. Most Americans are thereby unknowingly being shamed by the
Obama administration's role. Those who do know but remain silent-in government, think tanks, universities
and media-share its complicity.
Вчера, 24 июня, я снялся в программе "Специальный корреспондент" Аркадия Мамонтова. Поводом для
обсуждения послужила ситуация на Украине и фильм "Майдан как предчувствие."
Из-за чемпионата мира по футболу программа записывалась в укороченном формате, поэтому мне удалось
сказать в буквальном смысле одну фразу.
podgish, 2014-06-26 03:17 pm (UTC)
Николай, вот вы утверждаете, что американский долг обязывает их начать крупномасштабную войну.
Ваше заключение недавно даже процитировал Михалков. В нем вы оправдываете политику невмешательства
России, как метод отказа от войны.
Я взял на себя смелость поразмыслить своим закостенелым умом, и что пришло мне в голову: Если
война - для США спасение, то имея Украину и удачную территориальную претензию с ее стороны в лице
Крыма, Америка обязательно воспользуется этой ситуацией и начнет войну.
Случится это, скорее всего тогда, когда Украина вступит в НАТО, пройдет полный путь руссофобской
накачки и развернет фашистско-военное производство. При этом можно гарантировать, что все те же
западные страны, которых вы так боитесь в своих предостережениях, будут продолжать поддерживать
Украину во всем.
This is simply a great day: June 27 Poroshenko in the city of Brussels signed something about
the economic of Ukraine's membership in the EU, and June 28 - day one of the Ukrainian Constitution.
Can you guess what I am hinting at? That will be two holidays in a row. Given the propensity of the
current leadership to the value EU integration I would bet my tooth that soon there will be a new
holiday in Ukraine -- Europe day on June 27. Bright and incredibly joyful holiday. Perhaps even more
so than the Independence Day, which now lost its luster and slightly contradicts the essence of this
epochal event. Although, as they say, your mileage may vary.
Soon on the shelves of Ukrainian stores will appear cheaper European goods and products of Ukrainian
"Ryaba" cooperative will fill the entire Brussels. We are joining something that remind me the Swedish
family with a proudly raised the prospect of full membership in 20 or 30 years from now. Of course,
the heart of the true patriots are overwhelmed with a feeling of profound satisfaction. Already visible
is the day when on biometric passport, which will contain all your personal data, up to the porn
sites visited during working hours, every Ukrainian will be able to travel to Vienna. Or not to travel,
if he does not have money. It's the real freedom of choice. I think it's necessary to gather in Kyiv
national Assembly to hear reports of the President on the implementation of economic integration
of the country in a friendly embrace of the EU integration wave, which is so high that covered us
with our head. However, there are some minor problems, slightly disturbing cloudless Eurointergation
horizon.
If earlier the main problem of Ukraine was considered to be corruption, but now, thank God, we
solved this problem. It's not a good time for corruption, when the civil war began. Bribes are much
smaller for quite objective reasons. First, there is little money around in any case, second, businesses
and production plants are mostly closed, and third, in the South-East it is easier to get a bullet
in the forehead than a bribe.
Well, after the proclamation of the course for a Unitary, United and Indivisible Country (UUIC)
at the place of Ukraine emerged quasi-Association of oligarch controlled provinces, practically not
governable from the center. Therefore, it is not easy to determine which part of the country began
a successful integration in the EU. Exactly at the time of signing of the economic part of the agreement
that promises us all sorts of bonuses in the form of free vending machines for condoms for anal sex,
all of Ukrainian social media discusses the attack of eight tanks by militia. The roadblock was blown
up. Arsen Avakov in Facebook white usual nonsense about victory and destroyed tanks. "Well-lit Russian
tanks!" - this post as Minister of the Interior may enter into history as the exhibit number two
of the state of his mental health. The first is the post about "establishing control over Central
Slavyansk", dated April 14.
Apparently, Lugansk and Donetsk region, which announced the creation of a Confederation of the
two republics, was unaware about the incredible benefits of integration into the EU. Again another
coincidence: June 27 is also "as if" the date of expiration of the ceasefire, as was declared by
"as if" President, together with the implementation of his "as if" the peace plan. I understand that
it is very difficult to decipher through complicated sentences of Presidential plan, but in reality
it means something quite different from ceasefire and especially has nothing to do with peace. According
to the reports, the whole "peace week" was actually a week of quite fierce fighting. Particularly
intense clashes occurred exactly on June 27. The President promised to take in the next few hours
to make some "important decision". It is very easy to guess what it will be. A failure of the "peace
plan" will be announced and the beginning of the ultimate (comprehensive, decisive, final) (antiterrorist)
operations for the liberation of the territories occupied by the terrorists". Arsen Avakov has already
managed to declare that his patience already exhausted and the separatists have just a few hours
for disarmament."
You know, a couple of months ago a statement about "the adoption of important decisions" would
be someone be shocking. Now it (the decision) does not matter much as also does not matter much the
government in Kiev. The resistance forces in the two breakaway republics demonstrated a willingness
to fight to the bitter end and to break the blockade. And if their declaration of confederation actually
sounds like an ultimatum from them to Kiev government, it is. Its essence is simple: the subject
of negotiations from now on can only be the details of relatively peaceful secession DND and LNR
from Ukraine. The saturation of militia forces, improved weapons, training, flow of volunteers from
within and different countries and influx of military equipment has reached such a level that imposing
"peace plan", composed in Kyiv at the bidding of the European instructors, became a very difficult
and bloody undertaking. They will literally fight to death. The conflict reached a new qualitative
level, and there is nothing Kiev, or Moscow can do in order to stop them from becoming yet another
Kosovo.
But the problem is that this "as if" President has nowhere to retreat. Behind him is well armed
"Right Sector" and Washington. So retreat for him is even more personally dangerous then launching
a military offence of newly declared confederation. And we increasingly hear threats "to turn the
National Guard to the capital". The irony is that "the long-awaited UE Association agreement" was
signed in the moment when another part of Ukraine disappeared from the geographical map of This country,
vanished completely. And instead of unitary state we now have more like Somali-style semi-independent
provinces that don't care much or obey the government in Kiev.
South-East is might even be able to counter-attack central government forces. And instead of former
Dnepropetrovsk oblast government, now we have Kolomoyski Khaganat, with the oligarchic ruler on top
(in a very direct sense of the word). Crimea, which is still formally considered a part of Ukraine
by Kiev government, in fact has no idea of what "benefits" will bring the accession to the Euro zone.
Galicia is starting to boil, as it became a natural donor for the anti-terrorist operation. In Odessa
there is a fierce clan war between Kyiv and Dnepropetrovsk oligarchic for the control of the city.
In a number of other regions of Ukraine the situation is reminiscent of an oil painting - "we
are patriots, for unity, but we'd better wait and see what will happen". Spoiled Kievites now eat
promised "improvement" in the standard of living in the form of increased by 50% utility tariffs
.
I would say that Ukraine achieved perfect timing for the start of the process of EU Association.
Moreover it accidentally created all the necessary prerequisites for continuous inflow of euro capital,
goods and services. Particularly body armor, which symbolize the realities of today Ukraine and goods
it needs most.
A Verkhovna Rada deputy who is also an ex-defense minister of Ukraine, said during a prime time
talk-show that the country's "patriots" would be justified "to kill" Russian President Vladimir Putin
if he came to Kiev.
Anatoly Gritsenko made his shocking statement speaking on the popular national talk show 'Shuster
Live'.
"Putin won't stop. He wants not only Ukraine, he wants the Baltic States and other countries,"
claimed Gritsenko, who was a presidential candidate twice, in the 2010 and 2014 Ukrainian elections.
Gritsenko did not elaborate on what had driven him to such a conclusion.
Calling the Russian president "a fascist," Gritsenko went on to say that he cannot imagine Vladimir
Putin coming to Ukraine to sign some kind of a deal.
"I believe there are patriots who would volunteer to kill him – and that would be the right thing
to do," Gritsenko remarked.
The leader of the Civil Position party, Gritsenko is a vocal advocate of Ukraine joining both
the EU and NATO.
Speaking in the same edition of the 'Shuster Live' talk-show, Gritsenko accused the current
Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko, of not fulfilling financial obligations towards the Ukrainian
military units taking part in the punitive operation in the Lugansk and Donetsk regions. Gritsenko
insisted that Poroshenko must allocate the money he promised during his election campaign, even if
it is to come out of his own pocket.
The politician also proposed to send the sons of top Ukrainian officials to fight against the
self-defense forces in the east of the country – including the son of the President Poroshenko himself.
The last several months of political crisis in Ukraine have been marked with scandals caused by
the shocking statements of local politicians, so this latest gaffe by the former defense minister
looks like normal business.
Two weeks ago, the now ex-Foreign Minister Andrey Deshchitsa publicly 'effed' the head of Russia.
In an incident that may be a first in diplomatic history, Kiev's top diplomat chanted "Putin's a
f**ker" surrounded by a crowd vandalizing the Russian embassy in the Ukrainian capital.
Although Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fired the uncouth diplomat several days ago, some
MPs in the Ukrainian parliament considered it only natural that Deshchitsa should become Ukraine's
new ambassador to Russia.
Since the unrest began in Ukraine in November last year, other Ukrainian politicians have also
distinguished themselves with unprecedented deeds and sayings.
In March, the leader of Ukraine's far-right Radical Party, ultra-radical MP Oleg Lyashko his supporters
abducted a regional MP in eastern Ukraine and posted video of his interrogation in which Lyashko
says that he will "hang him by the balls and have him f**ked."
Also in March, Ukrainian MP Igor Miroshnynchenko (from Svoboda party) assisted by a group of helpers
stormed the office of Ukraine's National Television Company, physically abused the TV channel's head,
calling him an "animal" and "Moskal" (a derogatory term for Russians) and bullied him into signing
a resignation.
In April, Irina Farion, an MP of the nationalist Fatherland Party, went as far as to call for
the deaths of citizens in Donetsk, Kharkov and Lugansk who demand the federalization of Ukraine.
"I'd act much tougher. I'd just shoot them dead. Look, the enemy is ruling our land. What are
we talking about? They should've been expelled from here back in 1654 (the year Ukraine aligned with
the Russian Empire). That's why today's reaction is unacceptable. The measures should be much tougher.
Our people laid down their lives. That's why those creatures that arrive here deserve only death,"
Farion proclaimed.
Selected Comments
Vanmeter 29.06.2014 13:18
These Ukrainian hot-heads had better learn to shut up before it's too late. They should also
be careful what they wish for, because they may soon get it, and in a way they are not exactly
expecting.
Wil 29.06.2014 13:17
Emmett 29.06.2014 11:47
I know US and EU/NATO are a global crime syndicate but they've dropped all pretenses of
trying to act like statesmen and diplomats and are showing themselves to be the lowlife thugs
they are.
i agree 100% they have completely dropped all pretenses of diplomacy. I think they are getting
increasingly desperate and their true colours are showing. I just wish we had fact reporting in
my country so we could open our eyes to these murderous elite
Peter Jennings 29.06.2014 13:22
That's very unprofessional of an ex minister and makes you wonder just what we europeans are
letting into the EU. Fascists such as Irina Farion are only in it for their own self agrandisement
and the power. They typically use the lowest common denominator to impress because it is very
easy to convince a dummy into harming their neighbour.
Just as the SA found out that they also became expendable, after carrying out murders for Hitler,
those who incite this type of hatred may find themselves in the same holes as their victims. Curtesy
of a once friendly nato.
Mark 29.06.2014 13:10
@Murmet
for your information, Turkey's potential to aide terrorists against Iraq and Syria is becoming
weaker because Syria is winning epic battles and the Turkey cannot deliver weapons to the terrorists
any longer.
Already Turkey's role in the ISIS/ISIL spread to Iraq has been exposed and now some Iraqi provinces
such as Babil have banned Turkey made products. Russians should in fact end their holiday visits
to Turkey.
Turkey wanted to use the Crimea Tartars against Russia but that is no longer possible. As for
the Ukrainian demagogues, they will achieve nothing important against Russia.
Murmet, 29.06.2014 13:10
shars 29.06.2014 13:00
Her e ya go folks - their ready made excuse for slaughtering citizens. Not hardly. It's
the U.S./EU/NATO familiar script: kill citizens so the rest will turn against their leader.
Then U.S. moves in to place puppet.
Ok, in Ukraine they already have their puppet installed, but using same strategy to destroy
the East by genocide.
W e see through your agenda, Murmet!
I see, its always the evil EU/US/NATO... Are you even able to reflect the policy of your country?
Hansel, 29.06.2014 13:09
Robert 29.06.2014 12:01
The question is: where did they get their upbringing? Must be a ukie school for the elites.
And they still think they are getting a deal from the EU and the IMF that will give them a
great standard of living.
It 's exactly these Elites that will benefit from the EU/IMF..and not the population.....that'
s all they are worried about.....they will soon be out of office...then they can retire rich and
probably in some nice country like Switzerland...
Mark, 29.06.2014 13:00
@Murmet
a massive geopolitical scheme that included Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar Israel and the U.S.
only helped returning the Crimea and Sevastopol returning to Russia and E, Ukraine is resisting,
Syria is winning epic victories, Iraq joining the fight. Ukrainians are freely switching to the
pro Russian side. Now Russophobes fall back to dirty tactics such as killing women and children
and threatening the life of President Putin- war crime. Tartars are no longer so foolish. Majority
of the Crimean Tartars took up Russian passports and any aggression by tiny minority will be addressed
by the firm hand of the law.
N.G., 29.06.2014 12:19
"A Verkhovna Rada deputy who is also an ex-defense minister of Ukraine, said during a prime
time talk-show that the country's "patriots" would be justified "to kill" Russian President Vladimir
Putin if he came to Kiev."
Nothing has changed in the Bandera nazi Kiev.
They have justified Maidan, Korsun, Odessa--
murdere rs walk free in Kiev these days.
Welcome to EU Kiev! And once again - thank you USA!
Wayne Mickel, 29.06.2014 12:17
These are supposed to be adults , but they act like little spoiled children who cannot get
their own way. It is a shame that they are in power and will lose everything align itself with
a failed coalition such as the EU and America, the State Department must be giving them scripts
to read before they speak because the State Department sounds just as childish in denying reality
and truth.
It looks like "junta in chocolate" declared a truce. A whole week of peaceful life granted to
us by the President, Poroshenko before "the final solution" of Donbass question. Sill no joy. I am
straining to convince myself, even with the help of auto-training, but feel no joy. Events that occurred
after the publication of this optimistic Manifesto, leave me with a sense of bitterness and despair.
Well, judge for yourself. Peter Poroshenko assessment of the situation and the rhetoric has not
changed a single millimeter. Pro-autonomy militias are still bandits and terrorists who want to destroy
Ukraine. The President is not going to listen to their reasons or take into consideration in possible
negotiations their interests. Actually, the negotiations have already been - Poroshenko discussed
the peace plan with the local elite, and his plan was supported by one hundred percent, according
to witnesses and Hanna Herman. The problem is that we don't know who these influential people were
and what they do today.
This was not local deputies, nor representatives of militia, not any of respected in the region
of the people. Then who? I suspect that the negotiations were held with representatives of the so-called
civil sector, which is represented exclusively by social activists aka grant-eaters. The degree of
their influence on the life of Donbass and mindset of people, not counting the limited local liberal-nationalist
parties, is not visible even in the strongest microscope. Does it make sense to negotiate with them?
Just because this is what he was told to do in the USA Embassy?
In order for something to rely on, this is something that should provide the necessary resistance,
so I was taught in the physics class in high school. If the President met with people for years who
were on U.S. and to a lesser extent the European taxpayers payroll, what kind of necessary resistance
and criticism can we talk about? The centre of the influence they have is the same as our newly minted
President and is well known. It's the U.S. Embassy. And as humorless Psaki just said the situation
in Ukraine is under control.
The President behaviour is certainly understandable. Zugzwang, in which he got is absolutely terrible.
On the one hand, he has several times in a beautiful position of a peacemaker, with befitting the
moment facial expressions and gestures promised to stop the war. Until the end of the week. He did
not tell us which week. Well, here in Slavyansk the ceasefire was announced, and we know what the
last and current weeks were about.
On the other hand, the olive branch in his hand was a first was openly ridiculed by "Patriotic
oligarch" Kolomoisky, which directly stated that fighting will not stop, and on Sunday was subjected
to withering criticism by Maidan radicals (who are still roaming the streets of Kiev) and who would
like that in the speeches of the President no a single letter hinted at a peaceful resolution of
the situation.
One can often hear a question - why Mr. Poroshenko, successful entrepreneur, pragmatic oligarch,
seem so eagerly rushed to take this post? The post on which he is nothing buy a pitiful marionette.
Is was not a rocket science to calculate risks. Or that he will be paralyzed by aggressive, hungry
and bloodthirsty nationalist community, which will strictly defines the agenda?
Even at the moment Mr. Poroshenko uttered his "peaceful proposals", the guns were firing at full
speed. In no way they were silenced. On the contrary, it is in moments when the President pathetically
declared the peace plan, shells were fired into Russian territory in the area of the crossing point
Dolzhanskaya "that led to the destruction of buildings and injured foreign custom official". The
statement that the soldiers will open fire only in response, impresses nobody. It's like a children's
checkmate in chess. when a person learned to play three days ago already can master this simple trick.
It is not necessary to be a great scientist, you just have to listen and look around to see how easily
this condition can be bypassed. Who is going to find out, whose shot was the first? You can shoot
yourself in the sky and then respond to this shoot with the full force.
Shelling of Slavyansk and Kramatorsk after the announcement of the ceasefire, which officially
began on 20 June at 22 : 00, never stopped. Intense battle was at the checkpoint Dolzhansky. Buses
with children who went to Rostov region, were fired on the move.
Who dares not to follow the order of the commander in chief? Who substitutes "the guarantor of
the Constitution" and Army Chief? Who is so independent that can neglect firm word of the President,
which he gave to the country and, as usual, to the world, and most importantly, presidents and chancellors
who control our government with a cynical openness?
The mere statement, colored the most pathetic colors, containing unrealistic promises, and is
trying to shove 10 pound into five pound bad was a joke. Solid guarantee that destroyed cities will
be rebuild, drives everybody in sardonic laugh. Why, say, deliberately and consistently shell and
bomb Slavyansk, Semenovka and Kramatorsk, Mariupol and Happiness, transforming houses, schools, kindergartens,
hospitals, roads in a pile of rubble? Who and how will restored this huge damage. At whose expense?
The population continues to leave their homes and seek shelter with relatives and friends.
How can you live with relatives and friends? The question will inevitably arise - what to do next?
Summer will fly in an instant, relatives tired, familiar ties cool down. To demand from the people
of the eternal mercy and altruism is naive. So where will return the inhabitants, for example, Slavyansk?
And how not to believe people who say that those cities were deliberately decided to be leveled into
parking lot, eliminated from off the face of the earth, to released the territory for use to satisfy
some of the more pressing needs of our government and, of course, its handlers?
Fleeing in terror Donbass residents do not want to believe themselves, in the soul realizing that
the conception of power that is: cleaning of the territory from the people for whom Lugansk, Donetsk,
Slavyansk, Kramatorsk - native land. To deprive people of soil, confidence, to make them confused
demoralized crowd, Diaspora others ' territories. Is not this a diabolical plan of the new government?
The Ombudsman Lutkovska, which was terribly concerned about the violation of human rights on the
Maidan, but lapsed into deep silence right from the first day of the bombing of Donbass, suddenly
became concerned about the situation of migrants. This word means we have to call the people that
the war was driven from their perches. Such a sweet euphemism, in order to present refugees as a
capricious child that suddenly decided to change places. And they suddenly abandon their homes, relatives,
even Pets, and all at once starred in search of new impressions and high incomes.
Shame is not a smoke, it does not affect eyes. Lutkovska agree to call these people displaced
and discuss their resettlement problems. But only quietly, so as not to annoy the authorities. It
was not a criminal regime of Yanukovich. With new democrat in power you really can be physically
kicked in a head for such behaviour.
While the Ombudsman with the team run between the raindrops, liberal society abuse social network.
Some because of problems with their brains, and some for 25 cents for the comment. Refugees from
Donbas drawn the most infernal freaks, cattle, arrogant and stupid hangers-on and parasites. Conversion
of people of Donbass into Ukrainian variant of undermensch continues at a record pace that
no one had even slightest pity to them. Especially mad are young and conditionally young (20 to 35)
ladies. These state your thoughts in this way, that the famous Ogre Bokassa would be red with shame.
If we are so nasty, why are you trying us to hold within Ukraine girls? Oh Yes, not us, we does not
matter, its the territory.
The world community keeps a conspiracy of silence around the tragedy of Donbass. The death of
women and children impresses no one. Our compatriots call us larvae and females of Colorado bugs.
Photographs and testimony of witnesses declared to be fiction or fakes from the Russian media.
The great writer Marquez, who told the world about the fantastic and tragic village of Macondo,
in one of the episodes provinces describes a situation like this. It's when the national army shot
3 thousand striking workers, whose corpses were thrown into the sea, and the story about it completely
erased from the collective memory. We thought, it does not happen - well, except that in the fantastic
and mysterious novels. It happens. Dying of sadness and loneliness, people are experiencing a terrible
tragedy all his life under dead silence indifferent spectators.
Biden assured Poroshenko that the whole world supports the Ukrainian government, who systematically
and methodically cleaning Donbass from the population, including, serving, in a way, commercial interests
of Mr. Biden's son...
The United Nations agree to acknowledge that refugees exist, and, for example, in Odessa, every
day comes 50-60 people. This, according to the UN raises certain concerns...
But in reality, people are afraid to contact the authorities and leaving thousands quietly for Russia,
getting primarily grey crying out their eyes. Trying to disappear into the crowds of other cities
or to cross the border into Russia. Everyone remember the promise to hang, promise of filtration
camps, "accommodation" in other provinces...
Against this background, the President's statements
about taking into account of interests of the inhabitants of Donbass look looks as cruel mockery.
Promises to negotiate even with separatists, even with those who have diametrically opposite views
on the future of Ukraine, could become a basis for optimism. If the authorities made any attempts
of such negotiations to begin. Instead, Poroshenko declares that the war united the nation, which
is now as united as never before. Why, then, to break such a valuable tool? It looks like you like
the was Mr. Poroshenko, don't you?
Therefore, real negotiations about peace, and tricks done by lapdogs at the order of the US owners
will never start. Also the government was taken hostage by the radicals. On Sunday yet another Maidan
"people assembly" showed who keeps fingers at the throat of the President. The list of requirements
of participants of the this "People Assembly" leaves no room for optimistic improvisations. From
power required stiffness, uncompromising and war.
And the President try to satisfy this new type of auditors/controllers of his behaviour - assuring
supporters that he will find and punish the murderers of the participants of the Maidan during sniper-gate.
In the process Poroshenko says wonderful phrase: "Never again will the Ukrainian government should
shoot at Ukrainian people. We must create a new situation. We will never stop. We defeated Yanukovich.
We will defeat bandits. We will build a new country, the country for which the people came out on
the Maidan".
Now let's think at whom Ukrainian authorities are shelling and killing at Slavyansk?
But if the participants of the "People Assembly" (Veche) can still be inspire by pathetic assurances
instead of hard cash, then how the radicals who on Sunday stormed Kiev Lavra Monastery under the
pretext of preventing armed rebellion, which, apparently, were held by elderly and very elderly,
who wanted to hold a procession for the peace of the country?
... ... ...
P.S. In anticipation of the sorrowful date June 22, 7-th channel of Kharkov TV, who as they say,
belongs to mayor Kernes, who promised in his time to break the Nazis arms and legs, showed interesting
documentary. The audience told how wonderful, how great this city was doing during the German occupation.
Banks, libraries and cinemas were working, the population attended concerts and were given loans.
And this is a great splendor was so rudely interrupted by the Soviet army. Well, it looks like 20
million of Soviet citizens committed mass suicide, at least according to the latest trends of the
Ukrainian ideological revolution
Mihail Baevsky
I'm not sure that the current Ukraine can help something besides that helped Germany in 1945.
Yesterday's pictures from Kiev, where pathetic behavioure of polit equipped according to the latest
"fashion". "Law enforcers", which were beaten by dozens agitated young men in masks, who took
from then shields, batons, etc. After seeing that I finally was convinced that when those who
are requred by thier duty to disperse insane morons put the organizers and leaders in jail, but
trying faster to slip in a safe place, the state is doomed. THIS STATE? THE UKRAINIAN STATE NO
LONGER EXIST. It became a place with the most dangerous for the world abscess that need to be
cured with surgery.
sever -> Mihail Baevsky
SHOCK... the COMPLETE MEDIEVAL DARKNESS... HORROR... AND all what Nyura wrote is true! This
is truth about current Ukraine! And absolute despair! To live with fascists and Bandera followers
is unbearable, But to split the territory from them is possible only via war! Such a wonderful
opportunities for people of Danbass!
These bastards will never negotiate; then want just another "March on Madrid!" They want everybody
behaved as they wish, or make a scorched territory out of those who resist. Why pity those barbarians
(as they think!) all those residents of Donbass.
But this will not be as they want. F*ck you, Western Ukranian brothers!!! War kills on both
sides! And coffins already flying to West Ukraine. Sh*tty Ukranian TV now shows magnificent funerals
of "Heroes", and or some reason we do not mind, because all the pity of our souls was destroyed
by their bombardments of our cities! The more of them die, the better.
Our children are dying, peaceful people are dying Nyura! Thanks a lot for the article...
Perhaps to change the mood, I should reread your past columns NURA! Funny, sarcastic, ironic!
Still Nura your analysis of the situation as depressing as it is pretty much precise diagnose
of the current situation. I don't like this situation. Oh, I really do not like it !!!
ksapp -> sever
Yes, It is evident that Nyura columns became more and more sad. When such things happen, at
some point sarcasm stop working.
As in any crisis situation, the crisis in Ukraine has been subject to polar interpretations. Russia,
the Donbas rebels, and others are quick to paint what is happening in Kiev as a "fascist coup" and
that the entire Kiev government is comprised "entirely of fascists." On the other side, Western governments
(primarily the United States and the European Union) and the Kiev government have stated that the
far-right in Ukraine has marginal electoral support and thus has "virtually no influence in the country."
As in any historical event, the truth is neither black nor white, but somewhere in between. It
is indeed correct that both Right Sector (Pravyi Sektor) and Svoboda are on the electoral
margins (I even know people in Western Ukraine who can vouch for this). However, it would be wrong
to mitigate their influence entirely.
At the end of the day, it was Right Sector and Svoboda that still played a crucial role in helping
the present Kiev government rise to power. In return, they were granted positions in the government.
Most of the posts awarded to the far-right have been given to Svoboda, though the newly-appointed
Education Minister, Serhiy Kvit, is affiliated with Right Sector and its associated far-right paramilitary
organization Trident (Tryzub). Also, Svoboda was conferred governorship of five oblasti:
Lviv, Ternopil, and Rivne in the West and Zhytomyr and Poltava in the Center (though they have never
been a major force in either of these two Central oblasti). Since there are a total of 24 oblasti
in Ukraine, this means that Svoboda and its leader Oleh Tyahnybok effectively control about 20% of
them. Further, if one were to add up the total area of the oblasti ruled by Svoboda and then divide
that by the total area of Ukraine, then one would arrive at approximately the same percentage (i.e.,
20% of the country overall). Given this, the question inevitably arises: how can a political party
with the support of less than 2% of the entire electorate of Ukraine govern about 20% of the country?
Of the two right-wing parties, Svoboda is arguably less of a threat than Right Sector. Right Sector
has very little popular support in Ukraine but they talk big and they are armed, so they cannot be
easily dismissed. From my research and observations, it seems that they clearly played a role in
the violence in the "anti-Terrorist operation" in the Southeastern oblasti. Right Sector is largely
to blame for the
Trade Unions fire-massacre in Odessa and they have also been involved in the shootings of civilians
in the Donbas. Kiev has heavily relied on them and other private militias in recent weeks because
their own military, drawn on recruits from all parts of Ukraine but primarily from the Central oblasti,
has proven to be unreliable (with defections, etc.).
Therefore, it is indeed correct to say that the far-right has marginal support in Ukraine. However,
at the same time, one cannot dismiss their potential danger, since they do retain influential political
positions in the present government and their more militant segments (Right Sector, Patriots of Ukraine,
Trident, etc.) are indeed armed and have participated in violence in the country.
The Russians had the facts on their side, and the West knew that: the US refused entry to Oleg Tyagnibok
and other Svoboda leaders (now members of Kiev government) because of their antisemitism as recently
as in 2013. But Russian appeals to Jewish and American sensitivities failed to make an impact. They
know when to feign indignation and when to hush. Pro-Hitler commemorations are frequent in Estonia,
Latvia, Croatia, and cause no lifting of a censorious brow, for these countries are solidly anti-Russian.
In March of this year, the Obama administration's special envoy on anti-Semitism, Ira Forman, flatly
denied everything and said to the Forward that Putin's assertions of Svoboda's antisemitism "were
not credible". The US wants to decide who is an antisemite and who is not; like Hermann Goering
wanted to decide who is a Jew and who is not in the Luftwaffe.
In the Ukrainian crisis, the Jews remain divided, and follow their countries' preferences.
Untermensch (German for under man, sub-man, sub-human; plural: Untermenschen)
is a term that became infamous when the Nazis used it to describe "inferior people" often referred
to as "the masses from the East," that is Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs; including Poles, Serbs, Belarusians,
Russians, and Rusyns. The term was also applied to black people and Mulattos. Jewish people were
to be exterminated in the Holocaust, just as Slavs in Generalplan Ost, who were destined to be
removed from European territory under German control through murder and ethnic cleansing.
"They lost their lives because they defended men and women, children and the elderly who found
themselves in a situation facing a threat to be killed by invaders and sponsored by them
subhumans. First, we will commemorate the heroes by wiping out those who killed
them and then by cleaning our land from the evil", - he said.
The nazi roots in Ukraine's putsch regime are well established and reflect in recent activities
tied to Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats in Germany:
It's really remarkable that that remark about "them subhumans" was published at the official Ukraine
embassy in the US Web site. The ungrammatical "them" sounds exactly like American white trash
talk.
Uki diplomatic personnel evidently spend so much time trying to learn the artificial language
of official Ukrainian that they don't have time to achieve any level of competency in the English
language.
scalawag
Strange, no mention by MoA of the "white trash fascists" who attacked the Russian embassy in
Kiev, with open support of the "white trash fascists" running the nazi junta there for their "white
trash fascist" masters in the west. This act, and that the "white trash fascists" failed to condemn
it in the UN, that is, tacitly gave their official blessing of it, is a rather more important
development than some "white trash fascist" disposable puppet of theirs expressing his solidarity
with the mentality behind the "white trash fascists", which everybody already knew about anyway.
Going after the "little guys" instead of the "big guys" is typical obfuscation tactics. The
"white trash fascists" in the nazi junta use phosphorus - no mention at MoA. The "white trash
fascists" of the western establishment tacitly support an attack on the Russian embassy in Kiev
(actually, those "white trash fascists" engineered it), and brazenly brag to the world their approval
of the action by refusing to condemn this action by their puppet "white trash fascists", again
no mention a MoA. These are events that could seriously undercut the propaganda effort of the
west by showing the master is made of the same substance as the disposable flunky. If Yatsenyuk
bites the dust, it's no big deal to the western establishment, like replacing a newscaster on
a TV show. Besides, he's been replaced already by Poroshenko as the western "face" in the Ukraine.
"By blocking Russian draft UN Security Council resolution condemning the attack on the Russian
embassy in Kiev the Western countries have given Kiev carte blanche for any actions, head of
the State Duma Committee on education, political scientist Vyacheslav Nikonov believes. Russia
urged members of the UN Security Council to adopt the resolution on Saturday.
According to
the text, UN Security Council should strongly condemn the Saturday attack on the Russian Embassy
in Kiev that damaged the building and property of the embassy, as well as put the lives of
its staff in danger. The attack seriously impeded the work of the embassy. However, a diplomatic
source in the United Nations has told RIA Novosti that the Western countries had blocked the
Russian resolution.
"This means only one thing - Kiev is allowed to do everything. I can imagine if any
embassy of a Western state was attacked in any country of the world, Russia would surely condemn
such actions. And all sensible people, all countries would condemn it, because there are rules
of diplomatic practices that are not violated even during wars between states," Nikonov
told RIA Novosti.
He noted that the West only scolds those who attacked the embassy "at the level of press
secretaries."
"But they do not take an official stance on the issue. This means that Kiev has got carte
blanche for any actions," the lawmaker believes.
Nikonov also stressed that the West turned a blind eye "to the mass genocide that the Kiev
authorities are carrying out in the South-East of Ukraine, to numerous sacrifices, to the humanitarian
catastrophe that is taking place there, to flows of refugees, who rushed into Russia."
"It probably makes no sense to be indignant at the double standards once again. The West
has demonstrated time and again that for them the alternative of double standards is triple
and quadruple standards. So, I'm not surprised at this stance of the Western countries; I am,
of course, outraged in connection with this position," said the MP.
In his opinion, the Western states seek to drive the situation into an absolute dead-end,
to aggravate the relations between Russia and Ukraine to a maximum and to try to cause a clash
between the two neighboring countries."
"The openly Nazi core of Kiev's new army; WikiLeaked cables set Ukraine 'nationalists' in NATO
'dirty wars' abroad; and the 'psychopaths' who run CIA special operations.
Seek truth from facts with the world's leading scholar on NATO's Operation Gladio Dr. Daniele
Ganser; Editor of new book Flashpoint in Ukraine - Dr. Stephen Lendman; Intelligence specialist
William Engdahl; and victims of the Butcher of Lyon."
"A few days had to pass before it became clear what the Ukrainian President meant talking about
the need to cease fire. No, he was not talking about withdrawing chasteners away from Donbass
or truce. He meant the use of force to quell the resistance of those who opposed the spread of
fascism on Ukrainian soil. The military and the National Guard units predominantly manned by Pravy
Sector acting under the orders of Supreme Commander Petro Poroshenko have failed to carry out
the mission of putting down the unrest in a week. They had no chance to succeed. No go. So they
have started to search for more extraordinary things than just firing conventional weapons…
For instance they used incendiary munitions or phosphorus bombs on June 12 in Slavyansk. It happened
right after the vibrant discussions on the possibility of US assistance, including lethal aid.
It did not take long for Jen Psaki, State Department spokeswoman, to come up with the conjecture
that the bombs were used by "Russians". She is not aware the Russian army does not participate
in the conflict. Russia respects its commitments as a party to the Convention on Prohibitions
or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively
Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. Protocol 3 restricts the use of incendiary weapons.
It prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilians (effectively a reaffirmation of the
general prohibition on attacks against civilians in Additional Protocol Conventions) as well as
the use of air-delivered incendiary weapons against military targets located within concentrations
of civilians and loosely regulates the use of other types of incendiary weapons in such circumstances.
The US is not a party to this Protocol. In 2004 the United States used incendiary weapons in Iraq.
Americans used such bombs in Vietnam before. In 2009 the US informed the UN Secretary General
that its consent to observe article 2 of the abovementioned protocol was subject to some reservations.
This approach to the use of weapons prohibited internationally on humanitarian grounds could have
influenced the approach of American advisors who told their Ukrainian dependents to use incendiary
bombs. On November 29, 2005, speaking at a press conference General Peter Pace, Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that white phosphorus "is a legitimate tool of the military," and
can be used for illumination, smoke, and incendiary purposes."
The nazi junta in the Ukraine is operating under direct western control. Their war crimes are
western war crimes.
This seems to be a relevant place to make this comment. Last week the big question was whether
or not Poroshenko (and his ally Klitshko) would be able to gain control over the Kiev street and
push Right Sector back to Lviv. This demonstration in front of the Russian embassy in Kiev seems
to have answered that question. The street remains in the hands of the neo-nazis. I was optimistic
a week back that Poroshenko would be able to enter into serious discussions with Russia and the
eastern Ukrainians. That optimism was based on two assumptions 1) Poroshenko was genuinely interested
in solving the eastern Ukrainian insurrection in way that seriously engaged their demands, and
2) Poroshenko could put together a government that would control the neo-nazis.
Well assumption
#2 seems wrong. The war will go on.
Here is interview with a Ukrainian
girl named Ekaterina. She lives in Krasny LIman, a Donetsk town, which has been occupied by Kiev
Banderites for past couple of weeks.
Katya claims that Banderite National Guard have killed a couple of dozen inhabitants of town,
and also dragged off and raped several girls, one of them had her throat cut too.
She pleads to Moscow to help them, as they are being crushed by these violent Nazi hordes.
Sounds plausible. Banderites do what Banderites do.
Interview with Igor Strelkov,
he says he has never seen the likes of these phosphorus bombs before, not even in the Chechen
campaign.
Igor believes these bombs are some kind of "cassette" which is programmed to explode in the air
and coat the ground with some kind of incendiary chemical.
Maybe NATO testing some new weapon
on the families of Donbass?
Good observation: " the equation of fascism and communism secretly privileges fascism."
Looks like this guy does not know the term neoliberalism and how it differ form liberalism ;-)
The Ukrainian nationalist right is one instance of what is going on today from the Balkans to
Scandinavia, from the US to Israel, from central Africa to India: ethnic and religious passions are
exploding, and Enlightenment values receding.
These passions have always been there, lurking; what's new is the outright shamelessness of their
display.
... ... ...
One of the signs of this regression is a request often heard on the new European right for a more
"balanced" view of the two "extremisms", the right and the left. We are repeatedly told that one
should treat the extreme left (communism) the same way that Europe after the second world war treated
the extreme right (the defeated fascists)
But in reality there is no balance here: the equation of fascism and communism secretly privileges
fascism. Thus the right are heard to argue that fascism copied communism: before becoming a
fascist, Mussolini was a socialist; Hitler, too, was a National Socialist; concentration camps and
genocidal violence were features of the Soviet Union a decade before Nazis resorted to them; the
annihilation of the Jews has a clear precedent in the annihilation of the class enemy, etc.
The point of these arguments is to assert that a moderate fascism was a justified response
to the communist threat (a point made long ago by Ernst Nolte in his defence of Heidegger's involvement
with Nazism). In Slovenia, the right is advocating the rehabilitation of the anti-communist
Home Guard which fought the partisans during the second world war: they made the difficult choice
to collaborate with the Nazis in order to thwart the much greater evil of communism.
... ... ...
What of the fate of the liberal-democratic capitalist European dream in Ukraine? It isn't clear
what awaits Ukraine within the EU. I've often mentioned a well-known joke from the last decade of
the Soviet Union, but it couldn't be more apposite:
Rabinovitch, a Jew, wants to emigrate. The bureaucrat at the emigration office asks him why,
and Rabinovitch answers: 'Two reasons. The first is that I'm afraid the Communists will lose power
in the Soviet Union, and the new power will put all the blame for the Communists' crimes on us,
the Jews.' 'But this is pure nonsense,' the bureaucrat interrupts, 'nothing can change in the
Soviet Union, the power of the Communists will last for ever!' 'Well,' Rabinovitch replies, 'that's
my second reason.'
Imagine the equivalent exchange between a Ukrainian and an EU administrator. The Ukrainian complains:
"There are two reasons we are panicking here in Ukraine. First, we're afraid that under Russian pressure
the EU will abandon us and let our economy collapse." The EU administrator interrupts: "But you can
trust us, we won't abandon you. In fact, we'll make sure we take charge of your country and tell
you what to do!" "Well," the Ukrainian replies, "that's my second reason."
johnfromslough
I couldn't help notice this paper anti-democratic stance in the Ukraine.
During the Kiev protests their were daily articles in favour of mob rule over the democratically
elected president.
The elections were due to take place this year anyway, what was this paper thinking.
It now has blood on its hands after undermining democracy in the Ukraine and pitching the nation
into civil war.
johnfromslough johnfromslough, 10 June 2014 10:36am
While managing to ensure the Kiev protesters got daily, prominent features it could find no
room for the mass anti-austerity protests going on in Europe at the same time.
A hidden agenda?
MJMaguire, 10 June 2014 10:26am
This quite a good, balanced article for the most part, but it betrays itself over sudden lapses
into "the Maiden protesters were heroes" etc. It forensically analyses the place of Lenin and
Stalin in eastern ideology and also the problem of rising fascism across Europe, but I think it
underestimates the place that the struggle for dominance in central Europe plays - and has always
played - in European struggles. The most compelling force driving European conflict has always
been the need to chain the bear: both First and Second World wars were essentially about this,
Charlemagne grappled with it, the Roman Empire, Napoleon - now NATO (which is essentially a European
phenomenon) is now attempting to do what others have failed to do. Ukraine is clearly subject
to many political, social and economic factors promoting the current crisis: but the main undercurrent
remains the need for Europe to isolate and drive Russia back into Asia.
Brian o'Cualain -> onu labu, 10 June 2014 4:43pm
The philosophical basis of communism is one of sharing and cooperation whereas that of fascism
is coercion and force. Therefore to equate the two in being equally inhuman is of course favorable
to fascism by default. The problem with communism is that human failings get in the way. Same
cold be said of Christianity.
Zaporozhye -> Brian o'Cualain, 10 June 2014 7:36pm
The main problem with communism is that is always somebody who will be involved in process
of sharing and cooperation. Usually those people get the most of that sharing and cooperation.
And by this sharing and cooperating as it is describe does not exists and just falls into coercion
and force. Like when people could not move our of villages, until I believe 1954 in the USSR.
Like they will not be able in modern Belorussia.
Communism exists in kibbutz only, in any other place it somehow becomes slavery.
onu labu -> Brian o'Cualain, 10 June 2014 10:53pm
The philosophical basis of communism is one of sharing and cooperation whereas that of
fascism is coercion and force.
provided everyone is willing to share and cooperate, which sounds utopian in theory, and
proved dystopian in practice.
Stevo3 ->Brian o'Cualain, 11 June 2014 4:17am
You are confusing means with ends. Both ideologies aim at their particular utopia to be
attained and maintained with as much coercion and force as necessary, directed at whoever opposes
or is simply "unfit" to partake of the promised paradise, but both claiming to represent the large
majorities of their respective population constituencies. Both have been used to justify
inhumanity on a mass scale. In this sense they can certainly be "equated" in a general sense,
though of course with differences of detail as the case may be.
Zizek is naive if he imagines that (at least Leninist) "communism" somehow had clean hands,
all that happened under Stalin was begun under Lenin, already on a large scale, as works like
Gellately's "Lenin, Stalin and Hitler" demonstrate, and certainly a similar ruthlessness was employed
by the Bolsheviks as later under the "Fascists", with a (partial) difference only of targeted
groups. Zinoviev said that ten percent of Russia's population had to go, and he did not mean on
holiday.
Elliott666, 10 June 2014 10:41am
I have generally been sceptical of Žižek's writings, but I find some interesting observations
in this one.
This internal dissent was a natural part of the Communist movement, in clear contrast to fascism.
"There were no dissidents in the Nazi party," Hitchens went on, "risking their lives on the proposition
that the Führer had betrayed the true essence of National Socialism."
This is very clear, as soon as one thinks about it. The Messianic Leader of fascism embodied
fascism. Only communism had a separate body of theory. Interestingly, while both displayed
some of the characteristics of religion, they display a contradictory subset of those characteristics
- the authority of the Prophet against the infallibility of Scripture.
That European fascist groups are supporting Putin is also extremely interesting. So much so
that I will try to keep a look out for independent information on what they are saying, as it
is very significant. Not least in dealing with the bots that are plaguing Guardian threads dealing
with Ukraine.
Juvavum -> Elliott666, 10 June 2014 11:32am
"This internal dissent was a natural part of the Communist movement, in clear contrast to fascism.
"There were no dissidents in the Nazi party," Hitchens went on, "risking their lives on the proposition
that the Führer had betrayed the true essence of National Socialism."
Ah, Christopher Hitchens, that intellectual non-entity.
There were no dissidents in the Nazi party because Hitler had purged the dissenters in 1934
- some say he personally shot dead Ernst Röhm, his rival and leader of the SA. Gestapo and the
fledgling SS did the rest, killing 200 high profile members of the social revolutionary direction
within the NSDAP.
After that, the masses were bought off with seeming economic prosperity and growth, plus the
end of street violence that had characterized 1919 - 1933. There was little dissent because
the NSDAP was successful and the benefits for the base were evident and uncontestable - while
the bubble lasted.
VasilyZaitsev -> Elliott666, 10 June 2014 11:49am
Sounds good, but it's false.
In fact there were Nazis who thought Hitler was betraying National Socialism, hence the Night
of the Long Knives in 1934.
Larry144, 10 June 2014 11:13am
This author made his best effort to be neutral and balanced but he is so hopelessly brainwashed
by the Western propaganda machine that he cannot string a sentence together without using NATO
clichés and loaded language. All his knowledge about Ukraine comes from one side: books and
mass media from the NATO countries and pro-Western authors from Ukraine and Russia. This picture
is muddled with half-truths, incomplete truths, and falsehoods.
For example, let's take a look at this photograph caption:
Demonstrators clash with riot police officers in Kiev during protests that led to the
fall of former president Viktor Yanukovitch.
The name of the ex-president is misspelled. Another problem is that the fall of Yanukovych
was not caused by Maidan protests. It was caused by the sniper shootings on February 19-20, which
were likely a false flag attack organized by the very "heroes" (Maidan leaders) that this author
is extolling. Where is the mention of the generous financing of the two revolutions in Ukraine
(2004 and 2014) by the US State Department or the CIA links of the high-ranking officials in the
coup-appointed Ukrainian government (such as Valentyn Nalivaichenko)?
Slavoj Žižek is talking about communism, socialism, and fascism as different versions of the
same evil and indiscriminately uses the term "capitalism" to describe countries that have widely
varying degrees of a mixed economy. He is talking about "liberal democracies" ignoring the
fact that many of those "democracies" such as the United States are actually oligarchies.
Slavoj Žižek's view of the world is simplistic and neatly organized according to the current NATO
talking points.
Larry144 -> Epsilon03, 12 June 2014 10:41am
This is not my story; several material witnesses to this case stated that the snipers were
operating in the buildings controlled by Andriy Parubiy (one of the Maidan leaders). These
witnesses are ex-Minister of the Interior, ex-chief of SBU, and ex-commander of Berkut. The coup
government first tried to launch an independent international investigation, but quickly changed
its mind and decided to conduct the investigation itself (are they hiding something?). The official
ballistic evidence published recently exonerated Berkut riot police, who were blamed originally
by the coup government. A lot of evidence was destroyed mysteriously (the key building was torched
and all trees were cut down, which were riddled with sniper bullets).
For more details, please see this Wikipedia article (Google translator may be needed).
Yes, Yanukovych writes his name in Cyrillic, but in English, the official sources such as Kyiv
Post spell his name as Yanukovych (most likely with his blessing).
Calidris, 10 June 2014 11:19am
...Major General William Graves, who commanded the American expeditionary force during
the 1918 invasion of Siberia (an event thoroughly airbrushed from all American textbooks),
wrote in his memoirs...
This is a hoot, considering that Žižek succeeds in airbrushing out of his essay the role
the USA is playing directly and through its diverse proxies in sponsoring and fomenting the Ukrainian
crisis and broader NGG insurrections; and the impending ratification and implementation of the
TTIP, which will have the most virulent eurosceptic looking back wistfully on the days of EU as
a kind of halcyon democratic interregnum.
Avi Unobtaniumstein -> Calidris. 11 June 2014 1:19pm
Excellent point. Žižek is making it into a clash between Russia and EU, totally ignoring the
country that has spent decades and considerable amount of resources to cause the situation as
it did in Yugoslavia.
Juvavum, 10 June 2014 11:21am
In the most conspicuous case, in 1939 the three Baltic states asked to join the Soviet Union
– which granted their wish.
That is really a pretty selective reading of the facts. The Hitler-Stalin pact in 1939 assigned
the Baltic states to the Soviet sphere of influence, the German population of the Baltic states
was "repatriated" (by Germany) to the Posen area, and the Soviet Union subsequently invaded and
annexed Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, after rigged elections had taken place and the newly "elected"
governments had asked for admission to the Soviet Union.
When Germany invaded Russia in 1941, it occupied the Baltic states, to the acclaim of the population,
who went on to field a substantial part of the Waffen - SS personnel involved in war crimes
in the East. Reminds you of the Ukrainians' reaction to the invasion.
Zizek is being a little rosy on both the Soviet Union, and the smaller nations of the East
(including Ukraine) - unless he is downright lying to the public. Does not bode well for
the rest of his reasoning.
SpaceCadet99, 10 June 2014 11:21am
'It is the aggressive attempt to export liberal permissiveness that causes fundamentalism
to fight back vehemently and assert itself.'
From the midst of the waffle thats pretty good. But its human nature to sway from extreme to
extreme. Moderation is viewed as boring and gutless...
NorthWestFeather, 10 June 2014 11:27am
Very long and pompous version of Western propaganda.
Vaska Tumir -> NorthWestFeather, 10 June 2014 6:11pm
And disappointing to see the London Review of Books publishing only that sort of article
on Ukraine -- and not one thing critical of the Western alliance with the Nazis and Banderists
there. Not a single one so far (and it's been 7 months since the start of the Maidan takeover).
BonnieLassie, 10 June 2014 11:38am
Does anyone (besides our leaders) actually want Ukraine in the EU? Why can't there be a democratic
vote on this? I am yet to meet someone who isn't horrified by the thought of Ukraine joining the
EU.
VasilyZaitsev -> BonnieLassie, 10 June 2014 11:54am
I'm sure the majority of European citizens don't want them to join.
What about the European parliament?
Do they make this decision and would they vote for Ukraine to join?
BonnieLassie -> VasilyZaitsev, 10 June 2014 12:08pm
Negotiations are carried out by EU politicians. Even with the current anti-EU lot in Brussels,
Merkel's people/allies have enough of a majority to push through anything they want. It just seems
wrong to me that such a momentous decision should be made by such a small group of people.
I'm not unneighbourly, I like all of the Ukrainians I've met and think it would be great if
their country could modernize. I do think, however, that it's the completely wrong time to start
negotiating new members, when there are already so many problems with the current members gelling
together, and people complaining that the EU isn't democratic. Surely flooding Europe with 45
million Ukrainians will only add more fuel to the anti-EU fire?
Suggest, 10 June 2014 11:57am
The article entirely ignores strategic considerations - the continuing NATO encirclement
of Russia.
It is childish not to expect a Russian response, and incoherent to analyse events in terms
of essentially internal Soviet history. And just because it's nonsense to see the Russian reaction
as a struggle against fascism, that's no reason to ignore the presence of substantial fascist
elements in contemporary Ukrainian politics.
There is nothing so precious or saintly about the Ukraine as to justify horror at a Russian
move motivated by great power politics. There are no great moral lessons here, but a prudent
one - not a good idea to underestimate Russia or to spend decades treating it with contempt. NATO
should have stayed in Western Europe.
Dirk Steiner, 10 June 2014 12:02pm
That's all great, but when the Russians cancel the working visas to 5 million Ukrainians and
return them home, Europe won't be able to help them. In the end it's real interests that will
determine the outcome, not some philosophical mutterings about freedom.
OpsWolf -> Dirk Steiner, 10 June 2014 2:14pm
Your forgetting Žižek has forgotten to tell you the majority of Ukrainians are also Russians
and speak the same tongue.
ConradLodziak, 10 June 2014 12:09pm
This is merely an article of propaganda, albeit for the more intellectually-mined.
If Zizek wants to steer a neutral course he needs to come up with compelling arguments
against the neo-Nazi coup. If he's honest he will realise that there is no middle ground
and in order to pursue his neutral course he would have to condemn the violent forces co-opted
by the Ukraine state.
estarion, 10 June 2014 1:03pm
Žižek argues that Western liberalism is a better option for Ukraine than neo-Soviet conservatism.
That may be true, but he completely misrepresents how the situation in Ukraine escalated.
Rather than Ukrainian progressives against Russian fascists, Maidan and Crimea were examples of
Ukrainian versus Russian nationalism.
It was a bit more complicated than that with pro-Europeans making a tactical pact with
Ukrainian extreme right and people from the east of Ukraine worried about incoming neo-liberalism
siding with Russians, although these reasons were not what gave the conflict such intensity
and was mostly a secondary phenomenon.
Finally, there was a very important geopolitical aspect with Russians trying to block further
expansion of NATO, and Americans willing to bring a halt to gradually improving relations between
EU and Russia, and boost NATO's somewhat flagging status in the process.
Add to that some of EU members own complicated history with Russia and the opportunity
to finally express past resentments and you have a very complex situation with few good guys in
sight.
As someone originating from former communist block himself, Žižek knows this but prefers to
go on an anti-Russian rant instead, ignore the nationalist component of the Maidan movement and
exaggerate the nationalist component of Russian actions. This does not make his conclusion of
Ukraine as better off with more distance from Russia wrong, but he certainly has not made a compelling
case for it, and his analysis is intellectually dishonest as well as incomplete. There are good
reasons while many consider him a court philosopher despite his anti-capitalist stance as when
push comes to shove he always supports whatever course of action NATO decides to take.
mikserg, 10 June 2014 1:16pm
The locomotive of this Ukrainian revolt was an extremist layer of the population.
Now the fr*aks occupy several key position in the government. Zazek correctly concluded that the
major Ukrainian battle isn't the one fought now against Putin. The real battle will be between
the extremists occupying powerful positions in the Ukrainian government and the ordinary moderate
folks who are already tired of this madness.
Anette Mor -> mikserg, 10 June 2014 2:51pm
The ordinary folks are also divided to these who are happy to see nationalist in power and
these who are being marginilised and under represented. That divide already cemented by bloodshed
of innocent kids in east Ukraine.
This country as we knew it gone. Knowing russian character I just do not see east and south
ukraine setting. That us very christian to give another party to make choices, so their true nature
is clear, and only then, act on informed basis, not assumptions. Kiev made choices - they bomb
indiscriminately, schools, hospitals, power stations, water supplies. They confiscate medical
supply at entry to the region. There is not a signal politician left unharmed and not silenced
who could represent east. The country is set apart too deep to get together again. Not by
Russia. But by hate or love to Russia by two groups of Ukrainians.
MalenkyMuk, 10 June 2014 1:16pm
Good article!
And speaking about Ukraine, I have to say that Live Journals in support of Donetsk and Lugansk
Republics and against Kiev Junta are being closed and banned. So much for the Western freedom
of speech!
Marqus -> MalenkyMuk, 10 June 2014 4:11pm
More all the livejournal placed in USA has closed all the the sites describing the crimes happened
in Ukraine since junta came to power
Kamik11, 10 June 2014 1:34pm
What amuses me is that it was Lenin who gave the current south-eastern areas to Ukraine from
Russia. They don't like the Soviet "occupation" but like the given by the "occupant" leader territories
of the former Donetsk–Krivoy_Rog_Soviet_Republic
While we are debating Mr Zizek's article (which is better than many other journalistic "masterpieces"
on the subject in that it is a subtler, more sophisticated piece of propaganda), there are more
killings in E Ukraine. Two kids have just died from bombings in Slavyansk (a 12- and a 6-year
old), according to a Ukrainian news agency. And mothers are appealing to the new president to
stop the murders.
It has been a bad week for democracy in Athens. All around this great Greek city, the politics
of hate now lurk. On Friday I got a taste of it in the tiny Italian-style cafe I frequent off Syntagma
Square.
It arrived in the form of two middle-aged men, both supporters of the neo-fascist Golden Dawn
– and, by their own account, the holders of university degrees, well-travelled and well-informed.
Over espressos, they began to engage in an animated discussion about all that is wrong with
Greece.
The first, a self-described businessman decked out in designer suit, brogues and silk tie, blamed
the country's economic collapse on malfeasance, corruption and uncontrolled immigration. "The only
way to teach our filthy politicians is to bring in Golden Dawn," he trilled, his eyes locked in a
fierce glare. "These gentlemen are patriots, proud Greek nationalists, and they know how to deal
with the scum, the foreigners who never pay taxes, who steal our jobs, who have taken over our streets."
Dismissing charges that Golden Dawn is a criminal gang masquerading as a political group, the
second – a self-described government employee – said
the far right was the best
response yet to the great Jewish conspiracy of an interconnected banking system that has come with
globalisation. "Let's not forget all the faggots and the Jews, the wankers who control the banks,
the foreigners who are behind them, who came in and fucked Greece," he insisted. "The criminals who
have governed us, who have robbed us of our future, of our dreams, need a big thwack."
Last Wednesday Greece got that jolt when Nikos Michaloliakos, Golden Dawn's imprisoned leader
– who stands accused of murder and assault – made his first public appearance in almost nine months.
The politics of hate took over Athens as the 58-year-old was hauled before parliament, ahead of a
vote to lift his immunity from prosecution, on further charges of illegal weapons possession.
Emboldened by its recent success in European and local elections – in which the party emerged
as the country's third biggest political force, thanks to a softening of image that has attracted
ever-growing numbers of the middle class – the extremists drove home the message that they were not
only on the rebound but here to stay. And as they ran roughshod through the house of democracy, hurling
abuse at other MPs in an unprecedented display of violence and vulgarity, there was no mistaking
what Golden Dawn is: a party of neo-Nazi creed determined to overturn the democratic order. For,
far from being contrite, the handcuffed Michaloliakos was in unusually aggressive mood, giving Nazi
salutes, telling the house speaker to "shut up", and instructing guards to take their hands off him.
Outside, black-shirted Golden Dawn supporters, lined up in military formation in Syntagma Square,
gave a hearty rendition of the Nazi Horst Wessel song – albeit with Greek lyrics. All this was a
far cry from the party's recent efforts to distance itself from the thuggery and racist rhetoric
from which it was born.
"That day democracy felt a bit weak," said Pavlos Tzimas, a political commentator who has watched
the party's rise from its fringe group beginnings in the early 1980s. "After all the revelations
[about criminal activity], after all the prosecutions against its MPs, it still has the nerve to
act in such a way, in scenes of hate that, frankly, I cannot recall ever being seen inside the parliament,"
he sighed.
"Golden Dawn is not a passing phase, it will not disappear with the end of the crisis,
it feels untouchable, it fears nothing, and what we saw this week is its real face. It is not
like other extremist parties in
Europe. It is a true
neo-Nazi force whose aim is to use democracy to destroy democracy."
The crackdown against Golden Dawn – triggered by the killing of an anti-fascist rapper at the
hands of a self-confessed party cadre last September – was meant not only to bring offenders to justice
but reverse the group's seemingly unstoppable ascent. At first the round-up of party leaders seemed
to dent the ultranationalists' popularity. For the first time since June 2012, when it was catapulted
into parliament with 6.9% of the vote and 18 deputies, its ratings dipped. But in an alarming
display of rehabilitation, the neo-fascists won 9.4% of the vote in the European elections on 25
May and, in the race for the Athens mayoralty on 18 May, were backed by 16.1% of the electorate even
though its candidate, Ilias Kasidiaris, sports a swastika tattoo and assaulted two leftwing female
politicians during a live TV show. In both cases the results were the most shocking endorsement
yet of the anti-liberal party.
What worries Tzimas most is not just the coarsening of public debate but the "banalisation of
violence" that is now stalking Greece. "We seem to be getting used to it, and that frightens me,"
he said.
In an explosive political climate, where popular rage is at boiling point nearly five years into
the country's worst crisis in living memory, the politics of hate so embodied by Golden Dawn is becoming
increasingly pervasive. "Who cares if six million Jews were exterminated?" asked the businessman
back at the cafe, in a shocking endorsement of that reality. "I don't care if they were turned into
soap. What I care about is the salary I have lost, the never-ending taxes I am forced to pay, the
criminals who rule this country, the anger I carry inside."
"This is the deeper explanation for the growth of Golden Dawn," says Dimitris Psarras, author
of The Black Bible of Golden Dawn, which chronicles the party's meteoric rise. "Greece
has deep cultural differences with the rest of Europe. After the second world war, it did not undergo
real democratisation because we had civil war [1946-49]. And after that the deep state was never
really purged [of extreme rightwing elements]. Even when it was a small group, Golden Dawn had ties
to the Greek state."
The party's fielding of two retired generals on its European election ticket was testimony to
those ties. With three Golden Dawn MEPs now about to take seats in Brussels, the burning question
for many is how to confront the extremists. Following the poll, even France's Front National leader,
Marine Le Pen, ruled out relations with them.
The independent MP and prominent novelist Petros Tatsopoulos, himself the focus of much of the
fascists' fury in parliament last week, thinks there is no other way but to ban Golden Dawn. "It
was a huge, historic mistake on the part of our parliament not to de-legitimise Golden Dawn," said
Tatsopoulos, until recently an MP with the radical left. "It should have been banned, not for its
Nazi ideology but because it is a paramilitary force … who, if it could, would press ahead with a
coup d'état," he told the Observer.
"We know how these people work. The fascist poison that Greece is experiencing is not just
political, it is poisoning every aspect of social life, the way people think, the way they behave.
I honestly believe that the 500,000 Greeks who voted for Golden Dawn were very conscious of what
they were doing."
Was democracy in its own birthplace now under threat? "Golden Dawn is on stand-by," he averred.
"I don't know how long it will take, but if this voluntary blindness continues, if the crisis goes
on, it will be a real threat to democracy in the near future."
This is what happens when Capitalism is given too much free reign - fascism and communism borne
out of anger at the ruling, rich elite.
hawkwoman
It is astonishing how governments throughout Europe (with the probable exception of places
like Scandinavia and Switzerland) who dismantled safety nets, turned into elitest classes of society
themselves, bailed out millionairyes while shoving austerity down the throats of people already
struggling, could not take even a cursory glance through the pages of the last 200 years and not
see this coming.
I'm not excusing the Golden Dawn or Le Pen or anyone else from resurrecting that tired but
oh so reliable whipping boy of European rage, the Jews - but really, the economic trends of the
last decades as globalization and the staggering amount of money accumulating at the top, the
dawning realization that the handwriting is on the wall and we've all been sold out to faceless
CEOs who have more money than anyone has ever had in the history of humanity . . .
Where and how did those political elites in France, Britain, and Germany and Belgium think
all that anger would be channeled? Tantric Yoga? Meditation? Mass conversions to Buddhism? Self-hypnosis?
The most depressing thing about all this is how familiar it is.
Markell1991 -> Marcog, 08 June 2014 5:08pm
Look at the Inter-War period in Europe. After the drain on the economy from making arms, the
men dying and therefore workforce lowering, the resulting sense of lawlessness, use of immigrant
labour, large parts of Europe were increasingly looking both Right and Left.
Just because the US or UK have never succumbed to either extreme doesn't mean the sentiment
is not there.
124C41Seer -> Marcog, 08 June 2014 5:12pm
excuse me, US never had fascism? I guess it kind of depends on what your definition of "is"
is.
For information on how close the US came to making if official, I recommend General Butler's
book, "War is a Racket." Then consider that just a couple of generations later, we put one of
the perpetrators descendents into the presidency.
It is ironic that Golden Dawn venerate the Nazis considering how badly they treated the Greeks
during the war. Along with the rest of their ignorance they obviously know nothing about history.
Some Greeks welcomed the Nazis with open arms. If GB would have succumbed to Nazi occupation,
there'd have been a fair number of Brits who'd have acted the same way. The likes of Mosley and
his aristocratic support is one example I can think of.
You are right, but as Sidfishes notes, Greece, like all European countries, had a small group
of willing collaborators during the Nazi occupation. Furthermore, Metaxas, the dictator that was
ruling Greece for several years in the 30's, and his party were openly fascist. Fascism-Nazism
are pan-European ideologies, let's not kid ourselves, and Greece could not be left out of this
phenomenon. Fascism has remained dormant for 35 odd years, simply because the Greek elites squandered
billions of many on populist policies and handouts. When your belly is full, you can always claim
to be a patriot and a socialist.
Greece paid -proportionately- the heaviest price for WWII in
Europe and we should not forget to add the 5 years of civil war which followed WWII (which were
more devastating). The civil war officially started in 1945 but it was ALREADY there during the
German/Italian/Bulgarian occupation of Greece from 1941! More or less the same Greek factions
fighting for or against the Axis continued the fight during the civil war, with the patriotic/left
assuming a more leftist/eastern bloc position and the Axis collaborators....becoming pro English
and US, CONTINUING the fight against communism.
And this is where the US and the UK are to blame...As soon as the Germans left and the US/UK
came in, instead of supporting a "Greek Nurenmberg", secured total impunity for the Nazi collaborators
(Greece is the only European country where not ONE person was sent to jail for Nazi collaboration!).
As a return for impunity, the Nazi collaborators became "patriots fighting against communism and
the Soviets", retained their military/paramilitary structures and their positions in the post
1945 governments, only changing their "cloak". Examples of this impunity and change of camp for
the Greek Nazis is that the ex SIEMENS CEO (currently sipping his coffee in a German low security
"prison", with Ms Merkel refusing extradition, so that he is tried in Greece and we find out where
Greek money was used for bribes to buy billions of useless German goods and services), Mr Christophorakos'
father was a well known Nazi collaborator.
So the seed was always there, and it has been always "manured and watered" by the Greek/US/UK/German
Elites to grow this nice "flower". There is NOTHING anti establishment about Golden Dawn, quite
the opposite actually...
Aided & abetted by the Daily Mail under Lord Rothermere, who also praised Mussolini &
Hitler!
These days Viscount Rothermere supports Call-Me-Dave and
the Fourth Reich, sorry, the EU Superstate.
I wonder where all those bankers, industrialists and economists from Vichy France, Nazi Germany
and all the many Fascist nations of Europe ever got to after the war? Bit of a mystery that,
perhaps they evaporated?
It is ironic that Golden Dawn venerate the Nazis considering how badly they treated the
Greeks during the war. Along with the rest of their ignorance they obviously know nothing about
history.
It is the same in Ukraine. It all depends whose history you have been taught.
The problem is that this political party is the only passionate cause at present within Greece
- in order to avoid a social conditioning, certain Greeks need to present some savvy alternatives.
Leftist parties may not gain popularity (due to a negative consensus towards Pasok) but a convincing
moderate option is vital for the stability and growth of the nation. It's scary when in order
for significant change to take place, certain radical (in the worst sense) notions get swept along
in the furore. I hope Greeks identify the warning signs with this party and that 'change' does
not need to involve extreme interpretations of nationalism - when patriotism descends into jingoism.
How about the Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council of of Ukraine and founder
of the Socialist Nationalist Party of Ukraine (now called "Svoboda"), Mr Andriy Parubiy? Perhaps
one of the other Ukrainian ministers from Svoboda's Nazis would be suitable?
The neoliberals strip the assets and divide the people - just like they are doing here with the
leech-like 'prosperity' in London and their hate foci (immigrants, unwaged, disabled, homeless
etc).
Wallowing in a continuing recession, are we surprised that opportunists from the right begin to
garner support?
Greece had fertile ground already for Golden Dawn, as the article makes clear, but this country
is not immune despite its strong cussed streak.
It won't be the 'nice' Mr Farage (an opportunist, but not a nascent hitler IMO), but those lurking
in the wings, a more forceful 'strong leader' as the Kippers grow in numbers.
I am afraid that its not exactly as the media describes....it suits everyone just to dismiss this
party becuse they are ...nazis!!
What the press here in Greece and over there do not mention
is that there is no democracy at this time in Greece...its worse than when the junta was here....and
as for Nazism....we are am more worried about the Nazis that govern us now that take direct orders
from Merkel than any other party.....
The seed of division in Greece is successful though and instead of uniting to try to save this
great country from this unbelievable carnage of its people and assets,we listen to the systemic
brain washing...we are living in a dictatorship of the worse type....if you don't live here you
cannot imagine.... and having a coffee in Syndagma for a day or a few days will not show you the
reality...or give anyone the material to make conclusions...
I saw all the mainstream news which usually avoid because they are all lying ...and I am
not a supporter of GD but a lot of the above are not exactly as they happened.
There is so much going on here with this story that you will never be informed of by the media,
that at least if your journalists make comments they should research it properly and I can assure
you if they have any sense of justice they would be in deep shock by the...democratic ways of
Merkels puppets....have a nice day...
See, you keep mentioning how the Germans are to blame for the last 5-6 years and quickly forget
what actually led to this is the 40+ yrs of Greeks electing the same corrupt politicians again
and again on the usual basis of what favor you'll get out of them to appoint your kid in a permanent
civil servant position etc.
Voting for the same politican accused of corruption time and again...even as he was laying
on his deathbed thousands were on the streets singing ''Αντρεα ζεις εσυ μας οδηγεις''.
But as ususal Greeks choose to blame others than accept their responsibility. And this is where
GD gets the power, because it feeds people the notion they're not to blame and offer them the
new target...foreigners! Far right nationalism has never been the answer....and to see the
greek flag being paraded next to the red GD flag and seeing Nazi salutes is sickening and...its
just won't end well if Hellas goes down this road...
When things go wrong for you, there's anger inside and it is often unleashed on somebody else.
There may be no one person actually to blame, but rather a massive group of circumstances, recession.
The obvious targets are newcomers to your society, (like here it was once the Irish but they've
blended in this time).
We are a tribal species. People coming from a difference place and we
feel threatened and are to be fought off, like a new male lion coming to a pride. Roar... blood.
There is more to it than that. People seem to love to ignore the basic economic law of demand
and supply and the affect population has on this law.
Increased population = increased labour (supply) = lower wages.
Increased population = increased demand for goods and services = everything costs more
and cost of living rises.
In balance immigration increases supply of labour at the same rate that it increases the demand
for goods and services. Not enough immigration can slow your economy, but too much puts stress
on the population and people without capital are the ones who feel it. This is because they are
on the supply side of the equation (labour) whereas people with capital get richer as they are
on the demand side of the equation (they own the goods and services).
Unfettered immigration will cause a rise in these sorts of political movements. Comfortable
middle class people can say what they like, but the people who are struggling know better. They
may not truly understand any more than the wealthier people do. But they notice that when they
apply for a job a foreigner beats them to it. They notice when they need accommodation availability
is scarce and lots of foreigners seem to be well housed. The truth is that the foreigners are
in the same position, but that is of little comfort to anyone.
Plus in the specific case of the Greeks they have just seen their Cypriot cousins life savings
literally robbed by the EU. What did people think was going to happen? The Greeks were all going
to join hands with the immigrants and sing Kumbaya?
Captialism is cyclic, which you pretty much describe in your comment. A nation is meant
to stash the cash while it's flowing so it has enough to spend when times are lean. When it doesn't,
it's pretty much shafted or has to borrow, which is what's been seen happening to Greece. Immigration
has nothing to do with it, and increased immigration is a sign of increased trade, and you have
to ask yourself where did all of the money actually go?
It is not so much due to the 'failure' of the Left that the neo-nazis of Europe are on the rise
again as to the machinations of the Troika, and in particular the bankers of Frankfurt.
Virtually every single cent of the 'loans' forced on the Greek people has ended up in the counting
houses of Frankfurt, Amsterdam and London, and then some. Meanwhile it is the Right, across Europe,
which has been the driving force. They are perfectly aware that mass impoverishment leads to the
rise of fascist gangs, and when Merkel & then Cameron spoke of the 'failure of multiculturalism'
they knew exactly which dogs they were whistling.
To try and explain this kind of behaviour I think it's important to realise that the majority
of voters for execrable causes are incapable of thinking for themselves.
Singing fascist songs,
waving flags and encouraging xenophobia is all well and good folks but spare a bit of time to
read a history book or two - do you really want your beloved Greece to end up being like Germany
in 1945?
Culpability for this worrying development lies chiefly in the hands of the established political
parties (I'm talking Pasok and Neo Democratia here) whose entrenched venality over a couple of
decades was incapable of dealing with the economic consequences of their recklessness.
Greece is not alone, though, in experiencing a shift to the right in politics.
The really concerning thing for those of us who know that history tends to repeat itself is
that there is a distinctly 1930's feel around Europe at the moment. i.e. Catastrophic economic
collapse followed by years of economic stagnation prompting disillusion with current political
class. This leads to the emergence of a new populist politics of nationalism topped with a generous
sprinkling of xenophobia as a tool to explain economic failure.
In the meantime the real culprits go on making money as before.
Part of the problem is that people tend to think the fight against fascism ended in 1945. The
fight against fascism will never end - there will always be opportunists and extremists who
think genocide is an acceptable solution.
I think we can take heart - though never be complacent - that history is not on their side.
The strongest fascist government in history ended in complete disaster and the more these people
openly declare their Nazi support the easiest it is to identify, organise and resist.
Read Russ Bellant, "Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party" 1988. Short, 90 pages,
and 377 endnotes. Concise and reads like a thesis. Explains German and East European Nazi trails
after 1945. Match to that, Ann Jacobsen's 2014 work on "Paperclip" operation (influx of Nazi scientists
to the US after 1945), or the original on that by Christopher Simpson, same title 1988. Also Tom
Bower, "Blowback" (1987) and Stephen Kinzer, "Overthrow," (2006). All those together were possible
by the Freedom of Information Act, 1960s, and are professional research presentations. Read and
draw your own conclusions. Add to your studies of current circumstances.
Real anger and the correct cause, the globalised banks that take money from the poor and give
to the rich. If only they could drop the racism.
Or is that being exaggerated because they are
anti-banking.
The words Fascism is thrown about a lot at the moment when it should be reserved for the true
fascists that are in government across the western world.
As Mussolini said Fascism is the coming together or corporations and the state.
I could understand people being "neo-Communists", after all it was the Red Flag banner of the
Red Army that flew over Berlin in 1945. But why neo-nazis?. The nazi regime lasted, what, 15 years?.
The nazi military, economic system, political system, and every other aspect of nazism failed
utterly. What is there to admire?. Given what they did to Greece, it seems a tad masochistic.
At least with the Romans we got aqueducts!.
Problem is that the people believing in nazism simply choose not to believe history. We're talking
religion here, with blind followers hell bent on implementing the One Solution to All Their Problems.
As a follower of Wilders in Holland noted, after a tiny scandal broke out over his affiliations
with known proto-Nazist clubs like Front National and Vlaams Belang: "Well Nazism is still better
than ISLAM!"
There is sadly no point in trying to reason with these people. They will have to fall on their
face really painfully all by themselves, and all we can do is hope they're not dragging us down
with them.
To quote Macmillan, "The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like
it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact."
Only this time it`s Europe,
and not Africa, where the wind of change is blowing.
Golden Dawn and its European affiliates are a direct result of the EU and the policies
it has been pursuing for the last two decades, i.e. Greater European integration, expansionism,
a one size fits all policy, and a currency union.
We are not so far removed from the situation in Greece and if people don't wake up and challenge
fascism whenever they encounter it we will sleepwalking into the same nightmare.
Britain
First have a rapidly growing following on social media sites, tricking people into liking their
posts and photos or donating money to them by using emotive subjects like patriotism, animal cruelty
and domestic violence. They even used pictures of Lee Rigby despite his family requesting that
they did not do so. Wake up Britain!!!
An important thing that was omitted in the article: There is strong evidence that some important
Greek shipping magnates are backing up financially the thugs of the Golden Dawn. They use
the neo-Nazi thugs to intimidate and threaten the left - wing and communist activists who demonstrate
in the Athenian ports of Pireaus and Elefsina, threatening the timetables and the logistics of
their shipping operations.
It might sounds like a detail, but, let's not forget that together with the Greek Orthodox
Church, the bosses of the Greek shipping industry are some of the most influential figures in
the Greek financial, political and public life. Moreover, one Greek shipping magnate, Mr
Marinakis, who is the president of the football club Olympiakos, established a new political party
in Pireaus, putting himself in the position of councillor while making leader of the party the
vice president of the football team, Mr Moralis ( in case you get confused where the footie ends
and where politics start, this is just a special Greek footie/politics mix...).
The name of the party is 'Pireaus - The Winner' and, surprise, surprise, they managed to win
the elections, putting out of office the previous mayor, Vasilis Mihaloliakos, who, while supported
from the Conservatives, he's also the first cousin of Golden Dawn's leader! To make things even
more interesting, after his recent defeat at the Pireaus local elections, V.Mihaloliakos made
the allegation at the Greek TV channel ''Sky' that was reported after at the Greek newspaper 'Ta
Nea', that: ''Golden Dawn gave a command to its supporters to vote the party of Mr Moralis'',
adding that ''I participate in the elections since 1974 and what happened (in the election day...)
has never happened before'' saying that muscular thugs were present at voting stations, that himself
was taunted and that there was a flagrant violation of the voting legislation. Does that sound
intriguing?
Wait because there is more spicy stuff: Back in 2009/2010 FIFA spotted that there were a series
of suspicious games in the Greek fooball league and then emerged a tsunami of recorded conversations
between various Greek football officials, players who were setting up games. The name and voice
of Mr Marinakis appeared in the conversations. (http://es.pn/1kIDjfi). And that of one of his
current players at Olympiakos Mr Anatolakis. Nothing happened to both of them. To show you the
depth of character of Mr Marinakis ( who recently uses the PR technique of philanthropy to close
the dark holes in his public image, putting UNICEF on Olympiakos T-shirts, supporting victims
of earthquakes at the island of Kefallonia etc...) after the Greek El Classico between the Athenian
teams of Olympiakos with Panathinaikos in 2011, Olympiakos won 2-1 with an offside goal and a
scandalously disallowed goal of Panathinaikos. Olympiakos thugs went in the football pitch, chasing
Panathinaikos players and trying to beat the then Panathinaikos striker Mr Djibril Cisse ( ex-player
of Liverpool, Sunderland and QPR in the UK...). The response of Mr Marinakis? 'If Mr Cisse wants
to leave from Greece without skirts and t-shirts, he can do it' ( referring to a previous photo
of Mr Cisse wearing a fashion skirt while going out in Athens...). At 1:00 and 12:07 of the followinf
video you can witness Mr Marinakis ethos - http://bit.ly/1kIEtaI. Intrerestingly, after the murder
of the Greek rapper and left wing activist (and supporter of Olympiakos...) Mr Petros Fyssas in
September 2013, all the Greek football fans of the big Greek footie clubs like AEK and Panathinaikos
and PAOK had banners in their stadium against the fascist murder. Only the Olympiakos' thugs/fans
chose the motto 'No Politica' regarding the event. And if you are surprised why the nearly bankrupt
Greek media are not investigating these issues deeper, let's just say that Mr Marinakis is known
to be the man with the most cash in his pockets in the Greek public life right now ( sources say
that he might have, in cash, around 550.000.000 euros...). Mr Marinakis is currently Chairman
of the Board of Capital Product Partners L.P. (http://www.capitalpplp.com/overview.cfm) .And a
proud councillor/local politician of ''Pireaus - The Winner''. And if it's all Greek to you, this
is just a humble introduction to the labyrinth of the Greek politics and culture in 2014.
It's hardly surprising given the way they have been treated by the Germans and the EU. When the
people are oppressed they will increasing turn to the more extreme political parties - and eventually
violence!
Actually it seems worse than that economic breakdown always delegitimises the political system
.
What the fools in the European banking system thought they were doing when they acted as they
did is inexplicable they had the history of preWar Germany in front of them.
History is for bumbling academics and weenie amateurs... Until it repeats. What was that Marx
quote again? First as tragedy, then as....
Brunotheface,
08 June
2014 11:33am
What you always find about those neo-nazi freaks is that after all the rivers of hatred, threats,
aggression and anger management issues, when they do finally seriously harm (ie murder) a victim,
they never own up to it - they never show courage of conviction.
And so cue the litany of
cowardly excuses and disclaimers "It wasn't really a roman salute, the arm just moved upward"....
or "...it's not true, we only reacted to a bad look we were given, it was the victim who fell
on to our knife, his fault for walking towards our flying bullet", etc...
Readers outside of Europe might not be aware
of it, but spring is the fascist marching season in the Baltic republics.
In Estonia on February 16; February 16 & March 11 in Lithuania (anniversaries of 1918 and 1990
declarations of independence); and March 16 in Latvia (March 16, 1944 was first day the Latvian Legion
fought alongside the Wehrmacht against the Red Army), local fascists parade to celebrate fascist
principals and fascist heroes, most of whom collaborated in some ways with Nazi Germany during World
War II while resisting the Soviet Union.
The big event for Ukrainian fascists is January 1, the anniversary of the birth of Stepan Bandera
(1909-1959), leader of the OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists-Bandera) fascist faction.
This year, 15,000 people marched by torchlight in Kyiv on January 1 to commemorate Bandera.
Eastern European fascism is a durable and alarmingly vital ideology. It is not just a matter
of atavistic affection for Hitler and Nazism by bigoted cranks.
And Ukrainian fascism is more durable and vital than most. It was forged in the most adverse conditions
imaginable, in the furnace of Stalinism, under the reign of Hitler, and amid Poland's effort to destroy
Ukrainian nationality.
... ... ...
Ukrainian nationalists, therefore, were unable to ride communism or bourgeois democracy into power.
Communism was a tool of Soviet expansionism, not class empowerment, and Polish democracy offered
no protection for Ukrainian minority rights or political expression, let alone a Ukrainian state.
Ukrainian nationalists turned largely toward fascism, specifically toward a concept of "integral
nationalism" that, in the absence of an acceptable national government, manifested itself in a national
will residing in the spirit of its adherents, not expressed by the state or restrained by its laws,
but embodied by a charismatic leader and exercised through his organization, whose legitimacy supersedes
that of the state and whose commitment to violence makes it a law unto itself.
That leader, at least for many Ukrainians of the fascist persuasion, was Stepan Bandera. The organization,
his OUN-B faction.
This state of affairs persists in today's successor to the OUN-B, Pravy Sektor, with its fascist
trappings, leader cult, and paramilitary arm. The "mainstreaming" of the second major fascist grouping,
Svoboda, looks more like a strategic repackaging in order to strive for greater electoral success
by hiding its fascist antecedents.
So, unfortunately for apologists for the current Kyiv regime, the correct description of these
two groups is not "nationalist" or "ultranationalist"; it is "fascist".
Fatally, the Ukrainian government has turned to fascist nationalism and heroes in order to
forge a post-Soviet, essentially Ukrainian, identity for the post-1991 state.
In a recapitulation of a trend in eastern Europe to resurrect World War II era nationalist fascists-some
of whom actively collaborated with the Nazis-as rallying points for anti-Russian sentiment, Bandera
has also been adopted as a Ukrainian national hero: in 2010 President Yuschenko posthumously (and,
according to a court in pro-Russian Donetsk, illegally) awarded Bandera the title of Hero of Ukraine.
The uncomfortable truth is that the government has invested enough effort into celebrating Bandera
as a national hero that the epithet "Banderite" that pro-Russian elements apply to the Kyiv regime
is not terribly far from the mark.
For obvious reasons, Russian propaganda has labored mightily to characterize Bandera as a Nazi,
so that he can be condemned as a collaborator with Hitler in his war on the USSR and the world, and
not an independence fighter against Russia and its brutal and extremely unpopular (for ethnic Ukrainians,
at least) rule over eastern Ukraine.
Actually, Banderan fascism, with its focus on establishing a pure Ukrainian state, was only tangentially
related to Hitler's expansionist extravagances, which centered on an apocalyptic war against the
"Judeo-Bolshevism" that, in Hitler's view, stood between Germany and its rightful place as lord of
a racially cleansed Europe and a global empire rivalling those of the United States and Great Britain.
Bandera was not an important Nazi collaborator, albeit because he was never given a real chance.
Ukrainian independence activists of every stripe threw themselves at the Nazis in the Thirties, seeing
Germany as the only force that could destroy both of their hated oppressors-Poland, for the western
Ukrainians, and the USSR for the eastern Ukraine.
However, the Nazis were contemptuous of Slavs, who were assigned the role of hewers of wood and
drawers of water in the new Aryan order. Ukrainian workers transported to Germany as laborers were
subjected to miserable and degrading treatment as they sweated for the Reich.
The notorious ethnic Ukrainian "Galician SS" and "Nachtigall" and "Roland" military formations
apparently were kept on a short leash by the Germans, did not accomplish a great deal during World
War II, and only saw serious action when the Nazis got really desperate.
The Nazis were above all determined to keep a tight grip on Ukraine, which was a central region
for their concept of a Slav-free Lebensraum for Germans and a key zone for their military operations
against the USSR. They recognized that Bandera's bedrock interest was in creating a Ukrainian state
free of anyone's control and were well aware of his tendency toward bloody mischief. The Nazis detained
him for most of World War II and only released in a "too little too late" effort to slow up the Red
Army as it drove Germany out of eastern Europe in 1945.
Post-war, a German officer made the telling observation that the war in the east was not lost
at Stalingrad; it was lost "long before that-in Kiev, when we hosted the swastika instead of the
Ukrainian flag!"
Stepan Bandera was an unapologetic fascist and terrorist whose OUN-B faction launched an unimaginably
brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing campaign through slaughter during World War II. Yale historian
Thomas Snyder, who is an enthusiastic cheerleader for almost all things EuroMaidan, draws the line
at exalting Bandera.
The Nazis killed tens of millions of anonymous strangers in the East as part of a war of conquest
meant to Germanize Europe to the Urals; the Ukrainians of the OUN-B murdered tens of thousands of
their neighbors while trying to rip a national state out of the social and political fabric of eastern
Europe.
Like Hitler, Bandera was keen to purify the "homeland" of impure elements. Unlike Hitler, Bandera
only had the chance to turn his fury on his enemies-primarily the Poles of Galicia–for a few months.
5000 Ukrainian police defected with their weapons to join Bandera's faction as Nazi rule crumbled
in Ukraine, and provided the muscle for the most notorious Bandera action of the Second World War:
the massacre of Poles in what is now western Ukraine.
Historians generally agree that Bandera's forces committed systematic atrocities in order to institute
a reign of terror that would drive out the Poles out.
Norman Davies:
Villages were torched. Roman Catholic priests were axed or crucified. Churches were burned
with all their parishioners. Isolated farms were attacked by gangs carrying pitchforks and kitchen
knives. Throats were cut. Pregnant women were bayoneted. Children were cut in two. Men were ambushed
in the field and led away.
Timothy Snyder:
Ukrainian partisans burned homes, shot or forced back inside those who tried to flee, and
used sickles and pitchforks to kill those they captured outside. In some cases, beheaded, crucified,
dismembered, or disemboweled bodies were displayed, in order to encourage remaining Poles to flee.
Various estimates calculate that somewhere between 35,000 and 100,000 Poles died in the Bandera
terror.
Bandera's champions point to the fact that he was still in German detention when the massacres
took place and there is no evidence that he explicitly ordered the massacres. But given his ideology,
his detestation of the Poles, and his role as the charismatic leader of his faction, it seems unlikely
his subordinates undertook this massive enterprise on their own initiative.
One of Bandera's lieutenants was Roman Shukhevych. In February 1945, Shukhevych issued an order
stating, "In view of the success of the Soviet forces it is necessary to speed up the liquidation
of the Poles, they must be totally wiped out, their villages burned … only the Polish population
must be destroyed."
As a matter of additional embarrassment, Shukhevych was also a commander in the Nachtigall
(Nightingale) battalion organized by the Wehrmacht.
Today, a major preoccupation of Ukrainian nationalist historical scholarship is beating back rather
convincing allegations by Russian, Polish, and Jewish historians that Nachtigall was an important
and active participant in the massacre of Lviv Jews orchestrated by the German army upon its arrival
in June 1941.
It's an uphill battle. Bandera had classified Jews as "second order enemies" thanks to their perceived
role as collaborators and adjuncts to the Polish and Russian strategy of "divide and conquer" against
Ukrainian nationalism. Anti-Semitism, indeed, is a staple of modern Ukrainian fascism and has undoubtedly
contributed to the emigration of 60% of Ukraine's Jews-340,000 people-since independence.
Shukhevych remains a hero to Ukrainian fascists today. Most importantly-since Bandera was assassinated
in Munich by the USSR in 1959 and left no issue-he serves as the direct lineal ancestor of Ukraine's
key fascist formation, Pravy Sektor.
In February 2014, the New York Times' Andrew Higgins penned a rather embarrassing passage that
valorized the occupation of Lviv-the Galician city at the heart of Ukrainian fascism, the old stomping
grounds of Roman Shukhevych and the Nachtigall battlaian, and also Simon Wiesnthal's home town-by
anti-Yanyukovich forces in January 2014:
Some of the president's longtime opponents here have taken an increasingly radical line.
Offering inspiration and advice has been Yuriy Shukhevych, a blind veteran nationalist who
spent 31 years in Soviet prisons and labor camps and whose father, Roman, led the Ukrainian Insurgent
Army against Polish and then Soviet rule.
Mr. Shukhevych, 80, who lost his sight during his time in the Soviet gulag, helped guide
the formation of Right Sector, an unruly organization whose fighters now man barricades around
Independence Square, the epicenter of the protest movement in Kiev.
Yuriy Shukhevych's role in modern Ukrainian fascism is not simply that of an inspirational figurehead
and reminder of his father's anti-Soviet heroics for proud Ukrainian nationalists. He is a core
figure in the emergence of the key Ukrainian fascist formation, Pravy Sektor and its paramilitary.
And Pravy Sektor's paramilitary, the UNA-UNSO, is not an "unruly" collection of weekend-warrior-wannabes,
as Mr. Higgins might believe.
UNA-UNSO was formed during the turmoil of the early 1990s, largely by ethnic Ukrainian veterans
of the Soviet Union's bitter war in Afghanistan. From the first, the UNA-UNSO has shown a taste for
foreign adventures, sending detachments to Moscow in 1990 to oppose the Communist coup against Yeltsin,
and to Lithuania in 1991. With apparently very good reason, the Russians have also accused UNA-UNSO
fighters of participating on the anti-Russian side in Georgia and Chechnya.
After formal Ukrainian independence, the militia elected Yuriy Shukhevych-the son of OUN-B commander
Roman Shukhevych– as its leader and set up a political arm, which later became Pravy Sektor.
Also after independence in 1991, the unapologetically fascistic Social Nationalist Party-with,
inevitably, its own paramilitary, Patriots of Ukraine-was set up under the leadership of Andriy Parubiy.
Parubiy left the Social Nationalist Party in 2004, when it became the vehicle for the political
aspirations of Oleh Tyahnybok and became the Svoboda Party. Parubiy's motivations are relatively
opaque, but I would argue he left to become the fascist Trojan horse inside Yulya Tymoshenko's Fatherland
party. Indeed, while Timoshenko's political clout dwindled during her imprisonment, Parubiy
was a key organizer of "volunteers" at Maidan and emerged as the secretary of the National Security
and Defense Council of Ukraine, charged with handling the "anti-terrorist" operations in the east.
Rather Panglossian analyses of Ukranian fascism usually take as their point of departure the dismal
showing of Pravy Sektor and Svoboda in the 2014 presidential election.
The two fascist parties polled less than 2% combined in the 2014 presidential poll. However, this
is probably a misleading indicator of their strength. Pravy Sektor's Yarosh had announced he wouldn't
run an active campaign, presumably as part of a deal at the behest of EuroMaidan's Western backers
to help Petro Poroshenko avoid a run-off with Yulya Tymoshenko. As for Tyahnybok, Svoboda got 10%
of the vote in the parliamentary elections of 2012, and it seems implausible that his backing has
completely collapsed after his high-profile role in the triumphant Maidan troika together with Klitschko
and Yatsenyuk.
In any case, as noted above, fascists do not regard the state, its constitution, and the electoral
process as the vehicle for Ukrainian national aspirations. That role is reserved for the leader,
the party, and the paramilitaries. What matters to fascists is their influence in the affairs of
the nation, and in Ukraine that influence is significant.
When eastern Ukraine rose up, the current Kyiv government, admittedly laboring under significant
disabilities of illegitimacy, incompetence, and penury, has experienced immense difficulties in rallying
a multi-ethnic Ukrainian nation. It was almost a foregone conclusion that fascist paramilitaries
would be called upon to supplement or even replace the wavering regime forces in the field.
In an eerie-well, perhaps, predictable-recapitulation of the OUN-B's opportunistic military
collaboration with the Wehrmacht, Pravy Sektor leader Dmytro Yarosh organized the "Donbass Batallion"
to assist the Ukrainian government's operations in the east. Pravy Sektor leaders and rank and file
have also apparently augmented if not formed the oligarch-funded Dniepr Battalion–currently one of
the few military formations operating in the east that is reliably and brutally loyal to the Kyiv
regime.
Even though it is plausibly alleged that Russia is inciting and abetting resistance, local resentment
against Kyiv and its heavy-handed tactics is undeniably present and apparently increasing, and perhaps
with it the need for fascist backbone and muscle to subjugate the unruly east.
The optimistic European scenario is for Ukraine's barely acknowledged fascist problems to melt
away as European integration and prosperity do their moderating work, and Ukraine emerges as another
Poland: politically stable, united, democratic, and reliably anti-Russian.
However, it is an ugly truth that Poland had its issues of national identity resolved by Hitler,
Stalin, and the Holocaust, which stripped away the complicating nationalities issues posed by its
German, Ukrainian, and Jewish populations. Before World War II, one-third of Poland's population
was "minorities". Today, Poland is 96% "Polish".
Ukraine, on the other hand, carries a legacy of division thanks to the USSR's administration of
eastern Ukraine before World War II, and Russian domination of the Kiev elite during the Soviet period.
About 18% of Ukrainians are ethnic Russian; but 30% of the population is native-Russian speaking.
In the western oblasts currently battling Kyiv, the percentage of Russian speakers ranges from 72%
(Dnipropetrovsk) to 93% (Donetsk). Crimea, now annexed to Russia, was 97%.
Unless the Kyiv regime unwittingly solves its problem by escalating the crisis to the point that
Russia annexes the eastern oblasts and removes Russian Ukrainians from the nationalist equation,
a plausible forecast for Ukraine is failure, polarization, poverty, violence-and fascist political
success as Russian ethnic and linguistic identity become signifiers for looming threats to the Ukrainian
state.
But in evaluating the outlook for fascism in Europe, it is a mistake to think fascists are just
fighting the last war-finishing up the de-Bolshevization and de-Russification of eastern Europe that
Hitler was only able to begin.
Communism isn't the only light that's failing.
Ukrainian fascists love the Russia-hammering NATO, but detest the Russia-accommodating and supra-nationalistic
EU.
And they aren't alone. Fascism-and anti-EU sentiment-pervade parts of Europe that never felt
Stalin's wrath. In the last elections for the European Parliament, "eurosceptics" and xenophobic
ultra-nationalists scored significant gains, led by Marine Le Pen, whose National Front took 25%
of the French seats.
A lot of it has to do with the equivocal track record of globalized neo-liberal capitalism in
the last decade. We're all Pikettyists now, and it seems that among the most important outcomes of
neo-liberalism are income inequality and oligarchs.
It is anathema to liberal democrats, but it should be acknowledged that fascism is catching on,
largely as a result of a growing perception that neo-liberalism and globalization are failing to
deliver the economic and social goods to a lot of people.
Democracy is seen as the plaything of oligarchs who manipulate the current system to secure and
expand their wealth and power; liberal constitutions with their guarantees of minority rights appear
to be recipes for national impotence. Transnational free markets in capital and goods breed local
austerity, unemployment, and poverty. Democratic governments seem to follow the free market playbook,
get into problems they can't handle, and surrender their sovereignty to committees of Euro-financiers.
Fascism, with its exaltation of the particular, the emotional, and the undemocratic provides an
impregnable ideological and political bulwark against these outside forces.
Fascism has become an important element in the politics of resistance: a force that obstructs
imposition of the norms of globalization, and an ideology that justifies the protection of local
local interests against the demands of liberal democracy, transnational capital, and property and
minority rights.
Maybe it's neo-liberalism, not fascism, that is facing a crisis of legitimacy and acceptance.
So the idea that fascism can be treated as a delusional artifact of the 20th century
and the challenge of fascism to the neo-liberal order can be ignored is, itself, wishful thinking.
Even if the European Union grows and flourishes, it will continue to have a hard time outrunning
the perception that it delivers its benefits preferentially to a limited subset of nations, corporations,
and individuals, at the expense of the many.
In eastern Europe, add to the incendiary mix the perception that the EU, that bastion of liberal
democratic and free market ideals, has very little will or even interest in standing up to Russia.
This sentiment will not exclusively spawn benign "Green" and "Occupy" progressive movement, that
combine their allegiance to democracy and human and individual rights with their well-earned reputations
for internal division, political impotence, and unwillingness to confront.
For some, resentment will, inevitably, congeal around nationalism and the perception that fascist
resistance, defiantly militant, uncompromising, and irrational, racial and undemocratic, exclusionary
and brutal, is the best instrument to achieve local identity and agency-power– in an ever bigger,
more dangerous, and less responsive continental order.
Fascism, I'm afraid, isn't just part of Europe's past; it's part of Europe's future.
Peter Lee wrote a ground-breaking essay on the exposure of sailors on board
the USS Reagan to radioactive fallout from Fukushima in the March issue of CounterPunch magazine.
He edits China Matters.
When the question (in particular this applies to the Russian security services) is about the activity
of the all-Ukrainian Union "Svoboda", noted the extreme nationalist position. Mol is on clearly defined
radical steps of the political establishment in Ukraine. Alone, as a rule, are afraid members, almost
the main enemy considering Irina Farion with its draft law on the Russian language. Other, non-natives,
lay on them and their future state. Who is right - the question is not rhetorical, but complicated
and with many question marks. However, it is clear to all: "Freedom" from the first days of stay
in the Ukrainian Parliament does everything to approve initiatives of protection of the Ukrainian
mentality at the legislative level. Deputies-members of Svoboda has developed the draft law on prohibition
of Communist ideology, the draft resolution on overcoming the consequences of the Soviet occupation
of Ukraine, a number of initiatives aimed at the protection and support of the Ukrainian language.
The approval of these documents is called to overcome Ukrainophobia, become an effective instrument
of the confrontation external aggression. Before you jump to conclusions, let's analyze the pros
and cons of this issue, see the arguments that, first of all, make you think. On this and other issues
in an interview with Oleg Tyahnybok, leader of Svoboda.
- Hello! Already for anybody not a secret, especially in the context of the events of the last
two-three months, which is organized by the political-ideological and military campaign in neighboring
States, which is delegated to local Ukrainian passport and Frank haters only Ukrainian in fact, was
an act of overt aggression...
- I will be brief, because deployed and literally an appraisal of the current events, I have already
expressed before and during the presidential campaign. In fact, the basis of misinformation anti-Ukrainian
policy of Russia began not today and not yesterday. It's a systematic plan of Kremlin propaganda
machine.
- What is Your opinion on the information policy of our state? - Ukraine has lost the information
war Russia... Ukraine has never led competent information policy. In due time, the late svobodovets
Yuri Ilyenko, one of the ideologists of our policy, supported the position of Ukraine's liberation
from the informational occupation of the nation. For a dozen years IN Liberty advocates for this
position, but when Ilyenko put forward this initiative, everybody was laughing at nationalists, saying,
boring, nobody needs
- as if any of the information war can't be. But it has been always! We continuously broadcast
the latest Russian soap operas and comedies, they show a humiliation of Ukrainians. There are even
phrases like: "Go away, I won't talk to you because you are even worse than the appearance of..."
. Ukraine needs to produce their own broadcasts by broadcasting them, including, and in the Russian
regions, where many Ukrainians! When they killed our 23-year-old head of the press service of "Svoboda"
in the Donetsk region Dmitry Chernyavskiy, the Russian media were told that this is actually the
Bandera killed the patriot. Able to tell about himself... Russian prosecutors opened a criminal case
against me for what I am in the 90's fought on the side of Chechen terrorists and killed Russian.
Nothing that I in Chechnya has never been? - Many say that the Parliament has exhausted itself.
- The Parliament has fulfilled its task. When the country was anarchy, together, we have coped.
For making important decisions this Parliament can still be used.
- There is an opinion that the Parliament does not meet the "moods" of people. Why it was selected
at the time of Yanukovych.
- Has a legitimately elected President of Ukraine. Further, logically, there comes time of the
Parliament. What will it be the time and the Parliament, the future will show.
- How to return the Crimea? If deployment Putin full-scale military operation in the East Crimea
should be returned by introducing Ukrainian troops. If the Kremlin will not allow this, the situation
with the Crimea threatens to escalate into a long-term phase of corruption. Then you need to act
through international diplomatic tools, socio-economic interventions and information influence on
the Crimea. It is necessary to increase the number of countries that do not recognize the Russian
occupation of the Crimea, to convince the international community to impose tougher sanctions against
the Russian Federation, its management and the Crimean separatists. In terms of socio-economic blockade
Crimeans should ensure that Ukraine has to live better than in the Russian Federation. By the way,
svobodovets Eduard Leonov underlined that the primary problem in Ukraine - help people who are suffering
in the occupied territory of the Crimea, so Svoboda will make maximum efforts for social adaptation
and support for people who are now in their home country became refugees. In this context, the head
of the Lviv regional Council svobodovets Peter Kolodiy literally said that the Lviv regional Rada
is ready to provide and today provides full stay Crimeans in the Lviv region. Here's a concrete answer
and our practical Affairs.
- Next steps?
- We began the process of restoration of the democratically-humane Ukraine. But at this difficult
time, the enemies of Ukrainian people are trying to sow discord between Crimean citizens and other
nationals of the same state. There are calls from the traitors of the Ukrainian people, who are on
the path of Pro-Russian separatism. Do not fall for provocations! We are Ukrainians and we are one
country! We, despite everything, trying to be a "cement" coalition "Freedom", "Hit", "Batkivshchyna".
After the Maidan, we have assumed the responsibility for the state of Affairs in the country. I am
convinced that if "Freedom" now depart from political life in the state, everything will fall apart.
Ukraine must not neglect the hard methods: to block the flow of water and light, or to establish
such prices, which will require another way to refer to Ukraine. Also urgently to bring lawsuits
in international courts for compensation of the damage from the annexation of the Crimea. And we
will make the maximum for this, in order to defend Ukraine and its integral part - Crimea. To share
Tags: Tyagnibok, Crimea, nationalism, Ukraine, interview Send To Print Source: 112.ua Noticed a mistake?
Please, select it with mouse and press Ctrl+Enter Add comment log in: 112 Ii Ig June 5, 00:29 With
respect to the Ukrainians and Ukraine, that would have not been mentioned now, but how to understand
this ? [censored] This is not a random phrase is part of the ideology of "Freedom". It does not mirror
the "whether Ukrainophobia", cat. insist on the Russian mediaresearch and so like the West? [censored]
[censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]
[censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]
[censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored] [censored]
[censored] [censored] Quote O. Tiahnybok 2004, "They were not afraid, as we now must not be afraid,
they took the machine on the neck and went into the forest, they trained and fought with the Russians
fought with the Germans fought jidvei and on the other evil spirits, who wanted to take away from
us our Ukrainian state... we Must pay Ukraine, finally, Ukrainians. These are young people and you,
gray-headed, that is the mixture which is most afraid Moskalenko-Jewish mafia, which today controls
the Ukraine". From the speech of July 17, 2004 at the rally near the tombs of the commander of the
UPA Klym Savur in Ivano-Frankivsk region. And the 5th place in the rating of the anti-Semites S.
Vizentalja 2012? quote reply [email protected] June 4, 12:58 I can not understand is why people
are calling to fight themselves do not take up arms and fight not going? Age is all quite draft.
And their children at my home when the popes with mothers or in London. Children to death to send
easily. Afghanistan nothing nautile there was a war on foreign soil. And here Ukrainians killed ukrainamerica
they,Pro-European.... THEY UKRAINIANS-CITIZENS of UKRAINE!!!! Not enemies. quote reply Angelina shportko
June 4, 07:26 Who are you and your Freedom afraid, you are just a regular degenerates. Abscess from
the times of WWII, sorry that Stalin all of you not destroyed in due time. quote reply RMPhiery 2
June, 15:43 to protect an integral part of Ukraine - cut off her water and light... Logic where?
quote reply FredM 4 June, 18:44 he is interested in the territory and not the people. this is his
logic reply quoting Alexander Timchenko 2 June, 15:31 Everything easier - federalization, and the
other way is simply not, besides it there is nothing terrible for Ukraine, I am sure that no region
will be part of Ukraine. Politicians, especially such as Tyagnibok, we must recognize that Ukraine
lives 2 different people, and everything will fall into place. After all, not a few countries in
the world that have already passed through it, and gave to each region of rights and freedoms - and
live quietly. Love cannot be forced. quote reply Olga_Mar 2 June, 15:00 I liked the idea of the beginning
of the process of restoration of the democratically-humane Ukraine". If what we see now in the East
is the beginning, the continuation scared to even think... quote reply naumovichi June 2, 12:27 The
last paragraph should be read in the following interpretation: Russia must not neglect methods hard
- to cut off the supply of oil and nuclear fuel, or to establish such prices, which will require
different attitude to Russia. Also urgently to bring lawsuits in international courts for compensation
of the damage due to non-payment of gas supplies. And we will make the maximum for this, is to protect
Russia and its integral part - Crimea. quote reply
Больше читайте здесь:
http://translate.yandex.net/tr-url/ru-en.ru/112.ua/analityka/oleg-tyagnibok-ukraina-ne-dolzhna-prenebregat-zhestkimi-metodami-70515.html
Actually far right got more then 20% because Timoshenko was not really far from Lyashko Yarosh and
Tyahnybok. So they are formidable political force, no question about it.
"Just three months Lyashko become the new idol zapadinsky shkoloty actively apostasy public
"Right sector" Vkontakte
The elections in Ukraine were held for almost a week ago. And despite that I still occasionally
come across talking point promoted by our desperate fighters against the regime (in particular, distinguished
efforts in this areas were demonstrated by Navalny, Sobchak, Nemtsov, Malgin, Adagamov, Aleshkovsky).
this thesis sounds as following:
"Haha, look, Yarosh with Tyahnybok in the elections for two scored only 2%, and therefore,
no "Right sector" and no Bandera scum in Ukraine. They do not exist and this all Russian propaganda,
ha-ha."
It does take too much effort to guess who is the author and the financial supporter of those talking
points, actually repeated almost literally by all Russian opposition leaders
But it is sad that some part of public swallowed this lie. So where for who Bandera followers
voted in those elections?
To understand the answer to this question, it is enough just to open the official results and
see what the third place on them with a slight lag from Timoshenko took Oleg Lyashko, who scored
11% of the vote.
He was the most aggressive most psychopathic candidate with criminal past. And the Presidential
candidate with the most frozen human conscience and rhetoric in this election campaign. He himself
went to Donbass at the head of a detachment of armed mercenaries, captured and tortured members of
local militias.
Such not very sophisticated electoral technologies
Therefore, no wonder that in just three months Lyashko become the new idol zapadentsev including
"Right sector" members represented in such social networks as Vkontakte, osting from pedestal of
the leader of banderovtsev both Tyahnybok, and Jarosz.
"Post-WWII Ukraine saw the struggle of anti-Soviet partisans in the West until the early
1950s, but also a large scale economic reconstruction."
What the LSE article fails to mention is that this post-WWII "struggle" was largely financed
and run by the CIA. Don't take my word for it. Chapter Five of the recently published
National Archives book, "Hitler's Shadow: Nazi War Criminals, U.S. Intelligence and the Cold War,"
contains some of these details. URL is
http://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/hitlers-shadow.pdf
Ukraine is what the 50th? 60th? consecutive and successful - meaning there will be zero repercussions
for the US elite - overt ousting of the ruler/government of a sovereign nation by the American
war criminal elite and there are people here who think that Ukraine signals the demise/downfall/backtracking
of the US? By what metric?
There is ZERO cry for the return of the democratically elected Ukrainian government in the
Western world.
There is ZERO cry for any action to make the US be subject to some sort of penalty or review.
Even worse the "Putler" meme is now so commonplace/ubiquitous in the West - thanks again, Hillary
and Prince C! - that one can see that the Cold War: Part Deux narrative has been successfully
rolled out - gee, it sure seems that whenever TPTB roll-out a new narrative they go big, huh?
Georgia? Belarus? Fuck that, bitches! - and that now NO ONE in the US can/will dare attempt to
stand in the way of any increase in military/defense spending to thwart Putler's latest dastardly
deed.
Yeah, I'm sure the CIA et al would only create false flags that can be blamed on crazy Muslims,
right? Wink.
Maybe this Ukraine business all was a necon plot originally but EVERYONE in the US Establishment
has fallen in line behind the new narrative in some aspect. TO A PERSON.
From where I'm standing the US has successfully 1) brought real chaos to Russia's borders 2)
rolled out their new narrative for the politicians, media whores, capitalists and military to
operate under and 3) avoided prosecution/justice once again.
Nothing's yet been rolled back and actually the chaos of Empire has been extended into new
"markets" in which it wasn't overtly present before. What's not to like?
Competing/fighting against ragtag MUSLIMS could only work for so long anyways, right guys and
gals? Sorry to all those victims - sorry, "terrorists" - caught in the US intel entrapment stings
over the years and who are rotting in US prisons for the rest of their lives. You guys were great
but The Show must go on!
Aside: Why, the Tsarnevs could almost be seen - from a common US imbecile citizen POV - as
"bridge" patsies connecting the two narratives - i.e., the GWOT and Cold War:Part Deux, huh? Mabel,
weren't those Boston Bombers like Russian or sumpthin'? Fucking Putler.
What next? If I'm a war criminal US elite member, I just keep stirring up shit in the Ukraine
on the cheap - for YEARS if need be - on the military/political/social fronts in hopes of provoking
Putin all the while just waiting and waiting until something happens that provides the opening
needed for furtherance of the plan. I hope Putler doesn't plan on retiring any time soon.
Oh, yeah, I forgot, we needn't worry about any of this shit because obviously the US dollar
is going to collapse, the polar ice caps are going to melt, the American Civil War: Part Deux
is right around the corner and a host of other fantastical scenarios are on the brink of occurring
all of which will peacefully provide the world with a needed respite from continued US war criminality.
My bad.
scalawag
"Poroshenko will be send eastward to pledge allegiance to Russia and to sign the unconditional
surrender treaty."
Doubtful. The west may have him offer a few cookies to the Russians, though, as a distraction.
"It all comes back to money."
"The key point here is that there can be no viable Ukraine without serious contributions from
both Russia and the West."
I seriously doubt the western fascists have thrown in the towel. What I think is the west may
be shifting gears. The western attempt to sucker Russia into invading the Ukraine using terrorism
against the people of eastern Ukraine isn't working. It sounds like the western banksters want
to scam Russia into paying for the western havoc wrought on the Ukraine, but probably without
offering them any sort of real "collateral" for their "investment". Perhaps it's just a ploy to
influence Russia with regard to the "Choco King's" holdings in Russia, and prevent their "nationalization",
or that of the other western aligned Ukrainian oligarchs.
If the west pulls their terrorists out of the east and sacks the mercs, then I'll believe they
might be actually backing off and be willing to forgo their strategy of using Ukraine as a way
to weaken Russia.Posted by:
VietnamVet
b Your analysis is balanced and thoughtful.
The novels "The Great Gatsby" and "The Quiet American" are portraits of Americans' as naďve
innocents who leave destruction in their wake; clueless of the damage they've done. An online
movie review of the remake of "The Quiet American" said 'Oh, Greene clearly communicated the rotten
roots of American involvement in Vietnam 50 years ago, and nobody cared then either.'
What is remarkable is how corruption and propaganda has seized the United States of America.
ULA is the sole source military space launcher for the US Air Force. The rocket engines are made
in Russia. Russia has prohibited their use in military rockets. It is a prime example of buddy
capitalism that gets a few people rich and guts national security, all at the same time. It has
not been mentioned in corporate media. Meanwhile, PBS had an interview last night with the head
of security for the Ukraine Junta last who blamed all of Ukraine's problems on Vladimir Putin.
There was no mention of USA and EU involvement in the coup or the ultra-nationalist anti-Russian
beliefs of the Putsch.
In the previous post there was a good discussion of trying to determine who attacked the Ukraine
Army position. This is important because it was a clear attempt to prod the Ukraine Army into
attempting to pacify the Russian majority speaking provinces and escalate the intensity of the
civil war.
It is clear that the Western Elite are spending money to gain access to Ukraine. Unless a neutral
Finlandized Ukraine is agreed to right now, Ukraine will split apart in a bloody religious civil
war that likely would draw NATO and Russia into a shooting war. So a few wealthy families can
get richer, the Ukrainians are relegated to hell, Europeans may face a freezing winter, and all
of mankind has a significantly increased chance of mass extinction.
somebody
Posted by: Alexno | May 24, 2014 4:41:53 PM | 34
I don't see the conflict ending any time soon either.
Ukraine's Yugoslavia moment came the day after the 22 February coup when the Rada voted to
abolish the Russian language at every level of government. The mainstream media casually dismissed
this act as meaningless because it occurred in the 'heat of revolution'. This is false. When
the barbarians storm the gates and there are 100 fires burning, what they choose to do first
tells you of their priorities.
Ukraine's new European overlords saw the Russian language as a bigger problem than their
country's skyrocketing debt-to-GDP ratio, rampant corruption and fertility rates which happen
to be among the lowest-of-low in the world.
Ukraine in its historic understanding as a safe place where different people can live together
is dead. Ukraine as a Ukrainian State or Ukrainian Derzhava is the now. Its ethos is similar
to what far-right politicians like Ruža Tomašić call for where "Croatia is for Croats and
everyone else is a guest"
As Ukrainians prepare for snap presidential elections Sunday, the biggest question is less
who will win than how much of the country they will have left to govern...
Nonetheless, the lack of a coherent, organized mass separatist movement has arguably been
the biggest problem for Kiev's central government, which instead has to deal with a sprawling,
shifting morass of sporadic violence it seems unable to contain. Roman Svitan, a security advisor
to Kiev-appointed Donetsk governor Sergei Taruta, estimates there are between 1,500 and 2,500
different armed groups active in the province, their membership ranging from one to 200 and
their number changing multiple times every single day. "I can't even tell you how things are
- in two hours it'll be completely different," he said...
The eventual victor will also still have to make do with Ukraine's underfunded, poorly equipped
armed forces, who are suffering increased losses in bloody battles with militia. Their failure
to dislodge the rebels has seen numerous pro-Kiev groups spawn and carry out unsanctioned vigilante
attacks.
No matter what Poroshenko does, he depends on a rump parliament (Ukraine returned to the
2004 constitution that restricts presidential powers) that is bent on Ukrainian unity by language
and culture not by diversity thereby de facto excluding large parts of the population, he lacks
any military power of his own, and he is faced by armed groups that have to be negotiated with
one by one.
"This full length GRTV documentary produced by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya examines the fictitious
land of "Nulandistan" (named after Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland) that has been
constructed out of Ukraine.
It depicts how the realities of crimes against humanity and political
oppression involving terrorist mobs are casually replaced by a World of fiction, in which real
"Western style democracy" prevails.
It deconstructs the rhetoric and propaganda of the Obama Administration and its European
allies regarding the crisis in Ukraine and takes a look at their growing frustration towards
the Russian media, particularly RT, for challenging their account of events on the ground in
what they have declared is an intensifying "information war".
The documentary starts with an examination of the EuroMaidan protests that both Washington
and the Western media have used to justify the instatement of an unelected self-proclaimed
regime in Kiev.
The May 2 Odessa Massacre and the political protest movement leading up to the referendums
in Donesk and Luhansk in East Ukraine are reviewed.
The underlying focus is to show how the reality of events in Ukraine has been been misappropriated
and propagandized to support US foreign policy and to justify tensions against Russia."
bevin
The great advantage people like ourselves, sceptics, critics of capitalism, enemies of imperialism
(for such I take most of us who gather here to be) have, over those who defend the system,
the think tankers, MSM pundits and the plump whores of Academic life, is that we think for
ourselves. We base our opinions on observation.
We look at the world and analyse what we see.
The conformists, who defend the system not out of conviction but in order to live prosperously,
win promotion and the respect of the powerful, are not encouraged to think beyond the narrow
parameters of what is permitted. Thus it is that, hidebound by ideology, they tend to drift
further and further away from reality until their policy prescriptions become suicidal and
the Empire that they worship, for fun and profit, collapses ignominiously into puddles of blood
soaked, worthless paper.
To be specific: the neo-cons, reviving the policies of the old British empire, using gunboat
diplomacy (which is no diplomacy at all) to keep the natives in order, policing the sea lanes
and controlling international trade and finance, employing modern equivalents of the Royal
Navy and the City of London, are a century out of date. The world that they excelled in understanding,
Admiral Mahan's world, the world of maritime empires based on sea power and international trade
across the oceans, is rapidly passing.
No wonder they double up-also at the behest of the billionaire oligarchs whose arses they lick-as
climate change deniers. The rapid disappearance of polar ice presages a rise in sea levels
which will put most modern ports out of business. And reduce the power of navies to nothing
more than that of expensive, unstable rusting platforms for missiles pointed inland. The days
of gunboat diplomacy are disappearing however not because of global warming but because, as
the recent Sino-Russian gas deal showed, the main trading routes are no longer sea lanes but
cross continental roads.
The old Empire, which became powerful because it stood astride the sea routes, and maintained
its power by controlling trade and finance, is becoming peripheral. Islands, such as Britain
and America are no longer secure but out of the way.
But such things, simple enough for us who have no investment in the Empire and therefore see
it without illusions, are beyond the understanding of the conventional, the conformists, the
Brookings Institution and the high foreheads who labour in the ideology factories of the Universities
and the media. In their world the Great White Father or Queen Victoria always rules and nothing
really changes.
If the US State Department wishes to take over Ukraine it will do so. Because it always prevails
in the end. If the US Department of Finance wishes to bring Russia to heel, it will do so because
it always does.
Or so at least it tells us: in fact it rarely does. It failed to make Iran submit. Its writs
are still ignored in North Korea. China, where politeness in an ancient art, finds it harder
every week to stifle a yawn or suppress a laugh when the US issues another threat. Successive
and ruinously expensive military expeditions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan,
across south east Asia, throughout Africa have left mountains of corpses and piles of rust
and rubble, cancer wards full of victims and generations of implacable disdain for their authors
but nothing tangible. Nothing in the way of reward, just long term expenses only sustainable
so long as the dollar maintains its reserve status. And that is wholly dependent on the goodwill
and self interest of Asian banks.
As the US has fought wars, since 1945, China has elevated itself, entirely by its own efforts,
from the depths of poverty and defeat. It is, once more, as it was until the 1880s and had
been for the previous two millennia, the most powerful economy in the world, lacking only those
armaments necessary to gunboat diplomacy, in which the US swims, vast stocks of weapons without
purpose, obsolete since the H bomb was invented and useful only to destroy capital. Which China
has no desire to do, because it has a perspective of future life, development and coming to
grips with real problems.
Whereas the Empire is dying, blind and deluded, drugged by self regard and hypnotised by a
past which it never understood because it used to be powerful enough to ignore reality and
comfort itself with its racist myths.
If the real issue of the future is that of the 1% against the 99%, the issue of the present
is to dispose of the nonsense that the 6% of the world's who are the United States can continue
to insist that the 94%, the masses of Asia, Africa and what was called the Third World-including
the hundreds of millions newly recruited by shock therapists trained in Harvard, from the Second
World-live lives which are nasty brutish and short simply in order to keep the "west" in the
style to which it has grown accustomed.
The importance of "b"'s post is that it reminds us how weak the Empire is and how vulnerable
it is to sustained criticism. It is not just that it can no longer control events in the world-in
which it has only the power to destroy and kill- but that this is becoming so evident that
its own subjects, on whose support, loyal patriotism and, ultimately, apathetic resignation
it relies for continued existence, are getting very close to revolting, as the bargains that
they made, as the price of their loyalty- rising living standards, full employment, old age
security, educational opportunities to social mobility and access to healthcare and other social
services- are dishonoured in this age of Detroit.
LolWut?
There is simply no viable alternative for Ukraine than to cooperate with Russia and to pay
the price that is necessary to do so. That is why Russia is just sitting back and waiting for
that simple truth to become evident.
while the Great North American Professor of Clueless-osity is busy preening about in front
of the mirror praising himself (***) for his apparently wonderful wonderful abilities to think
for himself (###) and while b's fawning mob of acolytes praise him for his apparently astute analysis,
Id just like to take the opportunity to point out that when the Ukrainians are dying in large
numbers from hypothermia this coming Winter, as they most assuredly will without a Gas Supply
to heat their homes,
Imagine the headlines . . . "Mr Putin, Turn on the Gas" (with it's somewhat ironic holocausty
connotations) , "Putin's Barbaric Russia Freezes sweet old Ukrainian Grannies to death"
etc etc
when those large numbers of Ukrainians are freezing to death, it is Russia that will be
blamed by most of the World's Media.
Not Yats.
Not Obomber.
Not Nuland.
Not Kerry.
Not Merkel.
Not Neo-Nazis.
Not even Banderistas.
So when the host states that there is "simply no viable alternative" other than to co-operate
with Russia, he is showing that he really hasn't understood the situation at all.
"The Chaos" IS "The Win!" - the non-co-operation of Ukraine with Russia IS the Win!
This should by now be crystal clear to anyone who even pretends to know what is going on.
IF this continues the host will soon be talking about Schwerpunkt's again, and declaring imminent
complete defeat of of the NATO-proxies being visible . . . honest . . just over the next hill
Last time I remember him using that phrase was July 2012, and well, . . . . .
How'd that work out last time?
here we are End of May 2014, and I hate to burst the bubble of all you magnificent self-declared
"self thinkers" but the Western created Islamo-Nutters in Syria, while certainly having suffered
some setbacks, are still far from gone.
Now no doubt the magnificent "self thinkers" referenced by the Great North American Professor
will waste no time at all telling me I'm talking nonsense, and engaging in there usual hilarious
bouts of self-righteous clueless apoplexy, and will use the recent "truce" that has apparently
been declared somewhere around the Syrian city of Homs, if Western Media reports are to be believed
(which, I admit, they rarely are) as some sort of evidence that the NATO-Proxies in Syria have
been completely defeated.
Well I'd just like to point out that "truce" has a very different meaning than "complete defeat"
So I'm more than just a little bit sceptical myself.
But unlike the Great North American Professor, I'm sceptical of just how well-deserved is this
pedestal you lot seem intent on placing the host (and by extension, yourselves) upon.
Now after watching Libya, Syria and now Ukraine, that you lot STILL don't get what is going
on, is frankly embarrassing to watch.
======
*** (what is it they say about "self-praise" again? I've forgotten. perhaps some of the truly
magnificent 'self thinkers', that the Great Professor himself has assured us populate these comment
threads, could remind me of the wording of that old saying)
### (not something I can say I have seen a lot of, from from the Great North American Professor,
but obviously he is far far more clever and far far more perceptive than one such as I, and can
see himself reflected in his mirror far far more clearly than mere mortals such as myself)
neretva'43
Interesting perspective of "the 130th richest Jew in the world" - Petro Poroshenko.
No matter how few people may take part in the Ukraine's presidential election on Sunday, the
outcome is known in advance – Petro Poroshenko, the US favorite rote son, will be declared
the winner of the race. The result will further split the country. Many regions refuse to recognize
as President this chocolate king who is notorious for pocketing government money. Poroshenko
has no chance to stop the bloody conflict even scrupulously carrying out all the orders given
by Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt. Besides, the mission of putting an end to
bloodshed has never been set by his US bosses…
Again, as it was in the case of Palestine, the Zionism is an iron fist of Imperialism and willing
one at that. This time in Ukraine. Social engineering that favorite tool of liberal (international)
oligarchy have made that the richest individual of Ukraine are Jews who comprise 0.2% (ZERO POINT
TWO) of total population. And yet THEY control everything. Nothing happens in politics by accident
nor those people are result of their entrepreneurial spirit and hard work. There is recipe behind
their "success". Moscow had managed to get rid of them but Ukraine, exemplar of client state,
is at mercy of various NGOs such as Soros who bring up those people.
This is anything but normal and I believe that majority of population is sick of both sides
- population which have found themselves in crosswind of oligarchical forces from three sides:
West, domestic one, and Moscow.
"The dissatisfaction with the oligarchs in the Donbass and Luhansk is great," Shmelyov said.
They are to blame for much of the suffering of local workers. "Social anger is growing, and
this will lead to a conflict between the population and the owners of factories and mines."
And that in turn may lead the new powers to nationalize those facilities.
Consequently, what
we are seeing, he continued, "is not only the increasing collapse of Ukrainian statehood and
the sharpening of regional conflicts in Ukraine. We are seeking the destruction of that liberal-oligarchic
model of social-economic development on which Ukraine had been developing in recent years."
Aleksandr Shatilov, a sociologist at Moscow's Finance University, agreed, adding only that
the tensions between workers and owners were growing not just in eastern Ukraine but throughout
the country. He predicted that it was quite likely that there would be "a war not only against
Kyiv but also against the Ukrainian oligarchs."
But there is a danger to Moscow too.
It is certainly true that the passions of the miners and workers in eastern Ukraine could at
least in the short term help Moscow to further undermine Kyiv. But their attacks on the oligarchs
as a group simultaneously pose a threat to the Kremlin because they strike at the basis of
the power of Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia.
neretva'43
The question is why? Why do countries such as China, Brazil and Iran, which have been subjected
to economic and geopolitical bullying by the US, refrain from unambiguously stating that the
acting regime in Ukraine was brought to power by the United States and its European allies,
and has therefore no legitimacy to rule, or hold elections?
The answer, in a nutshell, is class: in dealing with the imperial polices of Western powers,
these countries (like Russia itself) are hamstrung by their own oligarchs. Like Russian oligarchs,
the financial elites in these countries have closer affinity with their class counterparts
in the West than with their fellow citizens at home. To these folks, issues such as national
sovereignty and social justice are secondary to "peaceful" co-existence in a neoliberal world
order led by the US. Consciously or instinctively, they perceive cross-border alliances (or
hostilities) more as inter-class than international.
Very nice documentary. All Wikipedia editors who work on articles about the Ukraine crisis
should read it lol.
I have three main responses:
1. It's very hard to see how southeast Ukraine can remain part of the experimental Ukraine
state, after all that has happened. Clearly, the project to create a Ukrainian state has failed.
2. I never watch Obama, so I had forgotten what he is like when he talks. He acts like a person
who has still not gotten over selling his sole to the devil, and the fact that he is going to
spend eternity in hell constantly hangs over him. (Sorry to sound like someone from the Saker.)
3. I would like to get my hands on that trance song about Putin.
"The U.S. Agency ANNA-news: "Your account (newsanna on YouTube) disabled forever"
"On the evening of may 24, 2014, for 10 hours before illegitimate elections of the President
of Ukraine, the American Directorate YouTube without warning "disabled forever" was created
three years ago the account newsanna information Agency "Anna-news", destroying all our original
video and a list of over one hundred thousand real subscribers. Half an hour before this unprecedented
act Directorate was removed movie Slavyansk. Night. Shell hit people / Slavyansk. Night. A
shell hit the people" with the wording "members of the YouTube community noted one of your
videos as inappropriate. Your account got one warning in connection with the violation of community
guidelines. A warning will be valid for six months."
We fully agree that beat from the guns
peaceful sleeping residents Slavyansk - is unacceptable. This is fascism, what is said in the
movie "night of shelling Slavyansk fascist junta".
An unprecedented event in the journalistic community, since by the time of the destruction
of the channel, our international information Agency, the third year being the recognized leader
on the front subject, held at the official ratings first place also in category "Power", 4-th
category "State and Society", honorary 44-th place among all 5 thousand Russian-speaking world
news media and 126-th place among all 170 thousand major global Russian-speaking Internet resources.
Only in the YouTube audience of subscribers has exceeded 100 thousand people. Viral distribution
network has provided a multi-million dollar views of our materials.
But the injury and subsequent murder by fascist junta Italian journalist Andrea Rochelle
and his interpreter Andrei Mironov, whose voices are heard at the most scandalous record of
someone from the powerful forced to push the decision to destroy our channel scheme "ends in
the water."
As already wrote my colleagues, this is not the first attempt of the officials of the USA
and Ukraine to prevent our work due to objective coverage of the Ukrainian events.
Translation sketchy - sorry. The video is an audio recording of the mortar strike that killed
2 foreign journalists and wounded several other people, including another journalist saturday
in Slavyansk. Youtube killed ANNA's account 1/2 hour after deleting that video of the mortar attack.
I hope ANNA maintained their own archive of their work that they can reupload to another site,
and that they do this. And not rely upon another youtube account. Youtube is fucked up the ass,
the fascists there have deleted videos and accounts often that exposed Israeli atrocities and
criminality and critical material of American and Euro fascism, criminality and atrocities. People
use the scum because of their audience reach, but they constantly risk losing it all because of
the censorship.
I've been saying this for years, don't rely upon those disgusting sods. Use other venues. Both
Dailymotion and Vimeo in the west are less censored by Israeli and American fascists, and Vimeo
has better quality. All of the major Russian sites are better and less censored. If one feels
they must use youtube, use it as a secondary, expendable site.
scalawag
The recent censorship in the western media goes beyond youtube:
"Unforgettable Jennifer Psaki in recent days again pleased the public with their original statements.
For example, insolently saying that captured by the Germans Kiev junta TV journalists Life
News carried in the trunk of a car MANPADS. This time the speaker of the state Department lucky.
At a press conference was not corrosive journalist who'd asked what MANPADS. Otherwise repeated
history from the "election roundabouts".
Laughter with laughter, but the statements of the
representatives of the USA clearly show that official Washington does not intend to abandon
the anti-Russian hysteria and pressure. As stated by the same Psaki, signing a gas contract
between Russia and China will not affect the U.S. strategy in terms of putting pressure on
Russia. Does not stop the White house even what he gradually finds himself isolated and alone,
losing allies are ready to bring their economic interests in the sacrifice of geopolitical
ambitions of the USA.
Anti-Russian hysteria, the policy of double standards and an outright lie cause resentment
and Western media, is increasingly acting exposures imposed by their own governments propaganda.
Journalists do not stop even unfolded in Europe and the USA repression against dissidents media.
After the publication of the fact that journalists The New York Times found no evidence
of Russian involvement in the events in Slavyansk, was fired its chief editor Jill Abramson.
The same fate befell the chief editor of the French newspaper Le Monde Natalie Nougayrede
and broadcaster Finnish TV station Jari Sarasua, talk show which was closed because of an interview
with a famous Finnish defender Johan Beckman about the situation in Ukraine.
German journalists held a mass rally claiming harassment from the authorities, not giving
them the opportunity to tell the truth about the Nazis in Ukraine and the mass murder of citizens
in Odessa."
The gist is despite that some western governments and media are taking a less hostile attitude,
the hardcore fascists in the western establishment are pressing full steam ahead to mess up the
Ukraine and with their "great game" inspired assault on Russia (if one can use a term like inspire
to describe the limited thinking processes of those in this Aryan knuckledragger/Stern Gang goatfucker
alliance of gangsters, to put it graphically).
Protest was held in front of the building of the General Prosecutor's in Kiev. Protesters demanded
the prompt investigation of resonant criminal cases. A group of residents of the capital required
impartially to investigate the massacre on the Maidan and the burning of people in Odessa.
About three dozen of people participate.. According to them, the law enforcement covers those
who ordered those horrible crimes - Igor Kolomoisky and Andrew Parubiy.
"An objective investigation no, although involvement in Odessa tragedy Kolomoisky said the former
Governor of Odessa Vladimir Nemirovskiy," says Darya, the organizer of the rally.
Earlier, ex-Chairman of the Odessa police Dmitry Fuchedzhi accused of involvement in Odessa tragedy
the current head of the NSDC Andrew Parubiy.
Сторонник новой киевской власти, командир батальона "Донбасс" Семен Семенченко
рассказал "Дождю" о том, почему стал воевать, чем Славянск, по его мнению, похож на Чечню, и сможет
ли Украина стать прежней. Интервью Тимура Олевского.
Олевский: Кто люди, которые поддерживают сепаратистов? Часто
бытует мнение в самой Украине, что основной костяк людей, которые сражаются сейчас в Славянске, это
люди из России, что вся эта история пришла из России. Как вы представляете себе этих людей?
Семенченко: Давайте посмотрим, как это все начиналось. Начиналось
это после победы Майдана в феврале этого года. Первый митинг, на который вышел народный губернатор
Губарев и заявил о том, что мы за Россию. Митинг собирала Партия регионов. Собрали бюджетников, привели
со всех городов, и потом так получилось случайно, что пришел Губарев, ему дали выступить, и он этих
людей очень быстро зажег идеей России, федерализации, сыграв на то, что наши деньги отбирает центр.
После этого мы видели, что все митинги за Россию собирались директорами предприятий, шахт, бюджетных
учреждений, мэрами областных городов, то есть всеми теми людьми, которые изначально работали именно
с правящей Партией регионов.
Россия тут абсолютно была ни при чем. Финансировалось это за счет местных предпринимателей,
предприятий и прочее. Нагнетались антиукраинские настроения. Два примера – практически на каждом
предприятии снимали так называемые 15% на восстановление Майдана. Представьте, если у человека, у
шахтера забирают зарплату на восстановление Майдана, причем Майдана, которому культивировали ненависть
еще месяца три до этого. Потом стали снимать на Национальную гвардию. Вроде бы все об этом знали,
но никто ничего не делал.
Олевский: Зачем это делать местным?
Семенченко: Затем, чтобы посеять ненависть, раскачать народ,
чтобы Украина воспринималась как нечто чуждое. Для чего это все делалось? По моему глубокому убеждению,
прошел такой же процесс, как в 2005 году, то есть власть была потеряна Януковичем и местной всей
шайкой. После этого начался торг, чтобы им оставили их привилегии, дали возможность воровать из бюджета
дальше, сумасшедшие там деньги на угольную отрасль выделялись и распиливались. Они хотели повторить
то же самое, что было в 2005: закрепиться, сохраниться, а потом прийти и победить опять. В процессе
этих торгов они пугали центральные власти сепаратизмом. Убийства на митинге, 13 марта был убит человек,
это при мне происходило, просто его зарезали, все эти бойни не российскими диверсантами производились,
а местными "титушками", то есть криминалитетом, который использовался и год, и два, и три, и четыре
назад именно Партией регионов.
Что происходило дальше? Дальше те силы, которых подняла со дна Партия регионов,
все эти гопники, все эти бывшие монтажники, слесари, они почувствовали, что они могут стать кем-то
еще: народными мэрами, губернаторами, Че Геварами, они могут отжать что-то. Посмотрите, в Донецке
уже вывезли все автомобили из салонов, потому что реально идет мародерство. Эта сила начала выходить
из-под контроля, она начала действовать самостоятельно. Появилась группа авантюристов, эти люди никакого
отношения к ГРУ не имеют сейчас. Да, они обстреляны, они поймали кураж, я их по-мужски уважаю, но
это все группы, которые самоорганизовались, которые получили добро каких-то там властей, и от безнаказанности
начали делать все более и более масштабные вещи. Они начали захватывать сбушников, контрразведчиков,
что само по себе смешно.
Дальше к этому добавилась масса людей, которые раньше поддерживали Партия регионов,
а сейчас они были оболванены пропагандой – и российской, и местной. Эти люди считают, что в России
сказочное царство, а Украина – это царство мрака, везде им мерещатся бандеровцы. И многие из этих
людей сейчас искренне стоят на митингах и блокпостах.
Олевский: Был ли здесь спецназ ГРУ или нет?
Семенченко: И самая маленькая часть – это как раз приезжие из
России. Ведь Россия тоже и в ответ на просьбы местных сепаратистов, и желание играть свою игру, присылают
своих людей, но я думаю, что это самая мелкая часть. Возможно, здесь и были какие-то инспекторы ГРУ,
возможно. Но извините, когда власть посылает танки и бронетранспортеры в центр города, то есть делает
то же самое, что и Россия сделала в Грозном, эту тупость, и их блокируют, то зачем тут нужны грушники,
если в поддавки играет сама украинская власть? Я так подозреваю, что некоторым кругам в правительстве
Украины было выгодно отвлечь людей от проблем, поднятых Майданом: коррупции, тотального воровства,
отсутствия национальной идеи.
А ведь когда вес переключились на защиту Родины, начался патриотический подъем,
патриотическая истерия, можно сказать. Стало уже не до разборок, где, кто в парламенте, кто кого
просунул на должность, кто у кого украл. Отвлечь внимание от этих процессов было выгодно некоторым
кругам в Киеве. И когда интересы местных кланов, некоторых кругов в Киеве, интересы, скажем так,
этих низовых групп люмпен-пролетариат, которые подняли наверх, соединились, получили то, что получили.
Олевский: Вы стоите практически с позицией борьбы с коррупцией,
которая привела к развитию сепаратизма. Если это так, тогда почему, например, Игорь Коломойский,
который является бизнесменом-олигархом, дает деньги на ваш батальон?
Семенченко: А кто сказал, что он дает нам деньги?
Олевский: У нас такая информация есть. А как строится формирование
финансовое?
Семенченко: Очень просто. Я в Фейсбуке 15 дней назад объявил
о том, что у нас создается такой батальон. У нас есть номер расчетного фонда, куда перечисляются
деньги, у нас есть предприниматели, которые привозят продукты, у нас есть люди, которые не получают
деньги. Если бы вы зашли внутрь, вы бы увидели… Вот вы видите, идет человек, у него кроссовки на
ногах, у него даже нет берц. Мы первое время спали исключительно на матах. То есть все это, как это
трудно поверить, правда, сегодняшней России и Украины, делается за счет пожертвования людей, потому
что мы нах… никому кроме людей не нужны. И как только мы перестанем быть нужны, как только они увидят,
что мы очередное картонное подразделение, это все закончится.
Олевский: А скольким людям в Донецке нужны, как вы считаете?
Семенченко: Я видел митинги за Украину и в пять тысяч человек,
и в десять тысяч человек. Я лично считаю, что большинство за Украину, но существует большая часть,
которая называется болото.
Олевский: А как относится к тому, что если люди, которые выступают
против Украины, за Россию? Они же существуют, к ним же тоже надо прислушиваться.
Семенченко: Конечно. По моему расчету, это 20%, и мы готовы к
ним прислушиваться. Смотрите, если он выступает за присоединение к России, как он может отстаивать
свои права? Первое – выбираться в Верховную Раду, принимать закон о референдуме, и этот референдум
проводить, присоединяться, или каким-то другим путем. А что происходит? Наглая ложь, циничная по
телевизору о каких-то бандеровцах, о "Правом секторе", о том, что извините, убивают человека на митинге,
это пресс-секретарь "Свободы", 19-летний парень Дмитрий. По российскому телевидению показывают, что
это пророссийские митингующие убили бандеровца. То есть наглая ложь – раз. Второе – похищение людей,
убийства людей, запугивание людей, штурмы админзданий.
Что они все говорили про Майдан? Почему они штурмуют здание? Они сейчас копируют
один ко одному. То есть их действия, я считаю, что это действия фашистов. Современная Россия – это,
к сожалению, фашистская страна, она становится именно такой. Не тот фашизм, который был в Испании
классический или еще что-то, а тот, который себе представляем, что такое фашизм – наглая ложь, угрозы,
запугивание. Это как раз то, в чем обвиняют украинскую сторону.
Нам не нравится правительство, которое в Украине, в этом мы схожи с теми, кто
за Россию. Но я никогда не соглашусь, чтобы на нашей земле просто творили беспредел, а именно это
и происходит. Вот и все.
Олевский: Как вы оцениваете будущее людей, которые с оружием
в руках сейчас защищаются в Славянске, что с ними будет?
Семенченко: Я думаю, что, скорее всего, их амнистируют.
Олевский: Почему?
Семенченко: Потому что если бы не было игры в поддавки с киевскими
властями, это давно бы уже закончилось. Пример – народный губернатор Губарев два месяца назад, абсолютно
безумные действия: захват казначейства с сорока людьми, хождение по городу, заявления. Потом человек
садится дома с журналистами и ждет, пока его арестуют. Я прекрасно понимаю, что он это сделал, получив
гарантию неприкосновенности, что он посидит два месяца и выйдет героем. После этого три раза его
пытались обменять на захваченных заложников, Киев сам его пихал каждый раз – поменяйте, нате вам
Губарева. Когда в последний раз Якубовича похитили, хотели поменять на него Губарева.
Олевский: Игорь Якубович?
Семенченко: Нет, Николай Якубович.
Олевский: Это, по-моему, силовой блок возглавлял Сергей Тарута.
Семенченко: Да, и потом отказалась вот эта православная революционная
армия менять его, они сказали, что им Губарев не нужен. И, в конце концов, Губарева перед 9 мая дали
народу вождя. Я, кстати, с уважением к нему отношусь, он лидер достаточно пламенный, хотя и врет
людям. Я думаю, что потом будет очень много проблем с теми людьми, которых он сейчас поведет за собой.
Олевский: А что будет 9 мая, как вы думаете?
Семенченко: Я думаю, что 9 мая будут очередные захваты админзданий.
Я думаю, что 9 мая будет вовсю раскачиваться истерия – наши деды воевали, бей бандеровцев. Будет
по максимуму это делаться.
Олевский: Вы работаете в сотрудничестве с милицией, тем не менее.
Семенченко: Мы не сотрудничаем с милицией. Сейчас я не вижу государства
Украина. Я вижу то государство, которым она может стать, ради этого мы здесь. И я вижу некую сетевую
структуру, в которую входят журналисты, члены парламента отдельные, какие-то правительственные чиновники,
врачи, отдельные работники милиции, в том числе на высоких должностях, сбушники отдельные. Эти люди
– патриоты Украины, и они между собой пытаются координировать свою деятельность. Вот именно в таком
формате – в сетевой структуре патриотов мы сотрудничаем. Что касается обычной милиции, я не готов,
тут очень большое количество предателей.
Олевский: А почему получилось, что милиция в Донецке настолько
нелояльна к Киеву и не подчиняется?
Семенченко: Давайте посмотрим. Во-первых, из кого состоит милиция,
это естественный отбор, остаются люди, в основном, для коррупционных схем. Идет выбраковка каких-то
патриотов, выбраковка профессионалов – раз. Второе – они сами стали жертвой пропаганды, они сами
рассказывали об отрубленных руках беркутовцев на Майдане, рассказывали, как "Беркут" жгли коктейлями
"Молотова", и они в это верят сами. Третье – меркантильные соображения, им рассказывают, что они
будут получать 1200 долларов, когда будут служить в российской полиции. Четвертое – большинство из
них трусы, они деморализованы. Сегодня 40 человек с макетами автоматов пришло в красноармейский РОВД,
положило ментов лицом в грязь, и они там лежали себе спокойно. И это и есть их реальное место сейчас.
Есть, конечно, отдельные люди. Есть замначальника РОВД Горловки, который до последнего сражался,
есть другие патриоты, но их очень мало.
Олевский: Арсену Авакову вы сейчас доверяете?
Семенченко: Арсен Аваков – это единственный человек, который
нам помог, когда нас заблокировали, около 500 человек, было оружие на нашей базе.
Олевский: В вас стреляли там, да?
Семенченко: Стреляли, да.
Олевский: А вы?
Семенченко: Мы стреляли в воздух или отсекающие в асфальт. Мы
хотели избежать жертв. Так вот "Беркут", который вызывали для того, чтобы нам помочь, ждал, пока
мы кого-то убьем, чтобы нас забрать. Они этого не дождались, "Альфа" пришла поздно, единственное
– прислали вертушку из Днепропетровска. Сделал пару заходов якобы на боевое и, по сути, разогнал
большую часть людей. Я не знаю Арсена Авакова, но я вижу, что только он в этот момент нам помог.
Если про него будут говорить какие-то гадости, я буду их как минимум проверять.
Олевский: Если вам удается кого-то задержать из сепаратистов,
что вы делаете, какие ваши действия?
Семенченко: Я не могу вам ответить на этот вопрос.
Олевский: Вы их отдаете сотрудникам милиции?
Семенченко: Отдавали раньше.
Олевский: А сейчас?
Семенченко: А сейчас я не готов это с вами обсуждать. Я могу
с вами только фантазировать, здесь насаждается Чечня с похищением людей, с охотой за головами. Если
я вижу, что похищают журналистов, "Патриотов Украины" прямо на улице, причем как Якубовича, прострелив
ему ноги фактически, а власть бездействует. Какой вариант освобождения этих людей – обмен на равнозначных
заложников. Тактика заложничества – это очень плохо, но в данном случае я не вижу другой альтернативы.
Олевский: Сколько сейчас находится заложников в Донецкой народной
республике?
Семенченко: Я так подозреваю, что убитых людей гораздо больше.
По нашим подсчетам, около 15 человек уже. Это как на Майдане, это еще всплывет. Что касается заложников,
ко мне только пришло за последнюю неделю от 10 человек СМС-ки, что их мужья, братья находятся в заложниках,
сообщили, кто с нашей стороны украинской ведет их дела. Но, к сожалению, безрезультатно, как минимум
эти 10 человек находятся точно.
Олевский: Кого обычно берут в заложники?
Семенченко: Ту часть категории, на которую хотят воздействовать,
или ту часть категории, похищение которых можно хорошо распиарить. Ведь цель – это либо обмен на
своих людей, либо запугивание. Журналисты – самая незащищенная категория, активисты, "Патриоты Украины",
которые так или иначе участвовали в общественной деятельности. И третья категория – это какие-то
чины, типа ОБСЕ. Третья причина, почему их берут, это, чтобы защититься их телами от штурмов. Я вообще
в шоке был, когда услышал, что вполне нормально принимается тактика закрытия женщинами, детьми.
Олевский: А что будет в Славянске дальше? Как вы думаете, чем
закончится?
Семенченко: В зависимости от того, как будут дальше развиваться
события в стране.
Олевский: От кого это зависит?
Семенченко: От народа.
Олевский: А от России зависит?
Семенченко: От России сейчас не зависит, потому что позиция России
уже понятна, она будет помогать очень прагматично, то есть в зависимости от успехов, которые будут
иметь сепаратисты, никакого вторжения не будет. Это первое. Второе – все зависит от народа, если
народ выйдет на авансцену третьим игроком, то тогда может все быть по-другому. Если нет, то изобразят
большие трудности, запугают человеческими жертвами, всех амнистируют, возможно, отдадут область.
Олевский: А вы предполагаете, что Донецк отходит?
Семенченко: Конечно, я могу рассматривать такие варианты, но
я понимаю, что реализация этих сценариев зависит не просто от сценаристов, но еще от развития событий,
поэтому может быть по-всякому. Но реально я предполагаю, что сейчас система управления Донецкой области
уже нарушена, и можно при определенных обстоятельствах эту область потерять.
Олевский: 11 мая состоится так называемый референдум? Что будет
12?
Семенченко: Я не вижу причин, чтобы он не состоялся, поскольку
сегодня депутаты Донецкой народной республики все-таки проголосовали за проведение этого референдума.
Однако я не вижу, в чем его опасность. Он незаконный, если власть перестанет его пиарить и все. Чем
больше мы будем повторять "референдум", тем больше он станет легитимным и все.
Олевский: Америка утверждает, что Россия виновата во всем, что
происходит на востоке, или, по крайней мере, имеет большое влияние. Согласны ли вы с этим утверждением?
Семенченко: Америке выгодно обвинять Россию. Как бы мы ни относились
к Путину, как бы мы ни относились к той воровской системе, которая построена сейчас в России, все-таки
Россия как государство тоже имеет свои интересы, как и США. Просто реализуются они не всегда чистоплотными
людьми. Так вот, в интересах Америки опускать Россию и наоборот. Поэтому я с большой разборчивостью
отношусь к подобным заявлениям. Как минимум я не знаю, я не имею информации и не отношусь к кружку
конспирологов, чтобы воображать, что я все знаю. Я вижу то, что вижу.
Олевский: Как быть с такими разными мнениями у людей? Как их
примирить?
Семенченко: Прежде всего, убрать преступников.
Олевский: Это задача вашего батальона?
Семенченко: Нет, конечно. Задача нашего батальона добровольческого,
если бы нас легализовало Министерство обороны, - это помощь в разблокировании зданий, это их защита,
это борьба с вооруженными группами. Сейчас выполнить эту задачу масштабно мы не можем, мы способны
только к диверсионным действиям и служить примером для народа. Заходить в город с какими-то частями,
защищать митинги активистов и прочее. Но у нас нет инструкторов, у нас нет нужного оружия, у нас
нет этой подготовки и поддержки. Я реально представляю наши силы. Это задача власти, причем сил больше,
чем достаточно. Блокируется все и наводит на мысль, сейчас сценарий немножко другой.
Олевский: Такое ощущение, что украинская армия очень слабая,
и что она очень медленно и неэффективно действует в Славянске.
Семенченко: Приказы, это только в приказах дело. Сидят люди в
Луганске, воинская милиция окопалась в административное здание горсовета или администрации. Говорят
так: "Мы сейчас им устроим второй Сталинград", это "бандеровцы" говорят пророссийским. Начали нападать,
пророссийские их отбили. Вместо того, чтобы идти дальше в наступление, часть вдруг отводят из укрепленного
здания на аэродром, на переформирование. Как это воспринимать?
Олевский: А как вы это воспринимаете?
Семенченко: Как предательство. Но эти люди себя предателями не
считают, для них Украина просто ничто, они живут… навряд ли это космополиты. Скорее всего, это просто
пережиток неофеодального общества, то есть они каста господ и неважно, как эта страна называется,
поэтому быдлу можно давать все, что угодно. Ведь после Януковича ничего не изменилось по большому
счету, только наиболее одиозные представители ушли. С нашей точки зрения, это предательство. Но я
не буду врать, таких, как мы, достаточно мало. И это очень неудобно быть такими людьми, потому что
мы как прыщ на заднице.
Олевский: А как вы стали человеком в черной форме с надписью
"Украина. Военные силы"?
Семенченко: Сначала были на Майдане, потом были в самообороне.
Потом увидели все это и для себя прояснили, сделали выводы, потом попытались делать то, что мы можем.
Олевский: У вас есть семья?
Семенченко: Конечно.
Олевский: И что они думают по поводу вашей деятельности?
Семенченко: Семья поддерживает, но не понимает. Я понимаю мою
супругу, ей гораздо проще, если бы я был такой же, как и все, просто жил бы, смотрел телевизор, в
трениках пил пиво. По большому счету, этот вирус, эти гены патриотизма очень неудобны для их носителей,
но мы такие, какие есть. Поэтому семья поддерживает, но не во всем понимает.
Олевский: Украина будет прежней после Майдана?
Семенченко: Если Украина сохранится, то она прежней уже не будет,
мы этого не дадим. Как только закончится здесь фаза острого противостояния, мы тут же займемся тем,
что происходит в Киеве. А дальше уже как Бог даст.
Олевский: Когда люди безоружные останавливают военную технику
руками, они для вас враги или нет?
Семенченко: Это миф. Я знаю, как изнутри выглядит все это действо.
Находится координатор, находятся люди, которые за деньги собирают других людей, это группа, костяк.
Все остальные местные жители обрабатываются в течение нескольких дней страшными страшилками. Менты
местные очень пугают этих людей и стоят, в основном, для того, чтобы они не разбегались. Решается
это моментально, например, созданием территориальных частей из местных, которые просто пройдутся
по людям и поговорят с ними. Изолировать негодяев, которые платят за этот беспредел, и все будет
нормально. Это не наши враги, это люди оболваненные, им же говорят, что сейчас будут убивать, что
едут бандеровцы, но это ложь. Это элементарно все делается при желании, тем более, если есть государство.
У нас пока государства сейчас нет, есть сетевая структура из патриотов, ну и сетевая структура из
негодяев.
LE CHESNAY, France - At a rally last week near the Palace of Versailles, France's largest far
right party, the National Front, deployed all the familiar theatrics and populist themes of nationalist
movements across Europe.
A standing-room-only crowd waved the national flag, joined in a boisterous singing of the national
anthem and applauded as speakers denounced freeloading foreigners and, with particular venom, the
European Union.
But the event, part of an energetic push for votes by France's surging far right ahead of elections
this week for the European Parliament, also promoted an agenda distant from the customary concerns
of conservative voters: why Europe needs to break its "submission" to the United States and look
to Russia as a force for peace and a bulwark against moral decay.
While the European Union has joined Washington in denouncing Russia's annexation of Crimea and
the chaos stirred by pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine, Europe's right-wing populists have
been gripped by a contrarian fever of enthusiasm for Russia and its president, Vladimir V. Putin.
"Russian influence in the affairs of the far right is a phenomenon seen all over Europe," said
a study by Political Capital Institute, a Hungarian research group. It predicted that far right
parties, "spearheaded by the French National Front," could form a pro-Russian bloc in the European
Parliament or, at the very least, amplify previously marginal pro-Russian voices.
Pro-Russian sentiment remains largely confined to the fringes of European politics, though Mr.
Putin also has more mainstream admirers and allies on both the right and the left, including Silvio
Berlusconi, the former Italian prime minister, and Gerhard Schröder, the former German chancellor.
A few hundred protesters gathered outside the Ukrainian embassy in Rome on Saturday to protest
against the rise of fascism in Ukraine and Europe. The event was organized by well-known journalist
Julietto Kieza.
Kieza told Ruptly that he maintains that the "so-called revolution in Euromaidan has been
paid straightly by the United States" and that for the first time since World War II, "Nazism
reappears in the center of Europe with the aid of the United States."
Demonstrators came out to express a similar view. Protesters held up signs depicting Ukraine's
former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko as Hitler, and telling NATO to "go away."
One of the banners said: "No to the Nazi coup d'etat in Ukraine" in Italian.
Massive protests that began last year in Kiev eventually led to the ouster of President Viktor
Yanukovich in February. Yanukovich left Ukraine's capital amid the worst surge of violence in the
country's post-Soviet history, which left dozens of people dead and hundreds injured. The pro-Maidan
opposition immediately capitalized on his absence from the city, dominating the parliament which
then voted to strip the president of his powers and announced early elections.
Following the events, far-right forces such as the Svoboda (Freedom) party – Ukraine's nationalist
party – entered the political arena and are now part of Ukraine's parliament.
"Only now I perceive that Europe is beginning to understand the danger they also face, because
there is no solution for the crisis in Ukraine in the direction the United States has created. Now
Europe has to pay," Kieza said.
Quote: Consider the stunning turn of events we have just witnessed: "the ascension of a genuinely
fascist mass movement into the corridors of power" in a European country for the first time since
WWII, greeted with a stunning non-chalance-nay, embraced as an exemplar of democracy - by the Western
liberal democracies. University of Ottawa political scientist Ivan Katchanovski
specifies: "The paramilitary right sector has de facto power at least in some Western Ukrainian
regions," and "The far right in Ukraine has now achieved the level of representation and influence that
is unparalleled in Europe."37
To pretend that the ex-post-facto parliamentary maneuvers that ratified the result of this
insurrection actually confer some kind of retroactive constitutional legitimacy on it is ludicrous.
As
Nicolai Petro points out, these actions were taken by "a Parliament that rules without any representation
from the majority party – since most of the deputies of the east and the south of the country are
afraid to set foot in Parliament… [and] all across the country, headquarters of parties are being
sacked by their opponents," by a parliament that outlawed the only effective remaining opposition
party (the Communists) and that "consolidate[ed] the powers of the speaker of the Parliament and
the acting president in a single individual, giving him greater powers than allowed under any Ukrainian
constitution," in a context where "Vigilante militias routinely attack and disperse public gatherings
they disapprove of."25 Please, let's recognize these parliamentary acts as what they are
– the ratification of an insurrection, in defiance of the extant constitutional order. Call them
the first steps in a new, post-insurrection constitutional order if you want, but recognize the radical
break they represent.
And why not call this what it is? Isn't that what revolutionary change is all about – a radical
break with the old order? To reprise what I said in
a previous post on Egypt: An electoral process can be a thin facade of democracy and, effectively,
a tool of disempowerment, justifying militant extra-electoral politics, or even insurrection. A serious
revolutionary conjuncture, a real break into a new social order, usually involves both. It's an unapologetic,
forceful, seizure of power that seeks to be definitive and irreversible. (Of course, not every insurrection
is a revolution, or even a step forward, but let's leave that aside for the moment.)
As someone who accepts the revolutionary socialist argument, I do not object to extra-legal, extra-parliamentary,
insurrectionary politics per se. And guess what? All the self-proclaimed liberal, conservative,
moderate, non-violent, constitutional, parliamentary democratic thinkers, politicians and commentators
who are proudly and loudly supporting what happened in Ukraine also do not object to extra-legal,
extra-parliamentary, insurrectionary politics per se – they just don't want to admit it. Like
me, they will support an insurrection, depending on what it's about. Unlike me, they will
pretend it wasn't really an insurrection at all, just another, maybe somewhat "messy," but fundamentally
non-violent, constitutionally-authorized transition within the rules of bourgeois parliamentary democracy.
And that's because, as the man said: We wouldn't permit that in any Western capital, no matter
how righteous the cause.
It's quite amusing, until it gets sickening, to watch American leaders-who cling to the notion
that a thin, corrupt, disempowering electoral process legitimizes them-embrace the forceful overthrow
of a democratically-elected leader in a functioning parliamentary democracy while insisting they
are doing no such thing.
Let's recognize that virtually nobody really supports or opposes what happened in Ukraine, or
anywhere else, because it was an insurrection, but because of what kind of insurrection it
was – what it's explicit and implicit socio-political objective was, what different kind of society
and polity it was moving toward creating. And let's recognize that the US would denounce, and help
to crush, any insurrection, no matter how popular or righteous the cause, in which leftist
forces played anything close to the prominent fighting role that right-wing, neo-fascist forced played
in this one. If revolutionary anarcho-syndicalists had been the vanguard of the maidan, Yanukovych
would have been America's "democratic" hero.
As for "democracy" (along with "nonviolent," one of the most dishonestly abused words in the American
political vocabulary), it certainly does not just mean having an election. It means power to
the people. Neither Ukrainian oligarchs, nor the EU-IMF neo-liberal "technocrats," nor the American
government, nor NATO, want that. They have too much to lose.
It was a right-wing, imperialist insurrection, powered by fascist groups and permeated with
fascist ideology
The overthrow of Yanukovych was an insurrection accomplished by a political movement that was
driven by popular socio-economic discontent and thoroughly imbued by "ultranationalist"-i.e.,
neo-fascist-ideology.
It was decidedly not a revolution, in the strong sense of the word. A revolutionary
insurrection marks the beginning of a change in the social order. This movement did not, will
not, and, given its foundations, could not, establish a popular government that will create anything
like more widespread prosperity and deeper democracy, let alone a new social order.
It was a regime change, fuelled by popular discontent, powered by neo-fascist militants,
and surreptitiously managed by American intelligence diplomats, with Ukrainian oligarchs maneuvering
for ultimate control behind the scenes-factions that have different, sometimes internally contradictory,
agendas. It will create a government that will be controlled by and benefit some Ukrainian oligarchs
at the expense of others, that will benefit European and American capitalism at the (acknowledged,
indeed promised!) cost of austerity and immiseration for Ukrainian working people, and that will
benefit American and NATO plans for an ever-tightening military encirclement of Russia at the expense
of possible war and perpetual tension for Ukraine.
The only possibility for a more serious, "revolutionary" break from neo-liberal standards of oligarchic-imperial
rule in the near future would come from the neo-fascist groups, who indeed imagine themselves to
have a radically different agenda. But guess what? Faced with any popular uprising against its policies,
from the right or the left, the new neo-liberal, Euro-facing, Russia-hating, America-loving, Ukrainian
government, and its international supporters, will trot out the bourgeois democratic principles that
its leaders, of course, never really contravened, and insist, Berkut (by any other
name) and all: We won't permit that in our democratic, European capital, no matter how righteous
the cause.
For what we have in Ukraine is not revolution, but regime change …As for the word 'revolution'
… its deployment in Ukraine takes its bastardisation to a new low: there has of course been no
replacement of one social order by another in Ukraine, or even the instalment of a people's government;
instead various long-established parties in parliament, some of which are deeply unpopular among
certain constituencies in Ukraine, are forming an interim government. Revolutionary? Hardly.
The Western debate and coverage … has certainly made externally generated regime change seem revolutionary,
and the Western-assisted anti-democratic removal of an elected leader seem like an act of people's
democracy. It has exposed a severe dearth of independent critical thinking among the Western commentariat.
…
The truth of what has happened in Ukraine is this: the EU and Washington have effectively brought
about regime change, replacing an elected pro-Russian regime with an unelected, still-being-formed
new government that is more amenable to the institutions of the West.26
Regarding the "fascism" question, Max Blumenthal's
Alternet piece, and Per Anders Rudling's detailed
scholarly study are indispensable sources. Rudling understates considerably, when he says: "The
far-right tradition is particularly strong in western Ukraine." The fascist currents in the Kiev
movement are undeniable. They are represented in the parliament by the Svoboda (Freedom) Party
(originally called the Social National Party). In December, 2012, the European Parliament condemned
Svoboda for its "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views," and urged other Ukrainian parties
"not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party."27
As Blumenthal
notes, Svoboda's leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, defines his mission as freeing his country from the
"Muscovite-Jewish mafia." His deputy, Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn founded a think tank named after a historical
figure he admires greatly: The Joseph Goebbels Political Research Center. Svoboda's – and, unfortunately,
much of western Ukraine's – "nationalism" is embodied in the revered figure of Stepan Bandera, a
World War II-era Nazi collaborator who led the pro-fascist Organization of Ukrainian (OUN), which
helped to form a
Ukrainian division of the Waffen SS to fight with the Nazis against the Soviet Union. From 1942-1944,
Yaroslav Stetsko, the "Prime Minister" of ONU-B (Bandera's wing), who supported "bringing German
methods of exterminating Jewry to Ukraine," oversaw the killing of "more than 90,000 Poles and thousands
of Jews" in western Ukraine. Banderists in Lvov circulated a pamphlet telling the city's Jews: "We
will lay your heads at Hitler's feet."28
After the war, Bandera's Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) continued its fascist campaign for "a
totalitarian, ethnically pure Europe," engaging in a futile armed struggle against the Soviet Union,
until KGB agents assassinated him in Munich in 1959. Nothing "neo" about this Nazi.
Viktor Yushchenko, the president produced by the last American-supported Ukrainian uprising, the
"Orange Revolution," put the full weight of the ideological apparatus of the Ukrainian state into
reinventing the history of Ukrainian complicity with Nazism into a "national liberation" mythology.
He "tasked a set of nationalistically minded historians" into "disseminating a sanitized, edifyingly
patriotic version of the history of the 'Ukrainian national liberation movement,' the leaders of
which were presented in iconographic form as heroic and saintly figures, martyrs of the nation."
Thus, in 2010, against the protestation of the
European Parliament-which he accused of having a "historical
complex"-Yushchenko awarded Stepan Bandera the title of "Hero of Ukraine."29 As Rudling
notes: "There was little protest from intellectuals who identify themselves as liberals." It was
the government of big, bad Yanukovych that later annulled the award.
And thus, still satisfied by their political research, Svoboda led a 15,000-person march in honor
of Bandera in Kiev on January 1st of this year, with chants of "Ukraine above all" and
"Bandera, come and bring order!"30
Now, as a result of the insurrection, Svoboda, which won about 10% of the vote in the last
election, has effectively muscled the much larger (34% of the last vote) Party of the Regions out
of parliament, and seeks nationally to outlaw it and the Communist Party (13% of the vote), whose
leader's house was burned down. With the help of its Right Sector allies, these parties have already
been banned in a number of regions. Svoboda now holds "key leadership positions in the parliament
and law enforcement, four ministerial portfolios in the new government [including Prosecutor General
and Deputy Prime Minister] and several appointed governorships." Svoboda's co-fouder, Andriy Parubiy,
is head of the National Security & Defense Council of the new, democratic, government of Ukraine.31
So, fourteen months after denouncing Svoboda for its "racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia,"
European governments are gushing over the new "democracy" in Ukraine over which Svoboda presides.
And, as the BBC reports: "Inside the columned central hall of Kiev's city council, an activist base
of operations, hung a giant banner with a Celtic cross, a symbol of 'white power,' and an American
confederate flag….and an immense portrait of Stepan Bandera."32
Keep in mind, too, Rudling's point that the whole Banderist "national liberation" narrative "was
well received in western Ukraine but was received coldly or met open hostility in the eastern and
southern parts of the country."
As Svoboda represents fascism in the parliament, Right Sector
(Pravy Sektor) represented fascism in the maidan, and continues to do so with its intimidating
tactics in the streets and administrative offices of Kiev and the regions, as well as from its new
positions in government. Right Sector is a confederation of far-right groups such as Patriots of
Ukraine, the Social-National Assembly, White Hammer, Stepan Bandera's Trident, and the Ukrainian
National Assembly-Ukrainian People's Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO). Their favorite ensign is the wolfsangel--a
favorite, too, of the Waffen SS--which was on display all over the maidan:
As Ukrainian journalist
Oleg Shynkarenko points out, Right Sector leader, Dmytro Yarosh defines the group's creed thusly:
"We are against degeneration and totalitarian liberalism, but we support traditional morals and family
values, against the cult of profit and depravity." Right Sector's websites rail against the "liberal
homodictatorship" of modern Western society.33 Blumenthal points out that Right Sector
is: "linked to a constellation of international neo-fascist parties," and "through the
Alliance of European National Movements (AEMN), Right
Sector is promising to lead its army of aimless, disillusioned young men on 'a
great European Reconquest'." In some ways, the neo-fascist right does want power to the
people-just the morally and ethnically pure people.
BBC did a decent report on the "Neo-Nazi
threat in new Ukraine." Again, maybe not so "neo." The reporter, Gabriel Gatehouse, interviews
Svoboda and Right Sector militants, meets a group called C14 (apparently an armed wing of Svoboda)
under a portrait of Lenin in the Communist Party headquarters they had taken over, and shows two
Svoboda MPs displaying "14" and "88" tokens. These numbers, which are often displayed in combination,
and which appeared in graffiti throughout the maidan, have special fascist significance: "14"
stands for from the Fourteen
Words coined by an American white supremacist: "We must secure the existence of our people and
a future for White children" (there's an alternate version, about "the White Aryan woman"); "88"
represents a double of the eighth letter of the Latin alphabet, HH, for Heil Hitler. [I cannot
make this stuff up.]
Yes, it depends what you're fighting for.
My favorite is this 2˝-minute tidbit from a young Right Sector gentleman, explaining the group's,
and his, affinity for "National Socialist themes," and assuring his interviewer that they want a
society that's just "a little bit like" that "under Hitler":
The leader of the Right Sector, Dmytro Yarosh, is now the deputy head of the National Security Council,
and is running for President, of Ukraine's new, democratic, government.
You might also take a look at
this video,
where Right Sector leader Aleksandr Muzychko roughs up a local prosecutor to show him who's the boss
now, and threatens to have him lynched: "Shut the fuck up, you bitch! Your fucking time is over…
If you think I am goodie because I've come without my rifle, you are gravely mistaken. I've come
with a pistol. There are a few choice videos of Muzychko, who is also
identified as a member
of the "Wiking" unit of the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People's Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO),
another post-Banderist right-wing paramilitary group.
So there's no question that fascists were part of the insurrection, and there is no question that
they were crucial to its success. As
Oleg Shynkarenko insists, the scenes of fighting resistance and advance were led by Right Sector
and allied groups:
[I]t was the far right that first started to talk back to Yanukovych in his own language. They
were the first to throw Molotov cocktails and stones at police and to mount real and well-fortified
barricades. They were amongst those who burned two military troop carriers that attacked the barricades
on February 18. The Euromaidan won thanks to the resoluteness of people who were ready to fight
rather than to negotiate in parliament when any negotiation became pointless.
Nicolai
Petro agrees, and points out the political ramifications:
I ascribe a much greater role to the Right Sector…the spearhead of the revolution. … [T]he actual
coup was accomplished thanks to the armed intervention of extreme nationalists, led by the Right
Sector. And the fact that they were so instrumental in accomplishing this change of power has
put them in the driver's seat. From now on, whatever political decisions are arrived at will really
be at the sufferance of the Right Sector.
Let's be clear, also, that these neo-fascist groups not only fought and defeated Yanokovych's police,
they attacked and drove away any political group from the left that tried to establish a presence
in the maidan. The fascists made sure they controlled the radical politics of the square.
Sascha, a member of AntiFascist Action Ukraine, a group that monitors and fights fascism in Ukraine,
recounts in an interview published in mid-February:
A group of 100 anarchists tried to arrange their own self-defense group, different Anarchist groups
came together for a meeting on the Maidan. While they were meeting a group of Nazis came in a
larger group, they had axes and baseball bats and sticks, helmets, they said it was their territory.
They called the Anarchists things like Jews, blacks, Communists. There weren't even any Communists,
that was just an insult. The Anarchists weren't expecting this and they left. People with other
political views can't stay in certain places, they aren't tolerated.34
And Mira, of the same group, adds:
One of the worst things is that Pravy has this official structure. They are coordinated. You need
passes to go certain places. They have the power to give or not give people permission to be active.
We're trying to be active but we have to avoid Nazis, and I'm not going to ask a Nazi for permission!...
Early on a Stalinist tent was attacked by Nazis. One was sent to the hospital. Another student
spoke out against fascism and he was attacked.
Pravy Sektor got too much attention after the first violence, the media gave them popularity and
they started to think they're cool guys. Pravy existed before but now it's growing and attracting
a lot of new people.
Ilya Budraitskis, a Russian Socialist who came to the maidan in January,
tells us how the "ultranationalists"
brutalized and evicted everyone from leftish Europhiles to anarchists:
Another part of the left repetitively tried to join the movement, even after they were repetitively
kicked out of it. Some of the "euro-enthusiastic" leftists came to Maidan in November with
red (instead of blue) flag of the EU, with banners for free healthcare and education, and with
feminist slogans. They were brutally attacked by Nazis. Then there was an episode when the far-right
attacked the tent of the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine near the Maidan.
A man on the stage said that there were some "provocateurs" and said that "men know what to do";
as a result, a mob of Nazis has broken ribs of the trade union activists, tore their tent with
knives and stolen their property. The victims hadn't been doing anything "leftist" per se, but
they were members of the left movement, known to their political adversaries, and that was enough….
[T]here is also another group of people who are often confused with the radical left. …who call
themselves anarchists but actually have a very conservative political agenda full of machismo
and xenophobia. After the protests have begun, they shifted to the right dramatically; they reached
truce with the nazi groups and showered Molotov cocktails at the police together. Eventually,
they parted ways with left movement finally.
A week ago they, together with some actual leftists who wanted to "act", decided to form an "anarchist
sotnia [defense unit]" in the Maidan self-defence. In order to do that, they were
prepared to give an oath to [Svoboda leader] Andriy Parubiy. But when they formed their
ranks to do this, they were met by approximately 150 Svoboda fighters with baseball bats
and axes. The fascists accused them of being racially impure and politically irrelevant and forced
them out of Maidan.35
So much for Professor Snyder's agora.
Of course, the great majority of the people in the
square are not fascists, but, for all the reasons of history and ideology discussed above, a lot
of people in western Ukraine are susceptible to their charms. As Denis, from Kiev Autonomous Workers
Union says: "[I]n the long run the rightist political hegemony is being reinforced," because "That's
what happens when you don't have a developed left movement and your liberals are too corrupt and
ugly!"Here's how he describes the rightward political momentum on the maidan:
[Far right] ideology has really become more acceptable in the mainstream (which had initially
been leaning to the right!). ... Of course, most protesters really say they want political pluralism,
bourgeois democracy. … But at the same time the crowd at the Maidan revives some deeply
buried pre-modern, medieval social practices like whipping post, lynching, reinforced traditional
gender roles. This scary readiness to slip into barbarism is born from the general disenchantment
with parliamentary politics and the ubiquitous nationalist mythology about the golden past, imposed
in schools and media.
The original Euromaidan agenda in November was a right liberal one, standing for the EU, "economic
liberties" and bourgeois democracy. But even then the issues of multiculturalism, LGBT rights,
workers' rights and freedoms were severely repressed by the politically conscious far-right activists
… [whose] political programme had always included critique of the EU's "liberal fascism". … The
attackers didn't represent the majority of protesters, but the majority was very susceptible to
their political agenda which they had been aggressively pushing through…
[P]eople are new to politics, theyjust "know" they are rightists and nationalists. And
therefore they trust the more politically experienced leaders to express their views and formulate
their programme for them. It just so happens that those leaders are nationalists or even Nazis.
And they shift the centre of the political discourse even further to the right.
But, first of all, their ideas are welcome among the apolitical crowd; second of all, they are
very well organized, and also people love their "radicalism". An average Ukrainian worker hates
the police and the government but he will never fight them openly and risk his comfort. So he
or she welcomes a "vanguard" which is ready to fight on their behalf; especially if that vanguard
shares "good" patriotic values….And since the basic "common sense" had long ago been established
on the nationalist fundamental assumptions, the radicalization goes only further in that direction.36
As we all know, fascists don't have to be a majority to determine outcomes, and their power to do
so can increase very quickly under favorable conditions. Perhaps the most telling, and disturbing
remark of the leftists cited in these interviews was this, from Sascha of AntiFascist Action Ukraine,
a couple of weeks before the head of Right Sector became deputy head of the National Security and
Defense Council: "If Pravy [Right Sector] has positions in a new government that would be really
dangerous but that isn't possible, they aren't powerful enough."
Oh, yes they are. Consider the stunning turn of events we have just witnessed: "the ascension
of a genuinely fascist mass movement into the corridors of power" in a European country for the first
time since WWII, greeted with a stunning non-chalance-nay, embraced as an exemplar of democracy-by
the Western liberal democracies. University of Ottawa political scientist Ivan Katchanovski
specifies: "The paramilitary right sector has de facto power at least in some Western Ukrainian
regions," and "The far right in Ukraine has now achieved the level of representation and influence
that is unparalleled in Europe."37
Then imagine, please, Professor Katchanovski's last sentence with "left" substituted for "right,"
and consider how unthinkable it is that any American government would be so welcoming of such a "democratic"
outcome. The United States and its allied liberal democracies are, in other words, willing to accommodate
very hard swings to the right in order to secure and/or extend the neo-liberal capitalist, and US/NATO
imperialist, order, but will abide not an inch of movement toward resistance from the left-no matter
how righteous or democratic the cause.
The "liberal-nationalist" alliance, the American role, and what it portends
Might we interrupt the rejoicing over the rebirth of democracy in Ukraine to ask: Have the US
and European governments given a thought to how their embrace of a government including Svoboda and
Right Sector in Ukraine implicitly legitimizes and emboldens the far-right and neo-Nazi movements
in Britain, and France, and Sweden, et. al.?
Because those movements have.38 Ukraine now has a government that is, asEric
Draitser puts it, "essentially a collaboration between pro-EU liberals and right wing ultra-nationalists."
Israel Shamir is on to something, when he remarks that "a union of [right-wing] nationalists and
liberals" has become "the trademark of a new US policy in the Eastern Europe." As he reminds us:
"[L]iberals do not have to support democracy. They do so only if they are certain democracy will
deliver what they want. Otherwise, they can join forces with al Qaeda as now in Syria, with Islamic
extremists as in Libya, with the Army as in Egypt, or with neo-Nazis, as now in Russia and the Ukraine."39
Or, as Pepe Escobar
puts it:
Everyone remembers the "good Taliban", with which the U.S. could negotiate in Afghanistan. Then
came the "good al-Qaeda", jihadis the US could support in Syria. Now come the "good neo-nazis",
with which the West can do business in Kiev. Soon there will be "the good jihadis supporting neo-nazis",
who may be deployed to advance U.S./NATO and anti-Russian designs in Crimea and beyond.40
Lest one think this is a fanciful compilation, be aware that Right Sector leader and new deputy head
of the National Security and Defense Council, Dmitry Yarosh, has
called upon
Caucasian jihadi, Doku Umarov, to "support Ukraine now," "to activate his fight" againstRussia,
and"take a unique chance to win." Doku Umarov calls himself 'Emir of the Caucasus Emirate'.
He has claimed responsibility for attacks that killed dozens of Russian civilians-including the 2010
Moscow Metro bombings and the 2011 Domodedovo International Airport bombing. He is on the UN Security
Council's Al-Qaeda and Taliban Sanctions list, and the US government has a posted a $5 million reward
for information leading to his capture.41
It does get confusing. The frenemy of my frenemy,
or something like that.
This has become a formula, and a favorite part of it involves street protests that begin as democratically-inspired
movements against corruption and/or authoritarianism, and turn sharply violent when the standard
scenario of water-cannon and tear-gas police repression vs. rock- and Molotov-throwing protestors
gets brutally escalated by something like….snipers.
Snipers are a vicious weapon. I think whoever is responsible for their use in the maidan
protests deserves the world's condemnation. I also know that nobody knows who is responsible, and
no one should accept the pure assumption that they were "government" snipers. The leaked Estonian
foreign minister's phone call, mentioned above, which raised the "stronger and stronger understanding
that behind snipers ...was somebody from the new coalition," has cast widespread doubt on the "government
sniper" assumption.
According to the
AP, the new Interior Minister, Arsen Avakov, asserts: "I can say only one thing: the key factor
in this uprising, that spilled blood in Kiev and that turned the country upside down and shocked
it, was a third force…And this force was not Ukrainian." Commanders of police sniper units have denied
receiving orders to shoot anyone, and the new Deputy Interior Minister seems to believe them. Imputing
a rather complicated motive, he thinks the sniper shooting were "intended to generate a wave of revulsion
so strong that it would topple Yanukovych and also justify a Russian invasion." The new Health Minster
thinks Russian special forces were involved.42
An American analyst, on the other hand,
claims that, "According to veteran US intelligence sources, the snipers came from an ultra-right-wing
military organization known as Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People's Self-Defense (UNA-UNSO)."43
One might also keep in mind the
hacked emails of opposition leader Vitaly Klitschko, leaked by Anonymous Ukraine (or Russian
intelligence), discussing plans for "destabilization," "radical escalation," and the arrival of "colleagues"
whose "services may be required":
"Our American friends promise to pay a visit in the coming days, we may even see [Victoria]
Nuland or someone from the Congress." 12/7/2013
"Your colleague has arrived ….his services may be required even after the country is destabilized."
12/14/2013
"I think we've paved the way for more radical escalation of the situation. Isn't it time to proceed
with more decisive action?" 1/9/201444
Every scenario is crazy in one way or another, including the one in which the Yanukovych government,
ignoring all the clear lessons of recent history regarding the effects of sniper fire during protests,
stupidly thought that killing protestors and policemen would calm the waters. I hope those who are
responsible for the sniper attacks are identified and punished, and I do not rule out any possibility.
The Russians claim to want the same thing, and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov has called for a full
OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe) investigation, which Russian UN ambassador
Vitaly Churkin insists, would draw "a completely different picture …compared to what is being depicted
by American media." Let's see if there is a real investigation, and who will support it. In the meantime,
we should remember the Syrian chemical attack, and refuse any argument for aggressive action based
on a false assertion of certainty about who is responsible for this.45
Let's also take
a look at the role of the US in the Ukranian liberal-"ultra-nationalist" alliance, keeping in mind
what I said above about all the actors in this drama having different, sometimes clashing, and sometimes
internally contradictory, agendas.
The point is not that the US controlled everything in the Ukrainian uprising. It does not control
as much as it thinks, and, as we've seen repeatedly, it often gets surprised when it gets what it
asked for. It already has been surprised in this case, as we'll discuss below. But the US, especially
when acting in concert with its allies, can significantly affect the course and outcome of events.
It has enormous powers, and uses them relentlessly, in public and private, to get what it wants.
Not least of these powers is its ability, through its influence on ubiquitous Western media outlets,
to withhold and confer a sense of legitimacy. It did just that in Ukraine, with considerable success.
Brendan O'Neill
makes the incontrovertible point:
The regime change that occurred [in Ukraine] would have been unthinkable without something else,
without an additional force - outside pressure. ..
[Western governments] both undermined the legitimacy of the Yanukovich regime and conferred political
and moral authority on to the protest camps. They did this firstly through issuing statement after
statement over the past three months about the out-of-touchness of Yanukovich,… and secondly through
imbuing the protest camps effectively with the right to rule Ukraine. The camps were visited
by leading European and American politicians, who told the protesters theirs was a 'just cause'
and that they have 'a very different vision for the country' to Yanukovich – a better one, of
course. The consequence of such 'mediation' (meddling) was to isolate Yanukovich and embolden
the protesters, creating the space for anti-Yanukovich politicians to manoeuvre themselves into
positions of power.
For the people who oppose the Right Sector because of its nationalism: what about the nationalists
on the Russian side?
Speaking for myself, I rally behind Russia because I do not trust the US, the EU and the Right
Sector, whose country, Ukraine, is under no position to challenge the Empire - unlike Russia which
is challenging the world order right now - and because the Empire can simply pull the plug and have
RS collapse overnight: suddenly, the international media can 1) start a campaign of defamation of
Ukraine and the influence RS wields over it, 2) condemn the various 'isms' and 'phobias' that exist
in the country, 3) the governments of the Empire threaten sanctions and boycott of various forms,
4) the EU distances itself from the country. Ukrainians, now fearful and alone, abandon the group
sending it back to irrelevance.
I have studied the Empire well. They will use you to achieve a geopolitical objective just to
drop you later, or in the case of the "freedom fighters" who fought the Soviets during the Afghan
war, to make you an enemy and destroy you later.
Come on. Would the US ever support a RS in the UK, Germany, France? I think the answer to this
question pretty much settles the so-called "American support for Nazis" meme that one often encounters.
Is it ideological, or is it geopolitics? I say the latter: geopolitics. Ideologically, the US elite,
which is not "Anglo-Saxon", is on the very opposite side of nationalism (except of the Israeli variety…
items of relevance
here,
here,
here,
here and
here).
So is this story I'm hearing about the US backed contingent in the conflict recruiting from
a neo nazi organisation true then? Cos you seem a bit mute on the subject.
Whenever it was that I last watched The Great Escape, The Heroes Of Telemark or Where Eagles
Dare, I don't think that the word 'Nazi' was even mentioned just once anywhere in the dialogue
of these WW2 movies from the 60s.
Yet the word Nazi is bandied about on this thread in denouncing Ukrainians in Kiev and in the
western parts of Ukraine, as if we are watching a documentary on Himmler, Hess and Heydrich.
This denunciation onslaught by pro-Russia Ukrainians of their fellow Ukrainians is grotesque,
unjustified and unjustifiable. This denunciation onslaught is also being carried out by pro-Russia
supporters elsewhere, who are aiding and abetting this grossly unfair portrayal of Ukrainians
who supported the uprising and who are chiefly from Kiev and the west.
Whoever is behind such deceitful and devious branding of people as Nazis should be ashamed
of themselves. They do no-one, least of all themselves, any favours.
I agree that Russia has stepped up their game. So far they have avoided a new NATO state on
their border and a hot war. But, the Kremlin better not gloat because the Civil War next door
will spill over into Russia.
I worked for the US government for 42 years. I dealt with representatives of Swiss, German,
French, UK, Japanese, and American companies until they were all consolidated into a few giant
multinationals. Just before I retired, one American company ignored the law and regulations and
just did what they wanted. When caught they paid a couple million dollar fine but no one was jailed;
"The costs of doing business". Since 2008 corporations and the wealthy have had a free ticket
to do whatever they want. The result is Austerity, War, and Superyachts.
The United States and European Union are like Ukraine before the start of the Color Revolutions.
Each country is run by and for the Oligarchs not the people. Spain, Greece, Italy, Ireland, and
Portugal are on the edge. If rich eastern plutocrats had funded democracy movements in these States
like Westerners did in Ukraine, they would already have had their revolutions.
bevin
"...a Cold War is not inevitable. Russia has made, for example, no antagonistic moves in Iran,
in Syria or in Afghanistan. Putin has been at some pains to underline that whereas – from now
– Russia will pursue its vital interests unhesitatingly, and in the face of any western pressures,
on other non-existential issues, it is still open to diplomatic business as usual....
Crooke contradicts himself: a Cold War is inevitable.
"...the era of Gorbachevian hope of some sort of parity of esteem (even partnership) emerging
between Russia and the western powers, in the wake of the conclusion to the Cold War, has imploded
– with finality..."
That is, the Cold War continues. It never ended.
The problem is that Russia has no appetite to recognise it. It refuses to face up to the awful
reality of imperialism. Russia hopes that, after a few more Olympic Games and all manner of cultural
contacts, the Cold Warriors in the West will just fade away. And capitalism will revert to the
existence it has never had anywhere but in the textbooks of its propagandists, and drop the plundering
and destruction and make friends of bosses everywhere, including in Russia.
They won't: warmongering is not a prejudice born of misunderstanding and slavophobia but a
way of life. Without a Cold War the US economy and the state have no purpose: they exist to pursue
hegemony, not to achieve it, but to maintain the thrill, and the profits, of the chase.
The thrill of a trillion dollar military budget.
The thrill of having the entire population's personal details at their fingertips. A blackmailer's
nirvana.
The thrill of running a gulag system without parallel in its extent, brutality and profitability
in modern history.
The thrill of having agents wandering the streets of Sa'ana and Karachi shooting whomsoever
they fancy. The thrill of using drone strikes to wipe out wedding parties "pour encourager
les autres."
The thrill of looting the domestic economy, impoverishing the masses on the excuse that
there is an emergency, a war on terror, that necessitates the postponement of non-military
responsibilities. BUt never mind "There will be pie in the sky. When you die." Lots of pie.
And death comes earlier every year.
Russia has made "no antagonistic moves in Iran, in Syria or in Afghanistan." And what has it
gained by assisting the US in Afghanistan? Or by refusing to honour its defense contracts to Iran?
What did it gain by watching Saddam being crushed? Or Ghadaffi?
On the whole little more than contempt and disdain. Its restraint has been interpreted as weakness,
which in turn has been interpreted as an invitation to escalated aggression. Thus do the Kagans
see the world.
What we have seen since Gorbachev's day is an assault on Russia, a full spectrum assault, to
which Russia has made no reply, sitting there paralysed like a serpent's victim as it has been
torn apart and devoured by enemies at whom it smiles beatifically, like an ikon or a sub-Dostoevskyan
protagonist. Like an impotent Oblomov. Patience on a monument to 25 million martyrs.
Still, "...the atmosphere in Moscow is hardening, and hardening visibly. Even the 'pro-Atlanticist'
component in Russia senses that Europe will not prove able to de-escalate the situation. They
are both disappointed, and bitter at their political eclipse in the new mood that is contemporary
Russia, where the 'recovery of sovereignty' current prevails."
It could be that in the eastern Ukraine, where massacres such as those we have seen in the
past week are taken to heart a little more easily than they are in Moscow, will force Russia's
hand. And Kiev's too. One side's provocations and the other's pacifism make for good Chess but
bad politics. Another Odessa incident and not only the Donbas but Russia could explode.
Then Putin will have to respond. And the only reasonable response must be to insist that
the US get its pit bulls back under control, end the killings and call a halt to a process that
must lead to war if continued. Real war, not proxy terrorism, death squads and drones but an immediate
expansion of the battlefield from south eastern Ukraine to the whole of Europe.
War not because the General Staffs want it, or the Kaisers or the Diplomats but because the
logic of Odessa and Maryupol leads only to war. The shooting of one maverick Grand Duke was nothing
compared to what we saw in Odessa. And the links between Gavrilo Princip and Belgrade were incomparably
vaguer than those between the criminals in Odessa and Barack Obama.
Alexno
Putin's actions seem to me reasonable, in order to defend their interests, and to avoid war. Ukraine
will collapse of its own accord, if the present road continues. Actually, I quite admire Putin's
policy. He has avoided fighting and killing. That should not be taken for weakness, rather a degree
of subtlety rare in the modern day. And certainly unknown to the US.
The danger is that the "hardening atmosphere" in Moscow may demand more robust action. As Putin
is in a position to be relatively autocratic, I wouldn't have thought that would eventuate.
To add to 12. Putin is also aware that Europe can't avoid its dependence on Russian gas. The
West is split. The US doesn't suffer, so it can be as bellicose as it wants. But there's no alternative
to Russian gas for Europe. All the stories of American LNG for Europe are pie in the sky. No surplus
is available, and even if it were, it would take several years to put it in action. No European
leader can face the thought of Europe freezing in the winter. Even Britain who theoretically doesn't
consume much Russian gas is affected, as the gas sharing system implies that Britain will lose
if Russian gas goes down.
No doubt measures will be taken, including the release of Germany's reserve. But some will
be cold, including me. That problem will surface before Russia runs out of money.
Putin doesn't have to act. He is much better to wait and see how the Western alliance splits.
Demian
Whether there's going to be another cold war or not is not an interesting question. One
could say that even using the term "Cold War" here is anti-Russian propaganda, as it suggests
that treating today's Russia as the enemy is morally equivalent to treating the USSR as the enemy.
The really interesting question is whether the USG will succeed in its plan for driving
a wedge between Russia and western Europe (to speak of driving a wedge between "Russia and Europe"
is also anti-Russian propaganda, since Russia is part of Europe), or whether Russia will drive
a wedge between the US and Europe, aided by USG's stupidity, mendacity, and rapacity.
Grieved I think we're mistaken to characterize Russia's actions as "fighting back" if it chooses
military action, but "not fighting back" if it chooses, for example, diplomatic action.
I see Russia as fully engaged with its enemy, whom it has studied for decades and whom it understands
extremely well. Its choice of diplomacy and impeccable lawful protocols is itself a way of fighting.
In the psychiatric field, manifesting sanity in the presence of the insane is the recommended
way to help the situation, I believe.
To my eyes, Russia is indeed fighting, every day, every hour, very seriously in a fight
to the death.
The conservation of resources and the elegance of Russia's moves during all this skirmishing
leaves me profoundly impressed. Russia has not wasted one heartbeat of action, not one grain of
power or material resource, and look at what it has gained already. And it has barely begun in
the long battle it faces of watching the US destroy itself without itself suffering damage or
loss of force.
somebody
Der Spiegel article I linked to quotes a Russian source on the SOKOL uniforms but says it is
unconfirmed.
This article here in RT quoting German business research institute director Sinn in the Wall
Street Journal is interesting
As Hans Werner Sinn, president of the Ifo Institute for Economy Research in Germany, wrote
in the Wall Street Journal on May 2:
"It must be borne in mind that the present crisis was triggered by the West… after killing
millions of Russians in World War II and enjoying the good fortune of a peaceful reunification
thanks also to Russia's support, it is the duty of Germany in particular to de-escalate the
conflict with Russia."
The article is written by two people from American University in Moscow which is a very interesting
institution in itself.
After remembering the Second World Alliance of the US, the Soviet Union, Britain and France
against Nazi Germany they come to this conclusion
We live in Alice's Wonderland: Reason and common sense have fled and the bitterly won lessons
of history have been thrown overboard. Who can save us from our own ignorance and stupidity?
So far the only things we hear from President Obama are demands for sanctions, sanctions,
and more sanctions against Russia. It sounds more like an invitation to dance on the brink
of a very frightening precipice.
Wouldn't it be the greatest historical irony if it turns out to be German Chancellor Angela
Merkel who can do it? At least her first name sounds like an invitation to peace.
As Germans overwhelmingly are against sanctions despite a dislike for Putin this is the direction
where Merkel will go.
"Alice's Wonderland" is a very good description of US foreign policy.
What is wrong with having a democratic referendum on autonomy, on a federal rather than 'Kiev
controls all' governmental structure for Ukraine? Why are pro-federalists called 'pro-Russians'?
Why is it that the sponsors of the Kiev coup, we heard Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador
to Ukraine on the phone choosing the after-coup prime minister, aren't subject to sanctions?
Why aren't we discussing sanctions for those providing massive economic and on-the-ground military
support for the illegally installed junta?
What is wrong with opposing a government that openly employs armed fascists and neo-Nazis
(Right Sector and Svoboda) in its National Guard? That employs tanks and heavy weapons against
unarmed civilians (as anyone who can watch a youtube video can see)?
Why is the government that is explicitly and excruciatingly not involved in Ukraine unrest
being subject to sanctions and asked to back its military 100s of miles away from its own border?
A two-hour hearing of US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland at the House Foreign Affairs
Committee over the Obama administration's and the US' role in the developments in Ukraine nailed
down Nuland over the United States overt cooperation with and use of neo-Nazis. Nuland tried
to dodge questions, explained US plans for Ukraine and told the Committee outright lies about Kiev
having "upheld the obligations of the Geneva agreement". Nuland omitted that Kiev has mobilized Ukraine's
military forces and the presence of large contingents of Ukrainian troops near the Russian border.
Hard times covering-up cooperation with neo-Nazis. It becomes increasingly difficult for the
Obama administration and the corporate US press to cover-up the fact that the main driving force
behind the coup in Ukraine are neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, supported by the US.
Victoria Nuland Lies to House Foreign Affairs Committee; Congressman Rohrabacher Challenges
Nuland's Claim No Nazis in Kiev.
Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, lied by denying
that there were armed Nazis supporting the ouster of Ukraine's "free and fairly elected" President
Victor Yanukovych, in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee Thursday, despite repeated
questions posed by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher (R-CA) about pictures of neo-Nazis armed with guns in the
Maidan, and their affiliations with neo-Nazi groups in other countries.
The full committee hearing on the Ukraine crisis featured an opening statement by Rep. Dana Rohrbacher
(R-CA), as Chair of its Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia. Rohrbacher stated that the situation
in Ukraine is "much murkier" than is being pretended. It is not simply a case of Russian aggression.
Chaos began, said Rohrbacher, when the elected President of Ukraine (Yanukovych), who won an election
- an election which observers from the OSCE declared "free and fair" - was forced out of office by
street involvement. (emphasis in original).
The problem started without any Russian involvement. It started when the Ukraine President decided
to make an economic agreement with Russia, not the EU. It gets murkier. We should not be jumping
into it.
Later, in his turn to question Nuland, Rohrbacher asked:
Rohrbacher: What will [intervening in Ukraine] cost the U.S., bottom line?
Nuland: $187m + $50m + $18m DOD budgeted for security services and border guards.
Rohrbacher: Did we guarantee any loans from the World Bank to Ukraine?
Nuland: $400m for Treasury of $1 billion from the IMF.
Rohrbacher: Do we have preferential payback?
Nuland: I don't know; I'll get back to you…
Rohrbacher: I think I know the answer. We had a legitimate election before, but [the President]
was removed. About the violence. There are pictures of neo-Nazis. Were the neo-Nazis involved in
the street violence?
Nuland: The vast majority were peaceful protesters. We saw firebombs being thrown, and
people shooting into police ranks. All of these incidents are subject to investigation.
Rohrbacher: Guns were involved.
Nuland: As the demonstration became more violent both…
Rohrbacher: Was the neo-Nazi group affiliated with Nazi groups in other countries?
Nuland: I don't know about the early period. Later, we see recruiting on neo-Nazi websites
in Russia. We don't have any information against neo-Nazi groups from Europe. There is no information
to corroborate. Ukraine is investigating…
Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) also pointed to the anti-Russian bias of U.S. foreign policy in the alternating
cases of U.S. support at times, for territorial integrity, and at other times, independence, as shown
in South Sudan, South Ossetia, Moldova, and other cases. "It seems haphazard," Sherman said, but
"Every decision we make is anti-Moscow."
Sherman: Has the Right Sector militia been disarmed?
Nuland: Ukraine has made a massive effort.
Sherman: How successful has it been?
Nuland: There's progress, but more to do.
Sherman: Kiev wants to repeal the Russian language law.
Nuland: Language rights will be protected.
Other useful questioning of Nuland occurred.
Rep. Albio Sires (R-NJ) asked Nuland why, if the Russian people were impacted by the sanctions,
"Putin is getting more popular."
Nuland's testimony made clear that the plan for the May 25 referendum is a large vote turnout,
with thousands of observers, and she claimed that 39 million voters had been registered online, while
the International Republican Institute is predicting 84% are likely to vote.
(Note: Non-quotes are paraphrases.) Related content: No related posts. B Disclaimer: The contents
of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization
will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Center of
Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community
internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified.
The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles
in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
[email protected]
http://www.globalresearch.ca contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in
an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material
on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving
it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other
than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner. For media inquiries:
[email protected]
The Polish left-wing weekly Nie (No) published a startling witness account of the training
given to the most violent of the EuroMaidan activists.
According to this source, in September 2013, Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski invited
86 members of the Right Sector (Sector Pravy), allegedly in the context of a university exchange
program. In reality, the guests were not students, and many were over 40. Contrary to their official
schedule, they did not go to the Warsaw University of Technology, but headed instead for the police
training center in Legionowo, an hour's drive from the capital. There, they received four weeks of
intensive training in crowd management, person recognition, combat tactics, command skills, behavior
in crisis situations, protection against gases used by police, erecting barricades, and especially
shooting, including the handling of sniper rifles. […]
This scandal illustrates the role assigned by NATO to Poland in Ukraine, analogous to the one
entrusted to Turkey in Syria. […]
To overthrow the government of its neighbor state, Poland resorted to Nazi activists in the same
way that Turkey uses Al-Qaeda to overthrow the Syrian government.
MacGregor makes a lot of good points, not just military ones.
His proposed geo-political solution to the whole mess sounds logical to me:
The good news is that Mr. Putin is creating the conditions for the emergence of a free,
democratic and smaller, as well as, demographically more homogenous Ukrainian State. A quick glance
at Ukrainian election results over the last several years demonstrates conclusively that the Ukrainians
living west of the Dnieper River in overwhelming numbers want to divorce themselves from Russia
and live inside Europe.
Instead of threatening Moscow, it is now time for Secretary of State Kerry and his colleagues
in the European Union to ask Mr. Ranko Krivokapic, the President of the Organization of Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), to meet with Mr. Putin and propose an OSCE-monitored plebiscite
in Ukraine's Russian speaking areas. If the population in Eastern Ukraine wants to join Russia,
then, they should be allowed to vote themselves into Russia with a plebiscite. However, at the
same time, the Ukrainians in the West should be allowed to join the EU without joining the NATO
Alliance, much like Sweden, Austria, or Finland. This outcome would provide Mr. Putin with what
he thinks he wants and Ukraine's true Ukrainians with what they want: membership in the European
Union. None of these developments or proposals involves a military confrontation between Russia
and the West.
In summary:
Partition Ukraine. Eastern part joins Russia. Western part, including Kiev, can join EU. However
NOT join NATO (enforced by international treaty).
Final result could include international funding from UN refugee funds, to help families move
(voluntarily), if they end up in the part of the country that they don't want to be in.
I don't get it how the Right Sector is routinely able to "arrest" or kill the leaders of federalist
movement in Eastern Ukraine. Why are they not protected by bodyguards? Why do they move around
unprotected?
Right Sektor commandos are sneaking around in Donetsk region, carrying out terrorist raids,
kidnappings, etc.
I suspect they are being assisted by American Greystone mercenaries.
As to why Rebs don't have bodyguards? they probably do. But some Rebs are amateurs compared to
Greystone mercenaries, who are experts in kidnappings and raids, and the like.
Then it is time for Russia to make a counter move. If American mercenaries are in Eastern Ukraine
to kidnap pro-Russian leaders then maybe Russia should do the same for Kiev junta leaders? How
about kidnapping Turchinov or Yatsenyuk? Of course it should be done covertly.
But I don't know if Russia has the resources and skills to do perform these type of tasks.
The wiki article on the Chechen wars is highly instructive. Look at the table of Chechen rebel
and Arab Mujaheddin leaders – as of 2014, how many of them are still alive and at liberty?
That's what the Ukraine Ministry of Defence has announced. Perhaps the rebs agreed to trade
the APCs for some of the thousands of FSB agents clogging up the Kiev mob's jails.
Banderites have launched "guerrilla war" against East Ukraine.
Yats and Dr. Evil finally convinced Right Sektor to get off their asses, leave their comfortable
pigsty on Maidan, and travel East to cause some havoc.
It is tragic that these Nazis are killing good people, but ultimately their little commando
raids can't do diddly. There are only so many Right Sektor goons. And if their attacks did get
bigger, then locals know the Russian army is right around the corner, and WILL step in, to protect
civilians, if things get too hot.
that bit reported by Kirill about local Rebel leaders being kidnapped and "disappeared" by
Right Sektor, fits in with typical American tactics. Which Americans always use in their various
wars, going all the way back to
the "Black Hand" deaths
squads in El Salvador, and later the so-called "War on Terror".
And continuing now, with Obama's drone strikes against supposed local leaders of Al Qaeda.
Namely, Americans target local leaders, kill them, or have them kidnapped and disappeared,
in the hope of "beheading" the movement, by killing its local leaders.
I don't think the tactic will work in Eastern Ukraine, because most of the "local leaders"
of the rebels are just ordinary people and placeholders, there is deep bench, and these various
leaders and spokespersons are replaceable.
(I realize that sounds like a horrible thing to say, I don't mean "replaceable" in the human
sense, just as political leaders of the various communities.)
Killing village elders, teachers, etc. was done on an industrial scale in the Vietnam war under
the auspice of the CIA program "Project Phoenix". Here is a short clip of one tin-soldier who
tried to run away (recalling the anti-war song of that era). Also, if memory serves me correctly,
there was a minor scandal at the time when it was revealed that the Green Beret were using Ustache
"training materials" to hone their counter-insurgency techniques. John Wayne must have been proud.
I love this quote from that above-linked RT piece:
There are indications that the Kiev authorities simply do not have enough loyal troops to crackdown
on the protest. On Saturday the Interior Ministry called on former members of the Berkut riot
police, which had been branded as thugs and criminals by the new authorities, to return to service.
The ministry said the Berkut troops must forget their past grievances and protect Ukraine
from what Kiev calls a secret invasion by a covert Russian operation. The allegations have not
been confirmed by an OSCE observer mission in the Donetsk region.
Yats to Berkut:
"Let bygones be bygones! Forget that my guys lit your guys on fire with molotov cocktails, beat
them with clubs, with embedded nails on the end, forced you to get down on your knees in front
of baying mobs…
"That's all in the past. Easter Sunday is the time of fogiveness!"
Berkut to Yats:
"!!!!#@#@#65&^%&*&)&&*(*&***$%^*&^(*&*&(!!!!!"
Typical for Tin-Tin weasel words in today's Grauniad, where, in reporting the casualties of
last night's fire-fight, he says of the anti-Maidanites:
"Slavyansk is one of several towns and cities that have been taken over by pro-Russian units
of men, whose allegiance is clear but whose provenance remains a mystery".
Meanwhile, Ukraine's largest bank. PrivatBank, has
put out a bounty on "Moskali".
(For those not in the know, a "Moskal" is an ethnic Russian.)
The bank, which is owned by an oligarch named Igor Kolomoisky, agreed to award $10,000 dollars
for killing a single "Moskal". I guess it wouldn't matter if it was a woman, or a child even.
A Moskal is a Moskal, they are all sub-humans, according to Adolph Hitler and his Banderite spawn.
Okay, the bank is retracting this now, and saying it was a hoax. "Why, gosh, fiddle-dee-dee,
we had no idea…!"
But they are lying. They really did put out this ad a few days back.
More seriously, in Donetsk Province itself, which is ostensibly ruled by Kiev's Gauleiter,
the appointed Governor Boris Filatov, has also issued his own bounty. Same amount, $10,000, the
reward for capturing a Russian "mercenary". aka "Green Man", aka "Polite Man".
Recall that one of the demands of the Eastern Ukraine Rebels, in addition to a Referendum,
is for DIRECT ELECTION OF GOVERNORS.
They are sick of these Kiev-appointed dictators threatening them and telling them what to do.
[slogans to chant]:
More Democracy for Eastern Ukraine!
Referendum!
Lviv Nazis Cancel March Fearing "Russian provocation"
The traditional March in Lviv, dedicated to the anniversary of the founding of the SS division
Galicia, is not going to be held this year. Ukrainian nationalists were scared of possible provocations
from Russia, say the Kyiv authorities.
Dedicated to the founding of a Nazi regiment but celebrated
not by Nazis, who don't exist in the Ukraine of course, but by Ukrainian nationalsts.
On the one hand, the ultranationalists lionise Stepan Bandera for allegedly fighting against
both Communism and Nazism. On the other hand, the same people sing the praises of the SS-Galizien
division which was openly and proudly fighting for the Nazis, and the Nazis alone.
That's why I don't respect, Banderites: They lie like weasels. If they stopped lying about how
Bandera "fought against" the Nazis, and If they just came out and admitted that they love Hitler,
then I might start to respect them more. I can't stand two-faced weasels.
And, by the way, let
them have their Nazi march. It's better for everybody when all the masks are off, and everybody
can see exactly who is who.
And P.S. I suspect it was the EU who told them to knock it off this year, because of the bad
optics… Why would Russian create a provocation? It's actually better for Russia to let them hold
their Nazi march, then point and say:
"See, this are the guys you are supporting. We told you they were Nazis, and you laughed
at us and called us paranoid."
Among other things, Parry exposes the Nazi essence of the Kiev junta:
On Tuesday, Andriy Parubiy, head of the Ukrainian National Security Council, went on Twitter
to declare, "Reserve unit of National Guard formed #Maidan Self-defense volunteers was sent
to the front line this morning." Parubiy was referring to the neo-Nazi militias that provided
the organized muscle that overthrew Yanukovych, forcing him to flee for his life. Some of these
militias have since been incorporated into security forces as "National Guard."
Parubiy himself is a well-known neo-Nazi, who founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine
in 1991. The party blended radical Ukrainian nationalism with neo-Nazi symbols. Parubiy
also formed a paramilitary spinoff, the Patriots of Ukraine, and defended the awarding of the
title, "Hero of Ukraine," to World War II Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera, whose own paramilitary
forces exterminated thousands of Jews and Poles in pursuit of a racially pure Ukraine.
I recommend to read Parry's piece.
Southerncross
Parry's work is good as always, but the Oliver Norths of the world remain as unaccountable
as ever.
Parubiy has been a leading figure in both Yushchenko's Our Ukraine party and Timoshenko's Fatherland
party. Wasn't it Babich who reported that other Svoboda activists had entered the Rada as Udar
and Fatherland candidates? Svoboda hasn't softened at all – the alleged moderates have both embraced
Banderite ideology and become Svoboda lite. Russia has no partner for peace.
One wonders just how the anti-Kuchma opposition ended up embracing Banderism so deeply. Did
they honestly think they could attract Banderite votes and cultivate Banderite street muscle without
compromising themselves and their politics?
Utter folly. As long as they were imbibing Nazi wisdom, they might have reflected upon this
little nugget from Dr Goebbels' anti-Semitic essay 'The European Crisis':
"
They maintain that in the course of the past two years, since its alliance with the Anglo-Saxon
powers, Bolshevism has moderated and taken on a more bourgeois face. Exactly the opposite is naturally
the case. Bolshevism has not become more like plutocracy, but rather plutocracy has become more
like Bolshevism. Human experience demonstrates that when two differing temperaments join, and
that is what is happening here, the most radical always wins the upper hand"
Nazism and independent press are incompatible. This postulate was stated by Ukrainian presidential
candidate , MP Oleg Tsarev .
"Everyone knows that Nazism and independent press are incompatible. Similarly nazism is inconsistent
with false propaganda and freedom of speech . For more than one month, we see how junta who is in
power now pours torrents of mud on the protesters from the south-east. Trying to present them as
are separatists and terrorists ... " while in reality it is junta who represents separatists and
terrorists.
"We reached the point when junta prohibits people know an alternative point of view on the situation.
They disabled the Russian TV channels. Disinformation has become official information policy by Turchinov
and Co. The latest decision of the Parliament belongs to the same series. BP adopted amendments to
the Law of Ukraine " On the National Council of Ukraine on Television and Radio Broadcasting " concerning
the terms of office of board members . Parliament , in fact, subordinated its activities to Turchinov
Administration.
It is not hard to guess what will happen next. Regime will start soon for censorship , to deal
with objectionable media. They will soon start prosecuting independent intellectuals and journalists
and will destroy civil society as such "- sure Tsarev .
"The savage beating of chairman of NTU Alexei Panteleimon had shown us the Kiev Maidan edition
of "freedom" - he stressed.
Russian Foreign Ministry ombudsman for human rights, democracy and the rule of law Konstantin Dolgov
says the West is shy about the beating of Ukrainian presidential candidate Oleg Tsaryov, Interfax
reports.
"There have been reports about the cruel beating of Ukrainian presidential candidate Tsaryov.
This is tank democracy a la Maidan in action. Extremists go unpunished. The West is timidly silent.
It is much easier to accuse Moscow of all troubles without proof than to curb the rampaging radicals.
Here are the customary double standards!" Dolgov tweeted on Tuesday.
"Tanks have been moved against people in the southeast who demand respect for their lawful
rights. Are these the inclusive political dialogue and the constitutional reform? What free
and democratic elections in Ukraine can we talk about under these circumstances?" he wondered.
Tsaryov's website reported early on Tuesday morning that the politician had been attacked by an
aggressive crowd outside of the television station ICTV building in Kiev. "Following the completion
of a live broadcast on the ICTV television channel, parliamentarian and Ukrainian presidential candidate
Oleg Tsaryov was attacked by an aggressive, armed crowd blockading the TV station's building. It
was with great difficulty that security guards managed to rebuff the enraged militants' attack on
Oleg Tsaryov," the report said.
They can't be playing for time and hoping the uprising will die down, because it will only
ramp up as they get closer to the referendum date, which is just before the presidential election.
If the vote is for secession, whether or not that ever actually happens, the east will not contribute
significantly to the vote and perhaps not at all, so that if the election goes ahead the president
will be tainted from the outset as a western pick by the Oranges. Which he would be anyway, but
this way there would be no disguising it with bleating about democracy and freedom. But they dare
not violently put down Donetsk or it might spark a Russian intervention, against which they could
not stand regardless how many Right Sector knuckleheads and foreign mercenaries they could call
on, and NATO would not step in because they would have screwed themselves by resorting to violence.
Russia does not have to do anything to destabilize Ukraine, because it has perhaps the most
fucked-up government in the history of unelected office, and it is making the country riper for
civil war by the day all by itself.
Warren, Mark – a propos violence, military forces, and the Baptist Turnip's capability: reports
are coming in about a mutiny of the 1st battalion in the so-called 'National Guard', i.e. banderite
the crčme de la merde
http://putnik1.livejournal.com/3014172.html#comments
Apparently, the battalion refused to follow orders and march on Luhansk. However, it did signal
its readiness to pacify Odessa at any moment because protesters there are not armed and it'll
be a walk in the park. There's one condition though – banderites demand apartments in Odessa for
services rendered. Parubiy came to negotiate but was bundled out like a common leper.
Long live democratic Ukraine and its patriotic defenders.
If this blogged info is correct, what happened is:
None of these Banderite goons has been paid any salary, they are all on their own, I guess
just living on what they loot. Parubiy arrogantly spoke to them like the scum they are, he ordered
them to march on Luhansk and clear out the Titushki on empty stomachs.
P.S.
I have never seen such a sterling demonstration of Chaos Theory since that fatal day when
Dennis Nedry turned off the electrical grid at Jurassic Park and accidentally let the velociraptors
out of their pens.
I imagine that like most such incidents, there is a degree of truth in it but the actual scope
of events is coloured by the author's perceptions. It would be wonderful to believe it happened
exactly like that, because it would indicate this fake government is on its last legs and cannot
survive even to the presidential elections, but I imagine an observer loyal to Kiev would have
seen something quite different. Still, if it prevents a repression in Luhansk, it is a victory.
It is, sadly, apparent that they do not wish to face armed protesters and prefer easy prey, because
that only encourages pro-Russia protesters to arm themselves and discourages peaceful resistance.
Under those circumstances it would be only a matter of time before it escalates to a shooting
war, and if that happens there is no telling where it will end although it is probable there are
outside interests who very much hope it will happen. And the Banderite side has shown itself quite
willing to use strategic and gratuitous violence to get things moving in the desired direction.
Let's not forget the possibility of their having hired help.
Right sector is just pawns in the hands of oligarchs. With Tymoshelko "comrades in arm" Turchinov
and Yatsenuyk (aka "luybi druzi") it is clear that in power the government belongs to Dnepropetrovsk
oligarchic clan (Tymoshenko, . It was notorious "Gas Princess" criminal oligarch Tymoshenko who raised
Ukraine foreign debt to level when the country became a debt slave. So the statement "The ouster of
Mr. Yanukovych has so far "changed a few faces but not the structure of the system." is an understatement...
Who fired the bullets is unclear and a matter of bitter controversy. The mystery reflects the
deep rifts in Ukraine over a February revolution that toppled Mr. Yanukovych but left rival camps
sharply and sometimes violently divided over its purpose.
Right Sector, with its pugnacious anti-Russian nationalism and celebration of long-dead Ukrainians
who collaborated with the Nazis against the Soviets in World War II, lies at the heart of the debate.
Will its members lay down their arms and accede to Kiev's authority, as they say they will?
... ... ...
When Mr. Muzychko was buried two days after his death, throngs from his village and Rivne flocked
to mourn a man they knew as Sashko Bely, a nom de guerre meaning Sashko White. In Kiev, the capital,
Right Sector militants besieged the national Parliament, retreating only after legislators promised
to conduct an independent investigation into Mr. Muzychko's death. Right Sector's leader, Dmytro
Yarosh, demanded that Ukraine's interior minister resign and vowed revenge for Mr. Muzychko's death.
The European Union, on the defensive against criticism from Moscow that it was coddling Ukrainian
extremists, condemned Right Sector's unruly pressure tactics. The European Union's foreign policy
chief, Catherine Ashton, called on the group "to refrain from the use or threat of violence" and
denounced its "intimidation of the Parliament" as a violation of "democratic principles and the rule
of law."
Roman Koval, the head of the Rivne branch of Right Sector, acknowledged that Mr. Muzychko's methods
perhaps played into Russian propaganda, but added that he understood and supported his comrade's
belief that peaceful protest alone could not always bring real change. Ukraine's February revolution,
said Mr. Koval, would never have happened without Right Sector and other militant groups.
This process, he added, needs to continue because the ouster of Mr. Yanukovych has so far
"changed a few faces but not the structure of the system." Ukraine's notoriously corrupt traffic
police force, for example, stopped extorting money for a few weeks, but has now started to demand
bribes once again.
The extent of their impact on the events that ultimately forced former President Viktor Yanukovych
to flee Ukraine - and the number of people who ultimately make up their ranks - are hotly debated.
Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that at certain moments, they exerted an influence disproportionate
to their seemingly small numbers.
But now the revolution is over, and the Right Sector - like many of the other self-defence groups
- is still there on the square, sometimes equipped with firearms and often very aggressive.
Nationalism is not necessarily fascism. I simply means that you consider your nation to be
THE attachment point of your identity, and to consider nation as THE thing you'll make the ultimate
sacrifices (more than all else)
Fascists are people who share the same appreciation of the nation, but they do more than that:
Nationalism doesn't necessarily imply a hatred for foreign countries, or doesn't imply
that your country is inherently superior to the rest. Fascism does.
Nationalism doesn't mean you support a harsh security policy, where the police has extended
powers, and can do quick justice. Fascism does.
Nationalism has nothing to do with punishing people within your borders, because they don't
think like you want. Fascism does.
Nationalism is not doomed to be an ideology of far-right dangerous nutjobs. Fascism does.
Lefty Scaevola
Facism comprises:
Exteme nationalism
expansionism
authoritarian centralised state power
hatred/bigotry/scapegoating towards some foreign, ethnic, or racial groups
centralized economic control, but not necessarily with state ownership of property/factories
In its eagerness to complete the encirclement of Russia by turning Ukraine into a forward country
for positioning NATO bases, the U.S. is paving the way for fraternal genocide and ethnic cleansing.
A closer strategic alliance between Russia and China may well be the one positive outcome of the
Ukrainian fiasco.
In 1919.... Lenin gave her several Russian provinces to assuage her feelings. These provinces
have never historically belonged to Ukraine. I am talking about the eastern and southern territories
of today's Ukraine.... Then, in 1954, Khrushchev, with the arbitrariness of a satrap, made a "gift"
of the Crimea to Ukraine.... As a result of the sudden and crude fragmentation of the intermingled
Slavic people, the borders have torn apart millions of ties of family and friendship. Is this
acceptable? I am myself nearly half Ukrainian, I grew up with the sounds of Ukrainian speech.
-- Aleksandr Solzhenitysn, Russian Nobel laureate, in an interview on May 9, 1994.
I sometimes get the feeling that somewhere across that huge puddle, in America, people sit
in a lab and conduct experiments, as if with rats, without actually understanding the consequences
of what they are doing.
--Vladimir Putin, Russian President, March 4, 2014.
ALEKSANDR SOLZHENITSYN was a legendary anti-communist, the man who successfully injected the word
"Gulag" into an intercontinental vocabulary for discussions of the Stalin period, the novelist who
was awarded a Nobel Prize for Literature as part of the Swedish Academy's anti-Soviet drive but whose
literary merit, like that of Boris Pasternak, was acknowledged even by Georg Lukacs, the great Marxist
philosopher and literary critic. In the passage quoted here from his interview given in 1994, soon
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, he expresses a double regret: that while Ukraine was still
a part of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), its territory was wrongfully enlarged by
awarding it large chunks of Russian territory and Russian-speaking population; and that the collapse
of communism in the Soviet Union precipitated an unwarranted territorial break-up of the Union between
Russia and Ukraine ("sudden and crude fragmentation of the intermingled Slavic people" so that "
borders have torn apart millions of ties of family and friendship", in his words).
After the recent referendum in the Crimean peninsula and its reintegration into Russia, Mikhail
Gorbachev, the Russian leader who initiated the dismantling of the Soviet system, expressed a similar
view. A historic wrong has been corrected, he said.
We shall return to these issues of the "intermingling" of the Slavic people and the "fragmentation"
of borders and peoples with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Suffice it to say for now that the
United States-sponsored Euro-Nazi coup in Kiev in February 2014 and, in response, the reintegration
of the Crimean peninsula into Russia in March signify something of a turning point, a watershed event,
in the post-Soviet era.
... ... ...
Question of Fascism
Susan Rice, the U.S. National Security Adviser, claims that the allegation of fascism is a red
herring trumped up by opponents of the "revolution" in Kiev. It is best, therefore, to recall certain
basic facts.
The phenomenon is actually far wider but the two major organisations of fascist vintage are the
Svoboda ("Freedom") party and Praviya Secktor ("Right Sector"). Svoboda was founded in 1991 and was
originally called "National-Social" in memory of the official name of the Nazis, National Socialist
German Workers' Party. It claimed to be a successor to the Organisation of Ukrainian Nationalists
(OUN) founded in 1929 by Stephen Bandera, a man of many parts who was later jailed by the Nazis themselves,
but before the falling out, Bandera had received large sums of money from them and had raised two
battalions for them to fight against the Soviet troops; according to the Simon Weisenthal Centre,
a think tank that documents details of the Jewish Holocaust, one of Bandera's battalions is known
to have rounded up 4,000 Jews for the Nazis in Liviv in July 1941. In celebrating the memory of his
heroes in the OUN, Svoboda party leader, Oleh Tyahnybok, has said: "They did not fear but took up
their automatic rifles, going into the woods to fight Muscovites, Germans, Jewry and other filth"
and he calls upon his own followers to liberate Ukraine from "the Muscovite-Jewish mafia". As late
as 2010, the official Svoboda website read (in part):
"To create a truly Ukrainian Ukraine in the cities of the East and South, only one lustration
will not be enough, we will need to cancel parliamentarism, ban all political parties, nationalise
the entire industry, all media, prohibit the importation of any literature to Ukraine from Russia…
completely replace the leaders of the civil service, education management, military (especially in
the East), physically liquidate all Russian-speaking intellectuals and all Ukrainophobes (fast, without
a trial shot. Registering Ukrainophobes can be done here by any member of Svoboda), execute all members
of the anti-Ukrainian political parties…"
When Svoboda won 12 per cent of the popular vote and an impressive number of seats in the Ukrainian
elections in 2012, the resolution adopted by the European Parliament on December 13, 2012, "On the
situation in Ukraine", said unambiguously:
"Parliament is concerned about the rising nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine, expressed in support
for the Svoboda party, which, as a result, is one of the two new parties to enter the Verkhovna Rada
[Ukraine's parliament]; recalls that racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic views go against the E.U.'s
fundamental values and principles and, therefore, appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Verkhovna
Rada not to associate with, endorse or form coalitions with this party."
Max Blumenthal, author of the bestseller Republican Gomorrah among other books, gives an account
of what he saw during the agitation leading up to the coup:
White supremacist banners and Confederate flags were draped inside Kiev's occupied City Hall, and
demonstrators have hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols over a toppled memorial to V.I. Lenin.
After [Viktor] Yanukovich fled his palatial estate by helicopter, Euromaidan protesters destroyed
a memorial to Ukrainians who died battling German occupation during World War II. Sieg heil salutes
and the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol have become an increasingly common sight in Maidan Square, and neo-Nazi
forces have established "autonomous zones" in and around Kiev…. In the Ukrainian Parliament, where
Svoboda holds an unprecedented 37 seats, Tyahnybok's deputy Yuriy Mykhalchyshyn is fond of quoting
Joseph Goebbels-he has even founded a think tank originally called "the Joseph Goebbels Political
Research Center". According to Per Anders Rudling, a leading academic expert on European neo-fascism,
the self-described "socialist nationalist", Mykhalchyshyn is the main link between Svoboda's official
wing and neo-Nazi militias like Right Sector…. In a leaked phone conversation with Geoffrey Pyatt,
the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, [U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria] Nuland revealed her
wish for Tyahnybok to remain "on the outside", but to consult with the U.S.' replacement for Yanukovich,
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, "four times a week".
Before getting elevated to this position, Tyahnybok used to appear at rallies with U.S. Senator
John McCain. Members of Svoboda now hold several ministerial posts, including that of Vice Prime
Minister, Minister of Defence, and Prosecutor General. Meanwhile, Right Sector, which criticises
Svoboda for being too "pacifist" and provided the most vicious of the storm troopers for the coup
that overthrew an elected government through street violence, holds key posts in the Ministry of
Internal Affairs, responsible for the police. Between the two, they more or less monopolise the whole
of the national security apparatus, that is, the means of violence at the disposal of the Ukrainian
state-in addition to their own militias (paramilitary training is compulsory for membership in Right
Sector.)
It is quite possible that the E.U. and the U.S. shall get eventually embarrassed by so overt and
dominant a position of fascists and anti-Semites at the helm of a government they have sponsored
in a major European country. Some kind of camouflage and reshuffle is likely. However, two kinds
of mass unrest are also likely in the near future. First, the rampant, loud, vicious anti-Russian
hatred among all sections of the new ruling dispensation is likely to cause social unrest in the
eastern provinces in particular and, more generally, among ethnic Russians thinly spread even in
the western parts. Second, consequences of the IMF-imposed austerity that is so much in the offing
will compound the social unrest in unpredictable ways. Democratic institutions in Ukraine are fragile
enough, all the so-called "liberal" political parties are dominated by criminals and oligarchs, and
the fascists, having tasted power, are not going to go away so easily. Indeed, as various kinds of
social unrest increase, these reorganised fascists may well emerge as the indispensable party of
order for liberals of all stripes, Ukrainian, American, Eurolanders.
The U.S.-European "Left's" tepid – and even supportive – response to NATO's destabilization of
Ukraine reveals the deep workings of white supremacy on the "western" mind. We face the specter of
a "left-right convergence" to save the global imperial project. How else to explain widespread "leftist"
acceptance of racist doctrines like "humanitarian intervention" and "responsibility to protect?"
Some years ago Italian anarchist
Camillo
Berneri suggested that while not always visible in the social practices of everyday European
life, the racist foundation for European fascism was still present, safely confined to a space in
the European psyche but always ready to explode in what he called a racist delirium.
Today, white workers and the middle classes in Europe and the U.S., traumatized by the new realities
imposed on them by the decline of the Western imperialist project and the turn to neoliberalism,
are increasingly embracing a retrograde form of white supremacist politics.
This dangerous political phenomenon is developing in countries throughout the European Union and
in the U.S. Just recently, the National Front, a racist, authoritarian party that labored on the
fringes of French politics for years, has emerged as one of the dominant forces in French politics.
The Tea Party in the U.S., Golden Dawn in Greece, the People's Party in Spain, the Partij Voor
de Vrijheid in the Netherlands – in these and other countries, a transatlantic radical racist movement
is emerging and gaining respectability.
The hard turn to the right is not a surprise for those of us who have a clear-eyed view of Euro-American
history and politics.
In all the 20th Century fascist movements in Europe, two elements combined to express the fascist
project: 1) the rise of far-right parties and movements as the political expression of an alliance
of authoritarian, pro-capitalist class forces bankrolled by sections of the capitalist class and
constructed in the midst of capitalist crisis; and 2) racism grounded in white supremacist ideology.
The neo-fascism that is now emerging within the context of the current capitalist crisis on both
sides of the Atlantic has similar characteristics to the movements of the 1930s but with one distinguishing
feature. The targets for racist scapegoating are different.
The targets today are immigrants: Arab, Muslim and African in Europe; Latinos and the never-ending
target of poor and working class African Americans in the U.S.
What makes the rise of the racist radical right even more dangerous today is that it is taking
place in a political environment in which traditional anti-racist oppositional forces have not recognized
the danger of this phenomenon or for strategic reasons have decided to downplay the issue. That strategy
has been tragically played out in the
"immigrant rights" movement in the U.S.
The brutal repression and dehumanization witnessed across Europe in the 1930s has not found generalized
expression in the U.S. and Europe, at least not yet. Nevertheless, large sectors of the U.S. and
European left appear to be unable to recognize that the U.S./NATO/EU axis that is committed to maintaining
the hegemony of Western capital is resulting in dangerous collaborations with rightist forces both
inside and outside of governments.
The manufactured crisis with Russia over the issue of Ukraine is a case in point.
The incredible recklessness and outrageous opportunism of the U.S./NATO/EU axis in destabilizing
Ukraine – knowing that the driving forces on the ground were racist, neo-Nazi elements from the Right
Sector and the Svoboda party – demonstrated once again the lengths that this axis is prepared to
go to achieve its geo-strategic objective of full-spectrum economic and political global domination.
Yet strangely, not only did many radicals in the U.S. and Europe not see the potential threat
that this situation represented but they seemed unable to penetrate the simplistic cold-war propaganda
that suddenly reemerged to frame events in Ukraine.
Instead of being concerned that as a direct consequence of U.S. actions a government came to power
in Europe that for the first time since the 1930s included ultra-nationalist, racist neo-Nazis in
key positions, the left along with the general population allowed the corporate media and U.S. propagandists
to turn the narrative away from U.S./EU destabilization of Ukraine to Putin's supposed expansionist
aspirations.
The ease with which the corporate media was able to flip that script and to make Putin the new
face of evil has been truly astonishing.
And the fact that that narrative was embraced by most liberals and large sectors of the white
left in the U.S. only affirmed that having abandoned class analysis, anti-imperialism and never really
understanding the insidious nature of white supremacist ideology,the U.S. left
has no theoretical framework for apprehending the complexities of the current period.
The inability to extricate itself from the influences of white supremacist ideology has to be
considered as one explanation for the strange positions taken by large sectors of the white liberal/left
over the last few years.
How else can one explain the bizarre incorporation of the discourse of
humanitarian intervention and the obscenely obvious racism of the "responsibility to protect?
Could it be that many white radicals have fallen prey to the subtle and not-so-subtle racial appeal
to a form of cross-class white solidarity in defense of "Western values," civilization and the prerogative
to determine who has the right to national sovereignty that is at the base of the rationalization
of the "responsibility to protect" asserted by the white West?
The apparent incapacity of white leftists to penetrate and understand the cultural and ideological
impact of white supremacy and its powerful effect on their own consciousness has weakened and deformed
left analysis of U.S. and European foreign policy initiatives.
It has also resulted in the U.S. and European left taking political positions that either objectively
championed U.S./NATO imperialist aggression or provided tacit support for that aggression though
silence.
As a consequence of the abandonment of anti-imperialism and an active class/racial collaboration
with the Western bourgeoisie, an almost insurmountable chasm has been created separating the Western
left from its counterparts in much of the global South.
Instead of more resolute anti-imperialist solidarity, broad elements of the white left in the
U.S. and Europe have consistently aligned themselves with the policies of the U.S/NATO/EU axis that
are giving support to right-wing forces from Ukraine to Venezuela.
Exaggeration, racial paranoia, an overly simplistic and a divisive, even "racist" assessment of
the liberal/left will be the charge. We accept those charges. We accept them because we know they
will come.
For those of us living outside the walls of privilege, who must nevertheless accept the realities
of the colonialist/imperialist-created global South, we don't have the luxury of comforting illusions.
Our lived experiences negate the false history of Europe's benevolent civilization.
We see developing in Europe and the U.S. a very real possibility of a left-right racial convergence
fueled by crisis, leftist ideological confusion and what appears to be a mutual commitment to maintaining
the global structures of white supremacy.
Understanding the violent history of the Western project and the pathological nature of white
supremacy, we are forced to see with crystal clarity that within the context of the volatile economic
and social conditions in Europe, giving legitimacy to neo-fascist forces like the ones in Ukraine
might just be the fuel needed to ignite that racist, fascist delirium Berneri referred to.
Ajamu Baraka is a human rights activist and organizer. Baraka is an Associate
Fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) in Washington, D.C. and editor and contributing
columnist for the Black Agenda Report. His latest publications include contributions to two recently
published books "Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA" and "Claim No Easy Victories: The Legacy of
Amilcar Cabral."
Why Russian captures Crimea and blames the current government ?
Provisional government should have proposed all the necessary concessions to southeast. I am referring
to the two official languages, and the full decentralization of power , and the election of governors,
the transfer of authority to regional councils. As well as budgeting from the bottom up to where
the money is made - there primarily distributed where they spend. I'm sure it's all calm down the
population of South- East. We want justice, freedom and equal opportunities.
And, of course , the factor of security. People are excited and terrified by the radical nationalist
groups that are operating today in Kiev. All this is very frightening residents for the Southeast,
especially with the advent of such an armed organization, as " the right sector ."
Who they instilled this fear? It was not only the militant extremists form "Right Sector", but
also the far-right party " Freedom " - I mean an attack its deputies on the head of the First National
Channel, for example.
Why do they behave themselves so aggressively, thereby pushing separatism in Ukraine ? I do not
know, but their actions are not patriotic, it is 100% .
... ... ...
You talked about the radical nationalists, who threatened other people with weapons . Here
you have someone personally threatened, persecuted for the Russian language ? We sit in the center
of Kiev, a five minute walk from Independence: where do you see the radicals ? In this case I personally
was ransacked and robbed at the entrance to the Crimea (by Crimean-self defense forces who hate Ukrainian
nationalists --NNB), and my colleagues were kidnapped and beaten.
First of all I am not that long in Parliament. And already during this time I was not allowed
to speak from the podium in Russian. I was interrupted by shouts, insults, sound effects . This is
disrespectful. I did not come from another country. I was born here in Ukraine. Russian is my native
language. In this language, talking tens of millions of Ukrainians. This is a flagrant disregard
for their right.
Secondly , the fact that I have not killed or wounded militants "right sector " or other nationalist
organizations - it does not mean that on the basis of this you can deny their presence.
The whole country knows that firebombs in "Berkut" and conscripts not throwing " peaceful protesters"
but well prepared and trained people . The Provisional government must establish and tell us who
fired from sniper rifles at people on both sides. Was it a provocation, whether it was specifically
planned to divide society , or is it still an accident? Authorities must give us an answer .
As for the radicals with guns - a lot of my colleagues , unfortunately, suffered aggression. For
example Bakhteyeva, Nestor Shufrich and many other deputies . You know what our colleagues were subjected
to Western Ukraine - they were handcuffed, put on their, humiliated .
Paul H. Rosenberg interviews Russ Bellant, March 31, 2014
As the Ukrainian crisis has unfolded over the past few weeks, it's hard for Americans not to see
Vladimir Putin as the big villain. But the history of the region is a history of competing villains
vying against one another; and one school of villains – the Nazis – have a long history of engagement
with the US, mostly below the radar, but occasionally exposed, as they were by Russ Bellant in his
book
Old Nazis, The New Right And The Republican Party(South End Press, 1991). Bellant's exposure
of Nazi leaders from German allies in the 1988 Bush presidential campaign was the driving force in
the announced resignation of nine individuals, two of them from the Ukraine, which is why he was
the logical choice to turn to illuminate the scattered mentions of Nazi and fascist elements amongst
the Ukrainian nationalists, which somehow never seems to warrant further comment or explanation.
Of course most Ukranians aren't Nazis or fascists – all the more reason to illuminate those who would
hide their true natures in the shadows…or even behind the momentary glare of the spotlight.
Your book, Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Partyexposed the deep
involvement in the Republican Party of Nazi elements from Central and Eastern Europe, including Ukrainian,
dating back to World War II and even before. As the Ukrainian crisis unfolded in the last few weeks
there have been scattered mentions of a fascist or neo-fascist element, but somehow that never seems
to warrant further comment or explanation. I can't think of anyone better to shed light on what's
not being said about that element. The danger of Russian belligerence is increasingly obvious, but
this unexamined fascist element poses dangers of its own. What can you tell us about this element
and those dangers?
The element has a long history, of a long record that speaks for itself, when that record is actually
known and elaborated on. The key organization in the coup that took place here recently was the Organization
of Ukrainian Nationalists [OUN], or a specific branch of it known as the Banderas [OUN-B]. They're
the group behind the Svoboda party, which got a number of key positions in the new interim regime.
The OUN goes back to the 1920s, when they split off from other groups, and, especially in the 1930s
began a campaign of assassinating and otherwise terrorizing people who didn't agree with them.
As World War II approached, they made an alliance with the Nazi powers, they formed several military
formations, so that when Germany invaded the Soviet Union in June 1941, they had several battalions
that went into the main city at the time, where their base was, Lvov, or Lwow, it has a variety of
spellings [also 'Lviv']. They went in, and there's a documented history of them participating in
the identification and rounding up Jews in that city, and assisting in executing several thousand
citizens almost immediately. There were also involved in liquidating Polish group populations in
other parts of Ukraine during the war.
Without getting deeply involved in that whole history, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists
to this day defend their wartime role, they were backers of forming the 14th Waffen SS Division,
which was the all-Ukrainian division that became an armed element on behalf of the Germans, and under
overall German control. They helped encourage its formation, and after the war, right at the
end of the war, it was called the First Ukrainian division and they still glorify that history of
that SS division, and they have a veterans organization, that obviously doesn't have too many of
members left but they formed a veterans division of that.
If you look insignia being worn in Kiev in the street demonstrations and marches to the SS
division insignia still being worn. In fact I was looking at photographs last night of it and
there was a whole formation marching, not with 14th Division, but with the Second Division, it was
a large division that did major battle around the Ukraine, and these marchers were wearing the insignia
on the armbands of the Second Division.
So this is a very clear record, and the OUN, even in its postwar publications has called for ethno-genetically
pure Ukrainian territory, which of course is simply calling for purging Jews, and Poles, and Russians
from what they consider Ukrainian territory. Also, current leaders of Svoboda have made blatantly
anti-Semitic remarks that call for getting rid of Muscovite Jews and so forth. They use this very
coarse threatening language that anybody knowing the history of World War II would tremble at. If
they were living here, it would seem like they would start worrying about it.
Obviously these people don't hold monopoly power in Ukraine, but they stepped up and the United
States has been behind the Svoboda party and these Ukrainian nationalists. In fact the US connections
to them go back to World War II and the United States has had a long-standing tie to the OUN, through
the intelligence agencies, initially military intelligence, and later the CIA.
Your book discusses a central figure in the OUN, Yaroslav Stetsko, who was politically active
for decades here in America. What can you tell us about his history?
Yaroslav Stetsko was the number two leader of the OUN during World War II and thereafter. In 1959,
Stefan Bandera, who was head of the OUN, was killed and that's when Stetsko assumed the leadership.
Stetsko in 1941 was the guy who actually marched into Lvov with the German army June 30, 1941 and
the OUN issued a proclamation at that time under his name praising and calling for glory to the German
leader Adolf Hitler and how they're going to march arm in arm for the Ukraine and so forth. After
the war, he was part of the key leadership that got picked up by the Americans.
There's a number of accounts I've seen, at least three credible up reports, on how they were in
the displaced person camp, the Allied forces set up displaced persons camp and picked up tens of
thousands of these former allies of Hitler from countries all over the East, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania
– there weren't Polish collaborators I think most people know the Germans heavily persecuted and
murdered millions of Polish residents – but Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia, and so forth, Belorussia.
They had them in these camps they built and organized them, where the Ukrainians were assassinating
their Ukrainian nationalist rival so that they would be the undisputed leaders of Ukrainian nationalist
movement, so they would get the sponsorship of the United States to continue their political operation,
and they were successful in that regard. So when Bandera was out of the picture, Stetsko became the
undisputed leader of Ukrainian nationalists.
The Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in 1943 under German sponsorship organized a multinational
force to fight on behalf of the retreating German army. After the battle of Stalingrad in '43 the
Germans felt a heightened need to get more allies, and so the Romanian Iron Guard, the Hungarian
Arrow Cross, the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and others with military formations in place
to assist came together and formed the united front called the Committee of Subjugated Nations and
again worked on behalf of of the German military. In 1946, they renamed it the Anti-Bolshevik Bloc
of Nations, ABN. Stetsko was the leader of that until he died in 1986.
I mention this in part because the OUN tries to say well during the war we fought the Germans
and the communists. The fact of the matter is that they were the leadership of this whole multinational
alliance on behalf of the German the last two years of the war and in the war thereafter. All the
postwar leaders of the unrepentant Nazi allies were all under the leadership of Yaroslav Stetsko.
What happened when Stetsko, and others like him from other German allied forces came to
the United States?
In the United States, when they came, his groups organized 'captive nations' committees, they
became, supposedly, the representatives of people who are being oppressed in Eastern Europe, the
Baltic countries, by the Soviet. But they were, in fact, being given an uncritical blank check to
represent the voices of all these nations that were part of the Warsaw Pact when in fact they represented
the most extreme elements of each of the national communities.
The Captive Nations Committee in Washington DC for instance was run by the person who headed the
Ukrainian organization of nationalists, that was true in a number of places. In my hometown area
near Detroit as well, they played a major role. In the early 50s, when they were resettled in the
United States, there was at least 10,000 of them that were resettled, when you look at all the nationalities.
They became politically active through the Republican national committee, because it was really the
Eisenhower administration that made the policy decision in the early 1950s, and brought them in.
They set up these campaign organizations, every four years they would mobilize for the Republican
candidate, whoever it would be, and some of them like Richard Nixon, in 1960, actually had close
direct ties to some of the leaders like the Romanian Iron Guard, and some of these other groups.
When Richard Nixon ran for president in 1968, he made a promise to these leaders that they would
if he won the presidency he would make them the ethnic outreach arm of the Republican National Committee
on a permanent basis, so they wouldn't be a quadrennial presence, but a continuing presence in the
Republican Party. And he made that promise through a guy named Laszlo Pasztor, who served five years
in prison after World War II for crimes against humanity. He was prosecuted in 1946 by non-Communist
government that actually had control of Hungary at the time. There was a period from '45 to '48 when
the Hungarian Communist Party didn't run Hungary. They were the ones who prosecuted him. He had served
as a liaison between the Hungarian Nazi party and Berlin; he served in the Berlin embassy of the
Hungarian Arrow Cross movement. This is the guy that got picked to organize all the ethnic groups,
and the only people that got brought in were the Nazi collaborators.
They didn't have a Russian affiliate because they hated all Russians of all political stripes.
There were no African Americans or Jewish affiliates either. It was just composed of these elements,
and for a while they had a German affiliate but some exposure of the Nazi character of the German
affiliate caused it to be quietly removed, but other [Nazi] elements were retained.
Your book was researched and published in the 1980s. What was happening by that point in time,
after these groups had been established for more than a decade?
I went to their meetings in the 1980s, and they put out material that really make clear who they
were there 1984, one of their 1984 booklets praised the pro-Nazi Ustashi regime in Croatia, and these
Ustashi killed an estimated 750,000 people and burned them alive in their own camp in Croatia. And
here they are praising the founding of this regime, and acknowledging that it was associated with
the Nazis, and it was signed by the chairman of the Republican National Committee. You couldn't make
this stuff up. It was just crazy.
I interviewed the Kossack guy, he showed me his pension from service in the SS in World War II,
and how he was affiliated with free Nazi groups in the United States, and he was just very unrepentant.
These are the umbrellas that were called 'Captive Nations Committees' by these people that Stetsko
was over, and was part of, too. The Reagan White House brought him in, and promoted him as a major
leader and did a big dinner – [UN Ambassador] Jeane Kirkpatrick was part of it, George Bush as Vice
President, of course Reagan – and Stetsko was held up as a great leader., And proclamations were
issued on his behalf.
When Bush was running for president in 1988, Bush Senior, he came to these basically one of the
leading locations of the Ukrainian nationalists in North America, which is in just outside of Detroit,
a suburb of Detroit to their cultural center, and one of their foremost leaders in the world is headquartered
out of their, at the time, he got Bush to come there and they denounced the OSI and Bush just shook
his head, he wouldn't say anything about it.
The OSI was the Offices of Special Investigations, it was investigating the presence of Nazi war
criminals in the United States, and deporting those that were found to have lied on their history
when they applied to come into the United States after the war. They had deported a number of people
from all over the United States. They had a lot of open investigations, and all these émigré Nazis
were trying to bring all the political pressure they could to stop these investigations, including
the Ukrainian nationalists ones.
So they denounced them, the OSI investigations, in front of Bush, Bush nodded his head, but he
wouldn't say anything because he didn't want to sound like he was sympathetic to the Nazi war criminals,
but at the same time he didn't want to offend his hosts by disputing the issue with them. So, the
issue of World War II was still being played out over four decades later, in the politics of the
presidency, and unfortunately Bush and Reagan continued to be on the side that we tried to defeat
in World War II.
... ... ...
What's happened since you wrote your book, and most of the World War II generation died off?
What have the OUN and its allies been up to since then that we should be aware of?
Once the OUN got sponsored by the American security establishment intelligence agencies, they
were embedded in a variety of ways in Europe as well, like Radio Free Europe which is headquartered
in Munich. A lot of these groups, in the ABN were headquartered in Munich under the sponsorship
of Radio Free Europe. From there they ran various kinds of operations where they were trying to do
work inside the Warsaw Pact countries. When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, a number of them
moved back into the Ukraine as well as the other respective countries, and began setting up operations
there, and organizing political parties. They reconstituted the veterans group of the Waffen SS,
they held marches in the 1990s in the Ukraine, and organized political parties, in alliance with
the United States, and became part of what was called the Orange Revolution in 2004, when they won
the election there.
The prime minister was closely allied with them. They worked with the new government to get veterans
benefits for the Ukrainian SS division veterans, and they started establishing the statues and memorials
and museums for Stepan Bandera, who was the leader of the OUN, and who I should say was despised
by other Ukrainian nationalists because of their methods, because they were extreme and violent toward
other rival Ukrainian nationalist groups as well. So Bandera wasn't a universal hero, but this group
was so influential, in part because of its US connections, that if you go online and you Google 'Lviv'
and the word 'Bandera' you'll see monuments and statues and large posters and banners of Bandera's
likeness and large monuments permanent erected monuments on behalf of Bandera so they made this guy
like he's the George Washington of the Ukraine.
That government was in power until 2010, when there was another election, and a new regime was
elected with a lot of support from the East. Ukrainian nationalist groupings around the Orange Revolution
were sharply divided against each other, and there was rampant corruption, and people voted them
out. The United States was very aggressive in trying to keep the nationalists in power, but they
lost the election. The United States was spending money through the National Endowment for Democracy,
which was pumping money into various Ukrainian organizations, and they were doing the same thing
in Russia and many other countries around the world as well. We're talking about many millions of
dollars a year to affect the politics of these countries.
When the occupations came in Independence Square in Kiev late last year, you can see Svoboda's
supporters and you can hear their leaders in the parliament making blatant anti-semitic remarks.
The leader of the Svoboda party went to Germany to protest the prosecution of John Demjanjuk, who
was the Ukrainian who was settled in the United States, who was implicated as a concentration camp
guard in the killing of innocent people. The German courts found him guilty and Svoboda leadership
went to Germany to complain about convicting this guy. The reason they said they didn't want any
Ukrainian tainted with it because they live a lie that no Ukrainian had anything to do with the German
Nazi regime, when history betrays them, and their own affiliations betray them. But they don't like
that being out there publicly, so they always protest their innocence of any Ukrainian being charged
with anything, regardless of what the evidence is.
Your book was an important revelation but was not alone. Your book notes that Jack Anderson
reported on the pro-Nazi backgrounds of some of the ethnic advisors as far back as 1971, yet when
your report came out almost two decades later, everyone responded with shock, surprise, and even
denial. What lessons should we draw from this history of buried history? And how should it influence
our thinking about the unfolding crisis in the Ukraine?
I don't believe it's ever too late to become familiarized and educated about the history of this
phenomenon both the wartime history and our postwar collaboration with these folks. There were a
number of exposés written about the émigré Nazis. There was a 1979 book called Wanted and
it did a number of case stories of these people being brought in to the United States, including
the Trifa story. Christopher Simpson did a book called Blowback that discussed the policy
decisions, it's an incredible book. He's a professor at American University and he did years of research
through the Freedom of Information Act and archives, and got the policy documents under which the
decisions were made to bring these folks together, and not just into the United States but to deploy
them around the world.
Like my book, it didn't get the attention it deserved. The New York Times book reviewer
was negative toward the book. There are people that really don't want to touch this stuff. There's
a lot of people who don't want it touched. I think it's really important for people who believe in
openness and transparency and democratic values, who don't want to see hate groups come back to power
in other parts of the world to know what happened.
There's not very many Americans that really even know that the Waffen SS was a multinational
force. That's been kind of kept out of the received history. Otherwise people would know that
there were Ukrainian Nazis, Hungarian Nazis, Latvian Nazis, and they were all involved in the mass
murder of their fellow citizens, if they were Jewish, or even if they were co-nationalists that were
on the other side of the issue of the war. They were just mass murderers, across Eastern Europe.
And that history, those facts aren't even well-known. A lot of people didn't even know this phenomenon
even existed.
I think all Americans have a responsibility to know what their government is doing in the foreign
policy in Europe as well as elsewhere around the world, as well as Latin America as well as Africa.
Since our policy was to uphold apartheid in South Africa why weren't Americans challenging that more?
They began challenging that in the 80s, but the apartheid regime was run by the Nazi party. They
were allied with Germany in World War II, they were the Nationalist party and they took power in
1948 and the United States backed that for decades. We backed the death squads in Latin America,
even though they massacred tens of thousands of people – 30,000 people in Chile alone. Americans
aren't being attentive to what their government is doing abroad, even though it's been doing done
with their tax dollars and in their name, and I think we just have a general responsibility.
I went to these meetings, I went to these conferences, I went over a period of years. I met with
them directly, most of the people I wrote about, I met with them personally or in group meetings.
People can't afford to do that on their own, timewise, but there's enough literature out there they
can read and pursue it, they will get enough enough of a handle to get what the real picture is,
to demand change. I'm not totally partisan in this, but I think the Republican Party was extreme
on this, but the Democrats folded and didn't challenge this when they knew it was going on.
There is an old Roman poet that once said truth does not say one thing and wisdom another. I'm
a believer in that. Tell the truth and wisdom will follow.
Russia has some information about Ukrainian far-right movement Right Sector involved in the shooting
of snipers in the Ukrainian capital of Kiev, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview
with Sunday Time programme anchored by Irada Zeinalova on Channel One on Sunday. Pettiness of foreign
sponsors of new authorities in Kiev is astonishing, he added.
"We have some information about it. We shared our concerns and suspicions. I cannot affirm
with absolute determination, but there is a good deal of facts that point to this. Certainly,
it is needed to recheck them. I hope that an investigation which current Ukrainian leaders announced
will be finalised and will not be swept under carpet," Lavrov noted.
As the Kremlin's own interpretation
of the call between the two leaders discloses, "Vladimir Putin drew Barack Obama's attention
to continued rampage of extremists who are committing acts of intimidation towards peaceful residents,
government authorities and law enforcement agencies in various regions and in Kiev with impunity."
Here, Putin undoubtedly is focusing on last night's storming of the parliament by the "Right Sector"
neonazis, which initially had been insturmental in the violent Ukraine coup and have now become a
huge nuisance to the acting government. Which, as we noted yesterday, meant they suddenly had become
Putin's best friend. Because in bringing attention to their actions, the Kremlin makes it quite clear
that the Russian case of neofascists running rampant in Kiev, was in fact at least partially accurate.
Kremlin goes on:
In light of this, the President of Russia suggested examining possible steps the global community
can take to help stabilise the situation. The two presidents agreed that specific parameters for
this joint work will be discussed by the Russian and US foreign ministers in the near future.
Vladimir Putin also pointed out that Transnistria is essentially experiencing a blockade,
which significantly complicate the living conditions for the region's residents, impeding their
movement and normal trade and economic activities. He stressed that Russia stands for
the fair and comprehensive settlement of the Transnistria conflict and hopes for effective work
in the existing 5+2 negotiation format.
Simply said, Putin called Obama to make it quite clear that the Russian is nowhere close to de-escalating,
and in fact is bringing even more attention to the old party line - that Russia is concerned about
the living conditions of Russians and other "compatriots" in Ukraine. The implicit threat here is
that should the neonazis continue to act with "rampant impunity" then Russia will have no choice
but to intervene.
How about the flip side? Here is the White House's version of events from
The Hill:
President Obama called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to pull back his troops from Ukraine's
border on Friday during a phone call between the two leaders. Obama noted that the Ukrainian government
has pursued "a restrained and de-escalatory approach" in the crisis, the White House said.
He urged Russia to support Ukraine's democratic process and to "avoid further provocations,
including the buildup of forces on its border with Ukraine." The phone call, which was initiated
by Putin, comes a day after Agence France-Presse reported nearly 100,000 Russian troops had lined
up along their border with Ukraine, according to a Ukrainian official.
"President Putin called President Obama today to discuss the U.S. proposal for a diplomatic
resolution to the crisis in Ukraine, which Secretary Kerry had again presented to Foreign Minister
Lavrov at the meeting at the Hague earlier this week, and which we developed following U.S. consultations
with our Ukrainian and European partners," the White House said in a statement.
Obama made it clear to Putin, the White House said, that de-escalation in the crisis
can only happen if Russian pulls its troops back and doesn't take steps "to further violate Ukraine's
territorial integrity and sovereignty."
During the phone call, Obama also reiterated the United States "strongly opposes" Russia's
actions, which he said violated Ukraine's sovereignty. Obama also expressed this message to Russia
in an interview that first aired on "CBS This Morning" on Friday.
Russia's troop buildup, Obama said in the interview, "may simply be an effort to intimidate
Ukraine or it may be that they've got additional plans."
To summarize, Putin calls Obama to inform him, and thus the international community, just under
what conditions Russia will continue to push on inside Ukraine - namely a real or false flag provocation
by "extremists" against Russians, while Obama drones on, pun inteded, about de-escalating and threatening
with "costs." Sounds about right.
...The battle of Misrata became known as Libya's Stalingrad. In the three months the city was
under siege, Misratans say 2,000 died and 14,000 were wounded.
Some who have lived through the fighting also share a deep sense of depression and disillusionment
at the lack of change they feel in the post-Gaddafi Libya.
..."I feel that those people who died in the war died for nothing. For sure they are martyrs according
to our religion, but I think they died for nothing and that's what drove me to depression. For me
personally, I feel my life was better before the revolution."
Before the war, Ahmed used to do some trading abroad. Today he says he can't even get a visa to
leave Libya and sees no future. In his bleakest moments, he has even contemplated suicide, an action
that is fiercely condemned by Islam.
"Before the revolution I had ambitions but now I'm really depressed and I don't have the ambitions
I had before. Nothing is stable in the country.
"I feel it will take a long time for the country to get stable again and this drives me to depression,
and sometimes to think about killing myself to get rid of that feeling."
Questioning the revolution in a city like Misrata, which has developed a powerful cult of heroism
and victimhood after experiencing the brunt of the fighting and casualties, brings its own dangers
in the new Libya.
"Of course there is no freedom of speech at the moment. I am Misratan, my father is Misratan,
my grandfather the same, but I cannot criticise the revolution, even on Facebook," Ahmed says.
"The question that keeps coming to my mind, is 'What did we gain?' I feel we gained nothing, but
I can't say that in public because some katiba [brigade] may harm me or my family or even arrest
me."
..."I fought hard during the revolution, from Tripoli Street in Misrata to Bab al Aziziya [Gaddafi's
compound in Tripoli] and Sirte," he says.
"I lost my business, I lost my friends and now I don't have anything left. My dreams are completely
broken."
Hear the full report on BBC Radio 4's Crossing Continents.
You can listen via the Radio 4 website or via the
Crossing Continents podcast
The European Union's foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, has come out with criticism of the destabilizing
effects of the ultra-nationalist "Right Sector" party's continuing protests against the "interim
government" in Kiev (rt.com)
The lawless actions of Ukraine's nationalists have finally caught attention of the intl community,
with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton denouncing Right Sector for its 'pressure' and 'undemocratic'
demand of the interior minister's resignation. A day after neo-Nazi activists who helped bring
the acting government in Kiev to power turned against it, Ashton has issued a statement condemning
the "pressure by activists of the Right Sector who have surrounded the building of the Verkhovna
Rada of Ukraine."
This "intimidation" the EU foreign policy chief believes, stands against all "democratic principles
and rule of law," as Ashton called on the ultra-right group "to refrain from the use or threat
of violence." Ashton stressed the need to "hand over any unauthorised arms to the authorities
immediately." At the same time she welcomed the "impartial and credible investigation into the
circumstances of the death of Aleksandr Muzychko," whose death in a police shootout led to the
latest showdown outside the parliament in Kiev.
The US Embassy in Kiev and the Delegation of the European Union to Ukraine also issued a statement
'condemning' the Right Sector tactics at the Verkhovna Rada. "We welcome the statements of Pravy
Sector's leadership that they intend to keep their actions 'within the framework of the law."
We urge all political forces to distance themselves from extremists, who undermine the efforts
to stabilize Ukraine and to protect its sovereignty," the joint statement read.
On Wednesday night, several hundred neo-Nazi activists from the Right Sector and their supporters
besieged the parliament building, pressuring lawmakers to sack the newly appointed Interior Minister
Arsen Avakov. The Right Sector believes that Avakov is personally responsible for ordering what
they call a political assassination of one of their leader, Aleksandr Muzychko, who was killed
in a special operation in a city of Rovno on Tuesday.
socialist_n_TN
Classic ignorance on the part of the capitalists.......
They always think they can use the fascists to achieve their immediate aims, then control
them after they've served their purpose. Hindenburg thought the same thing about Hitler. Not
just ignorance, but short term thinking.
rdharma
Bad, fascist thugs!
No more cakes from Victoria Nuland for you!
I don't think Ashton's "condemnation" is going to make the Right Sector and Svoboda go away.
Supporters of the right wing party Right Sector protest in front of Ukrainian parliament in
Kyiv on March 27, 2014. Hundreds of Ukrainian far-right nationalists rallied outside the parliament
building in Kyiv Thursday night, smashing windows and demanding the interior minister's resignation,
days after police shot dead one of their leaders. Elite police on Monday killed Oleksandr Muzytchko,
the regional leader of Right Sector, in a shootout that erupted during a raid to arrest him in
the western city of Rivne. AFP PHOTO / GENYA SAVILOV
Several hundred members and supporters of the militant nationalist Right Sector swarmed Ukraine's
parliament building for the second day in a row on March 28 to demand the resignation of Interior
Minister Arsen Avakov and a fair investigation into the suspicious death earlier in the week of one
of its leaders.
Many in the group, outfitted in military fatigues, bulletproof vests and balaclavas,
carried clubs, hunting knives and hatchets, but they did not use them. They remained peaceful and
positioned outside the doors through the afternoon as lawmakers took part in a session inside.
Right Sector first gathered more than 1,000 members of the group – now an officially registered
political party – on Constitution Square outside the Verkhovna Rada late on March 27. While they
did not storm the building, several windows were shattered. Right Sector's Kyiv leader Ihor Mazur
said the first ones on the scene who broke the windows were not members of his group, but "provocateurs."
"But separate citizens ran ahead. When we came here, the glass (in the parliament house near the
central entrance) had been already smashed," Ukrainian News reported Mazur as saying.
Radical Party leader Oleg Lyashko appeared from the building shortly after to try to temper the
crowd, which chanted "Rev-o-lut-sia!" and picketed the building into the night.
Tempers cooled after independent lawmaker Yuriy Derevianko announced that an ad hoc interim commission
would be set up in parliament to investigate the situation surrounding the suspicious death of Right
Sector leader Oleksandr Muzychko, also known as Sashko Bily.
"Truth (in Muzychko's death) should be established. Thus, an interim commission will be set up
in parliament on March 28 to probe into the case with obligatory participation of Right Sector representatives,"
he told Right Sector protesters on March 27.
A total of 232 of 279 lawmakers voted for the creation of the special commission decision on March
28. It will be led by independent Yuriy Derevianko, but is comprised of representatives of all factions
as well as three representatives of public organizations.
Acting President and Verkhovna Rada Chairman Oleksandr Turchynov said before the vote on the creation
of the commission that parliament "should ensure the clear and transparent verification of the circumstances
surrounding the death of this man (Muzychko)."
Editor Christopher J. Miller joined the Kyiv Post in January 2013. He is an American journalist
with experience at daily, weekly and monthly newspapers and magazines. He's also a correspondent
for Mashable and GlobalPost, and has published with The Times of London, The Independent and The
Telegraph, among others. A native of Portland, Oregon and a graduate of Portland State University,
he is a Returned Peace Corps Volunteer (Ukraine 2010-2012).
Rob Centros · Top Commenter
Wait a minute. Aren't these the same Neo-Nazis that we said didn't exist when they taking down
the ELECTED government? Maybe Putin (and Crimea) aren't as "crazy" as everyone claimed, eh?
Donat Etienne
It took KP 15 hours to come up with this info. Christopher, you read this... why 15 hours?
Time to put the right spin on events?
David Larsen
Your image tells us all what your motive is. Your motive is to discredited anything the Ukrainian
government does. As for right wing sector if they wear fatigues, cover their faces and wear bullet
proof vests they set themselves out as a danger to all in society. In this they are traitors trying
to overthrow the government. No political party can have any respect if they represent themselves
in this manner. There actions are the same as Putin who has declared war against Ukraine and very
well are paid by Putin. The government as seen around the World is making great strides. Only
the criminals want to tear down the progress that has been made as it is destroying their way
of life.
Rob Centros
The so-called "Ukrainian government" is a disparate band of thugs. There is no government,
just Neo-Nazis and EU sycophants willing to give everything away in Ukraine, including the kitchen
sink. It's an IMF resource grab -- and it equals austerity (starvation wages) for the citizens
of Ukraine.
Four man were too afraid to take the post the she took. Edited Google translation.
There is so much dirt on me spilled on the Internet and a lot more where -- I want to say that
when I was a senior prosecutor and being acting employee of Prosecutor General's Office of Ukraine,
wrote a report with the request to be dismissed from my position. It happened on February 25. I wrote
that I was ashamed to live in a country where bandits confidently walks on the streets. At this time
I had no proposals from the Crimea. I did not know where I will work after. But they did approve
my request. Natasha, they said, you're tired. It is clear that you worry too much. So you better
take vacation. Relax and them come back. But I came to them with the St. George's ribbon. I said
that I do not accept the current government and showed them the ribbon. To show my position -- And
put the ribbon directly to the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. And then I went on vacation in the
Crimea, to parents.
And then I was on vacations I offered to provide at least some assistance to the Government of
the Crimea, to help people avoid the chaos that happened in Kiev. And I suddenly found myself to
be appointed as Prosecutor General of the Crimea. And the same day, I learned that Kiev junta brought
a criminal case against me and dismissed me from the service .
... ... ...
I want my child to live in an honest country, and not in Bandera , treacherous, Nazi infected
one. I was ashamed that I am a citizen of such a state. My grandmother called me and cried: she think
that this is the return the time when there was a Nazi occupation. She is 86 now. She remembers quite
vividly how the Germans and Ukrainian policemen tortured people -- How am I going to look my grandmother
in eyes, if I serve the ascendants of the same "SS Galicia " ? When I think about this, there is
no fear to act as I acted and will continue to do so.
воевать с русскими - это уж как придется, но, "мы, в первую очередь, найдем и отстреляем всех
сепаратистов... мы всех предателей найдем и им за нас отомстим".
The killing by Ukrainian law enforcement of a notorious ultranationalist wanted for war atrocities
is a sign of an emerging rift in the new leadership in Kiev that illegally seized power in a coup
last month, a senior Russian lawmaker said Wednesday.
Olexander Muzychko, a member of Ukraine's radical Right Sector party and an active participant
in this year's anti-government riots in Kiev,
was gunned down late Monday in western Ukraine in an operation by law enforcement.
A senior source in Ukraine's security service told RIA Novosti that Muzychko was killed by special
forces operating as police officers.
"The incident with Muzychko is just the beginning," Alexei Pushkov wrote on his Twitter blog.
Pushkov, who heads the foreign affairs committee in the lower house of Russia's parliament,
predicted further cracks in the alliance in Kiev: "This is how an upheaval works. Let's
wait for news."
People of Dnepropetrovsk are attacked by far right gangs. They attack people who have St. George
ribbons attached to clothing and beat them.
These cases of aggression are deliberate terro comaine of supporters of Ukrainian coup d'etat
in order to change skeptical mood of fellow citizens toward junta via intimidation. Just two days
ago, in Zaporizhia participants of Maidan "Self_Defence" units attacked motorists who rally under
the slogans of friendship with Russia came to the regional center of Melitopol. Radicals attacked
the cars of people ripped flags from cars and pelted them with stones .
The recent robbing of passengers, traveling from Russia to Moldova via Ukraine's territory, by
a local ultra-nationalist Insurgent Army is a manifestation of "anarchy," the Russian Foreign Ministry
has said.
On March 21, the train, en route from Moscow to the capital of Moldova, Chisinau, made a scheduled
stop in the city of Vinnitsa in central Ukraine.
"To the horror of passengers…people dressed in the uniform of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA)
got into carriages and began a 'document check'. People who showed Russian passports were then made
to hand over their money and golden jewelry," the Russian Ministry...
The Ukrainian government installed by the coup has been recognized by the Western powers. It includes
several members of explicitly Nazi organizations, including two leaders who have distinguished themselves
by fabricating false images of violence and torture aimed to convince Western public opinion of the
cruelty of the democratically elected president, Viktor Yanukovych. The Deputy Secretary of the National
Security and Defence Council of Ukraine openly acknowledges his ties with Al-Qaeda.
The coup organized by the CIA in Kiev brought to power a government representing the oligarchs
and extremist groups. Its members comprise several Nazi leaders. This is the first time since the
Second World War that politicians referring directly to the Third Reich have come to power in Europe.
Two of its members claim to have links with the Islamic Emirate of the North Caucasus, an organization
affiliated with al-Qaeda, according to the United Nations. One of them has left to fight against
Russia within this context.
Three other members were involved in propaganda operations, posturing as victims of the democratic
regime of Viktor Yanukovych.
Andriy Parubiy (Андрій Парубій) Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council
(body which presides over the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces). Founded the Social-National
Party of Ukraine together with Oleh Tyahnybok.
Dmytro Yarosh (Дмитро Ярош) Deputy Secretary of the National Security and Defence Council
(body which presides over the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces). Leader of Stepan Bandera
Treezoob and the Right Sector coalition. Yarosh fought alongside Chechen Islamists. On 1 March
2014, he turned for help to the emir of the North Caucasus, Dokka Umarov (Доку Умаров), considered
by the United Nations to be a member of Al-Qaeda. In the fake video directed by Andriy Kozhemyakin
with Andrei Dubovik playing the role of bad cop, he portrayed the poor naked activist being roughed
up in the snow [1].
Oleksandr Sych (Александр Сыч) Deputy Prime Minister. Member of the Freedom Party (Svoboda/Свобода);
anti-abortion activist (even in the case of rape).
Ihor Tenyukh (Игорь Тенюх). Minister of Defense. Although his formal membership in
the Freedom Party (Svoboda / Свобода) is not certain, he participates in their meetings. Trained
in the United States, he directed joint Ukraine/NATO maneuvers. During the war in Georgia (2008),
he organized the siege of Sevastopol and was promoted vice admiral of the fleet. His appointment
as defense minister prompted the Ukrainian Navy not to recognize the new government and to fly
the Russian flag.
Serhiy Kvit (Сергей Квит). Education Minister. Member of the Freedom Party (Svoboda/Свобода)
Andriy Mokhnyk (Андрей Мохник). Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Ukraine.
Member of the Freedom Party (Svoboda/Свобода)
Ihor Shvaika (Игорь Швайка). Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food . Member of the Freedom
Party (Svoboda/Свобода)
Dmytro Boulatov (Дмитрий Булатов). Ministry of Youth and Sports. Member of the Ukrainian
National Self-Defence (UNA-UNSO). He alleged to have been kidnapped, sequestered and horribly
tortured from 22 to 31 January 2014. He claims to have gone to Germany for treatment without meeting
any journalists. However, Foreign Minister Leonid Kojara attested that the man was in good shape
and that the whole thing had been staged. The fact remains that he turned up a month later as
fit as a fiddle.
Thierry Meyssan
[1] "Fake images in Ukraine", Translation Alizée Ville, Voltaire Network, 7 February 2014
According
to the Moscow Times, the recording, apparently made March 8, details a conversation between Tymoshenko
and Nestor Shufrych from Ukraine's National Security Council, and has Tymoshenko suggesting that
Ukrainians should kill Russians, and, in particular, Russian President Vladimir Putin.
... ... ...
The video containing the recording was initially uploaded to a YouTube account under the name
Sergiy Vechirko,
and has since been widely shared on pro-Kremlin media outlets, with Russia Today producing its
own version with
translation:
Muzychko was a member of the hardline Right Sector and the group's co-ordinator for western Ukraine,
the country's nationalist heartland bordering the EU. Police said he was wanted for hooliganism and
an attack on a local prosecutor.
Russia, which cited the likes of Right Sector as justification for its move to annex Crimea and
protect the peninsula's ethnic Russian majority from Ukrainian "fascists", said this month that Muzychko
was under investigation for fighting alongside rebels in Chechnya in the 1990s.
Contradicting the police account, the independent MP Oleksander Doniy said on his Facebook page
that Muzychko had been executed. Muzychko had previously said he feared the police would kill him.
"Two vehicles cut off his car. He was dragged out and put in one of them. Then he was thrown on
the ground, hands cuffed behind his back, two shots to the heart," Doniy wrote, without saying where
he got his information.
Yanukovych triggered peaceful street protests in late November by making a U-turn away from the
EU and towards closer ties with Russia. Right Sector raised the protests to a new level in January
by attacking police vehicles with petrol bombs and bricks. It provided much of the muscle as clashes
with police grew more serious.
Yanukovych fled in February after two days of gun battles between police and protesters in which
95 people were killed.
The Right Sector leader Dmytro Yarosh has said he plans to run for president in elections on 25
May, but he is a rank outsider.
DrHfuhruhrr
At last some reporting on the fascists who led the coup against Yanukovych and whose parties
now hold many of the key ministerial appointments in the government in Kiev.
Jeremn -> DrHfuhruhrr
Absolutely, nutters like Parubiy are still in power.
He said that those Ukrainians who work in Russia "are not and can never be on our side and
that is why I spit on them".
Parubiy, secretary of national security, founder of the Social-National party.
Veganthrope -> DrHfuhruhrr
As I've pointed out countless times, the 2012 elected Parliament never left. The temporary
cabinet has 4 out of 23 ministers in Svoboda party. The Defense Minister, Ihor Tenyukh, served
under Yushchenko until 2010 as commander of Ukraine's Navy. Yesterday, Tenyukh submitted his resignation
over his decision to withdraw troops from Crimea, but the 2012 Parliament refused to accept it:
The top 3 positions in government President, Prime Minister, and Direct Vice Prime Minister
are not members of Svoboda Party.
Back story: After Yanukovych resigned, rescinded his resignation, then was impeached by the
2012 Parliament where his own party had a super majority; it was necessary to form appoint a temp
President and temporary Cabinet. After negotiations with the 2012 elected Parliament, it was agreed
the Ministry positions of the Cabinet would be decided based on the % each opposition party received
in the 2012 election. Svoboda Party received 10% of the vote (31 deputies in Parliament), thus
4 Svoboda party members were made temporary Ministers.
Since Svoboda party does NOT control the temporary government, it's idiotic to depict the government
as being neo-Nazis. We both know that is short-hand racism against ethnic Ukrainians in general.
The temporary Cabinet will be replaced after nationwide elections are held in MAY (less than
2 months).
DrHfuhruhrr
Maybe the reports of "protestors" shooting at police during the insurrection are not so incredible
now?
alef DrHfuhruhrr
Its quite possible that Muzychko new something and could disclose/blackmail some figures currently
in the government?
fromtheUrals alef
There is every likelihood. And they will do everything to hold the truth back from public,
moreover these Maidan snipers could be even not Ukrainian Nazies but US mercenaries. In any way
they've done the job Vicky Nuland had wanted...
Briar alef
We all know something about the puppets, oligarchs and neo Nazis in the government - we know
that they are what they are, and that their government is based on a violent and undemocratic
putsch. But that wouldn't be enough to get them shot, since our dear leaders have embraced them
and their putsch and are now rushing to absorb the Ukraine into the US sphere of influence, neo
Nazis and all, as fast as they can.
MartynInEurope
Is this the start of the Night of the Long Knives? The useful idiots have now served their
purpose.
Jeremn Gabacho
this for how propaganda works its subtle way, specifically on recent reporting on Ukraine:
Makes me wonder what the agenda really is, and who is coordinating with whom. I wouldn't be
surprised if the disasterous leak of the Danish Text during the Copenhagen Climate Change Summit
was actually coordinated between the US Administration and certain liberal media. Which begs the
question: Why would the liberal press go out of its way to torpedo agreement on saving the planet
from the negative effects of climate change?
Strober
Yes, Guardian, you should have been reporting on these right wing groups a few months ago,
at the very least. But, as your great columnist Luke Harding wrote last week, these right wingers
are just a figment of Putin's imagination.
In Greece, they made moves to ban the right wing 'Golden Dawn' because the party did not fit
European ideals. So why is the EU supporting a government in Ukraine with close connections to
Svoboda and Pravoi Sektor, two fascist groups? I'd wager that Poland and the US gave a bit more
than moral support to these groups.
jgbg Strober
In Greece, they made moves to ban the right wing 'Golden Dawn' because the party did not
fit European ideals. So why is the EU supporting a government in Ukraine with close connections
to Svoboda and Pravoi Sektor, two fascist groups?
In December 2012, the European parliament passed a resolution on this very topic. They
deplored the rise of the extreme right in Ukraine and stated that parties such as Svoboda should
play no part in government, explaining that the policies of these parties were at odds with core
values and principles of the EU.
Only 15 months later, it seems that EU politicians across the board are happy to ditch their
principles when it comes to Ukraine.
adognow
Aww, look at the Orweillian doublespeak on display again.
Far right "activist"?
Are you kidding me?
Oleksander Muzychko went to Chechnya to fight together with Saudi-funded Islamic terrorists
and was responsible for the torture-murder of 20 captured Russian soldiers.
Now, this reminds me of Omar Khadr, the 15 year old Afghan kid who threw a grenade at invading
US soldiers and killed one of them. Khadr was subsequently detained (at 15 years old) and sent
to Guantanamo bay and he was branded a terrorist by the media.
So, does this mean that one man's terrorist is another man's activist?
The media sure is cynical.
Lucas Czarnecki adognow
How dare you call this spontaneous freedom fighter names ? You'll be banned from the EU and
USA in no time !
jonni7 adognow
Yeah, what has The Guardian become?
Can't wait for the "Guardian backed wrong horse shock" headline, but I won't hold my breath
Jeremn
"A prominent Ukrainian far-right activist, part of a hardline nationalist movement that played
a leading role in the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych, has been shot dead by police."
Hang on, I thought the narrative was that there were no far-right groups involved in the coup?
Hey, shhhh! Don't give the plebs any cause to question the Media line on all these fluffy humanitarians
running around Kiev with guns and sticks, assaulting TV station chiefs and prosecutors! Clearly
as the Revolution eats itself we have to take a side, and that means when our corrupt moderate
boys in Kiev are dealing with them these guys are far right radicals. When the Russians, Eastern
and Southern Ukrainians are dealing with them they are freedom loving democratic revolutionaries.
So shh now and remeber to stay on message, like Luke, where the message can volte face 1984 like
as and when political propaganda expediency demands.
Jeremn irishinrussia
That's right. Videos of children being taught to sing "hang the Russians" only exist in the
Russian imagination:
So next up faced with Western impotence, squeamishness and inaction the corrupt moderates in
Kiev (Batyvshyna and Udar) are forced to call for Russian intervention to restore peace and stability
as the "Revolution" starts to eat itself.
Does anyone imagine that Pravy Sektor, and sympathetic factions of Svoboda are going to sit
back and accept this? Yarosh is hardly going to just sit by and allow this is he? What about Mykola
Velichovich? Or is this Pravy Sektor/Svoboda's night of the long knives? Whatever is going on
this is not going to be pretty.
I wonder now how our leaders are going to react? If the radicals in Kiev are now starting to
eat themselves in a post revolutionary power play (theink Stalin v Trotsky, then Zinoviev-Kamenev,
or Robbespierre v Danton), I can't imagine this is going to bolster confidence in the South and
East. The Tatars and Ukrainians in Crimea might soon be more grateful than they could ever have
imagined being for Russia's intervention.
What is it about the West's interventions at the moment that we seem to get it spectacularly
wrong again and again? Meanwhile Putin acts at leisure, waiting for us to let the situation get
out of control before riding in as and when he pleases and whatever about world political elites,
must look to most of the general public as the one responsible European leader on the World Stage.
ID5677229 irishinrussia
Or is this Pravy Sektor/Svoboda's night of the long knives? Whatever is going on this is
not going to be pretty. I wonder now how our leaders are going to react? If the radicals in
Kiev are now starting to eat themselves in a post revolutionary power play (theink Stalin v
Trotsky, then Zinoviev-Kamenev, or Robbespierre v Danton)
Do you suppose that this ludicrous Putin-speak narrative will become reality if you repeat
it sufficiently often? The violent personality-cult youth organisations, the complete suppression
of opposition and control of the media, the murder of journalists, the concentration of power
in the hands of one man wedded to a "Great Russia" ideology that involves once more extending
Kremlin power to the old Soviet borders, the labelling of all opposition and opposing acts as
"fascist," the constant flooding of the mind's of Russian citizens with paranoid propaganda to
the effect that only The Leader can save them from the "fascists" who encircle them - this is
all in Moscow, not Kiev.
irishinrussia ID5677229
I've never labelled all opposition as "fascist", but I, unlike you, do accept that there have
been fascist involved, and not in the Godwin's law style of "if I don't like what you say, you
are a fascist" but in the Muzychko/Yarosh/Parubiy/Tyahnybok style. In the mould of Svoboda, the
party labelled neo-Nazi by the World Jewish Congress and extremist by the EU.
Udar are an unknown quantity, and Batyvshyna are just as rotten and corrupt as the party
of the regions. Of course you probably live in a happy little fantasy world where such realities
don't exist and Russia is the root of all evil and there were no threats to the Russian language,
no calls to ban the Party of the Regions and Communists etc etc.
Russia is the Great Satan. Maidan is Pure and untainted by extremism. You shall Know Putin
by his sign and that sign will be 666. Yes and I'm the propagandist?
jgbg ID5677229
@ID5677229
Right Sector themselves have indicated that they are totally opposed to Ukraine joining the
EU (because the EU is against nationalism).
The EU parliament has indicated that Svoboda should not have any role in the Ukrainian government.
Do you think that Right Sector and Svoboda are simply going to return home and leave Ukraine
to Tymoshenko and her mates?
Albert Lyubarsky
He was the notorious star in Russian's Propaganda. It's very good for Ukraine to get rid of
such people.
When I've seen his deeds I thought that all Ukrainians like him. Apparently I was wrong.
ID5677229 Albert Lyubarsky
When I've seen his deeds I thought that all Ukrainians like him. Apparently I was wrong.
Why confess to thinking like an imbecile?
Albert Lyubarsky ID5677229
I was born in Ukraine. I know more or less Ukrainian people mood (some of them are anti semitic,
anti russians and anti any other nation). I know that Praviy Sektor has major role in Ukrainian
government now. I know that current Ukrainian UN Ambassador said that Bendera is good gay and
he is a national hero.
I know that PMs of the far-fight Svoboda party can go to Ukraine TV and under violence and threats
to force a chief executive of Ukraine's state broadcaster to sign a resignation letter because
he had broadcasted something not enough patriotic. And to be so sure in they impunity to dare
to film everything.
I really surprised that Ukrainian police has courage to resist to thugs like Muzychko, despite
the fact that his party now in government
irishinrussia
How long before we get an article from Luke altering the narrative to claim that "sources"
have informed him it was actually a Russian provocation, as a combined force of OMOH special forces
and sacked Berkut were actually responsible, and are now roaming Ukraine hunting for other "Heroes
of Maidan"?
Chenoa irishinrussia
"How long before we get an article from Luke altering the narrative to claim that "sources"
have informed him it was actually a Russian provocation, as a combined force of OMOH special forces
and sacked Berkut were actually responsible, and are now roaming Ukraine hunting for other "Heroes
of Maidan"?"
Good question.
Zenotaph
Hey Luke, one of your peaceful pro-democracy activist had just been liquidated. Can you please
do the obits? Thanks.
Vaska Tumir
So much more convenient than an OSCE investigation.
Which this paper and other MSM have been conspicuously silent about, putting no public pressure
on officials such as Baroness Ashton, who only 3 weeks ago claimed the EU does want to investigate
who hired the snipers for the February massacre in Kiev. One of the key witnesses for that investigation
has just been permanently silenced by the new Ukrainian authorities, who now appear to have some
sort of a political agreement with the EU (and whose details we don't know because our press won't
pursue that "story").
alef
Recall Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria. Everywhere the West sticks its hands into, the disaster
follows.
dvdmartin alef
Yes. I agree, but actually the "disaster" scenario may well have been the original intention
and the Bush plan. ie while they are blowing each other to bits. They are not attacking Israel.
dvdmartin
Is the popularity of the far right wing in the Ukraine a reaction against Russia rather than
a political conviction? Or has there been long term (or pre WW2) Nazi support from Ukrainians?
And we are supporting their attempts to join the EU?? Didn't Gideon support bailing them out of
their economic mess? ps Don't let any hatred of Russia automatically welcome these right wing
fascists! I don't belong to the "Your enemy must be my friend" idea.
Christopher Atwood dvdmartin
The far right in Ukraine isn't popular. They are respected for helping the protesters at Maidan
fend off the police, but they have no really influence politically, other than over some uneducated
and rebellious young people.
Source: I lived in Donetsk for two years and visited earlier this month.
JimmySands Christopher Atwood
Source: I lived in Donetsk for two years and visited earlier this month.
That's all very well, but there are people here who read counterpunch and know the real truth.
JimmySands Christopher Atwood
Source: I lived in Donetsk for two years and visited earlier this month.
That's all very well, but there are people here who read counterpunch and know the real truth.
VladimirM
'A prominent Ukrainian far-right activist, part of a hardline nationalist movement that
played a leading role in the overthrow of President Viktor Yanukovych...'
Not the peaceful protesters anymore, those who played leading role? And Yanukovich was
overthrown, not 'impeached legally'?
vazelas99 VladimirM
It's the Reuters text, apparently...don't get carried away yet!
VladimirM vazelas99
But it's in the Guardian anyway, unbelievable!
mauman
the photos of his body seems to indicate he was handcuffed
" whose Right Sector group played key role in ousting president,"
take that all of you who said this wasn't a fascist led coup.
Finally we have it from the Guardian. Is that an admission at long last?
Now that the Guardian is on a truth mission.. how about some good old investigative journalism
and find out if Ukraine's billions in gold was really flown to the US for "safe keeping"
And a very nasty character is dead... And we already have 2 versions of events (at least)
So 1 party is lying. The interior ministry or the independent MP. I think the ministry.
Can't wait for the result of the inevstigation. I wonder if he was removed because he was a
big mouth with a little brain and may have exposed NATO actions....
VladimirM
'Right Sector raised the protests to a new level in January by attacking police vehicles with
petrol bombs and bricks.'
Berkut was not to blame for the outburst of violence?
PuppetMaster11
Now hunting season is open.
When I heard of the plan to build the National Guard out of right wing activists, that reminded
me of the night of long knives.
After taking power, Hitler killed the leadership of the SA which wanted to replace Wehrmacht
as the national army and socialist redistribution of wealth. This way, Hitler made alliance with
the Wehrmacht ang German capitalists.
This is wiki description of the situation just before the night of the long knives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung
Powerful supporters of Hitler had been complaining about Röhm for some time. The generals were
fearful of Röhm's desire to have the SA, a force of over three million men, absorb the much smaller
German Army into its ranks under his leadership.[14] Further, reports of a huge cache of weapons
in the hands of SA members gave the army commanders even more concern.[14] Industrialists, who
had provided the funds for the Nazi victory, were unhappy with Röhm's socialistic views on the
economy and his claims that the real revolution had still to take place. Matters came to a head
in June 1934 when President von Hindenburg, who had the complete loyalty of the army, informed
Hitler that if he did not move to curb the SA then Hindenburg would dissolve the Government and
declare martial law.[15]
Does it sound familiar?
However there is something which puzzles me. I thought National Guard is Right Sector with
a new name. However there was this report from NYT.
Ukraine Sets Deadline for Militias to Surrender Illegal Guns
The interim government is now seeking to integrate the loosely organized militias into a newly
formed national guard, though several hard-line groups, including Right Sector, have declined
to join.
If this is true, power play in Kiev is more complex than I thought, and National Guard could
be a maneuver to isolate Right Sector
The National Guard is being organized by the Interior ministry and it is interior ministry
force which killed Muzychko.
Also there is a report that defense Minister Tenyukh just resigned.
Who will end up being the hunters and who will end up being the hunted? Those who ended up
being hunted will end up being blamed for the sniper affair, too.
jgbg PuppetMaster11
The problems for the coup leaders keep coming. Right Sector have probably done a lot more training
than the people joining the national guard and they acquired a lot of weapons from military arsenals
during the coup. (The amnesty has apparently netted a couple of thousand weapons out of about
15000 that are missing). There are plenty of trained people from the military but the interim
government doesn't appear to trust or respect them. The USA and UK have indicated that they won't
fight for the coup leaders. If the Russians decided to take eastern Ukraine, there wouldn't be
much to stop them.
PuppetMaster11 jgbg
I don't think they are arming themselves to fight Russian regular army. They will be going
after the civilian pro-Russian population. They can do it without Russian invasion and start a
civil war.
Once civil war break out, Putin will face a difficult dilemma. It will be a trap to force Putin
to send troops to Ukraine.
ColBan
The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence the Ukrainian nationists supporting the
Nazis against their Russian oppressors. No doubt the Putinskis on this CiF are keen to ignore
the fact that Uncle Joe's body count matched Adolf's. Still, if Queen Vlad continues the land
grab, he may be a credible 21st Century successor to these two.
Briar ColBan
Nothing excuses backing neo-Nazis. You have to be morally and spiritually tone deaf to think
anything would.
skybirduk
A Right Sector organiser in Rivne has now threatened revenge for the killing of Muzychko, saying
he had not been summoned by investigators.
"We will avenge ourselves on [Interior Minister] Arsen Avakov for the death of our brother.
The shooting of Sashko Bily is a contract killing ordered by the minister," said Roman Koval of
the Right Sector in Rivne region, quoted by the Ukrayinska Pravda website.
The blue touch paper has been lit, time to stand well back.
MartynInEurope
Ukrainian far-right activist shot dead by police
Activist?
Is The Graun in a race to the bottom with Stormfront now?
Indracus
Oleksandr Muzychko was the thug who can be seen in film clips, available on the internet, toting
a machine gun and encouraging the mob to "Kill Russians and Jews".
Yulia Tymoshenko has admitted that her leaked telephone conversation, in which she calls for
the killing of Ukraine's eight million Russians, is authentic. Will she also be belatedly 'dealt
with' by the police or will she become President?
And the West still maintains that the Russians have nothing to fear.
Just who did kill all those people in the square? The Ukrainian (not Russian) police are blamed
but at least one doctor has disputed this and the powers that be have refused a forensic examination!
Interesting quote from a Ukrainian marine heading back to Ukraine One of the less than 23% who
decided to head back.
"We resisted for 23 days on dried food, on canned fish. Could defence ministry officials
have survived like that for so long?" Ruslan asked bitterly.
"They kept saying, 'Hold on... it's being decided'.
"We asked them for a command, but there was nothing."
The angry marines are ready to go straight to Kiev and raise some hell, said Yevgeniy, who
is also in his late 20s.
"We'll go back to Ukraine. If nobody picks us up at the border, all of us will go to Kiev
to the Rada (parliament), to the defence ministry.
"We'll storm them, and maybe then they'll treat us differently," he said as he waited
for a bus to the border town of Chongar.
Ukraine should have immediately put up barriers at all Russian crossings to protect Crimea,
the marines said. They think the peninsula has been lost because of poor leadership.
Former president Viktor "Yanukovych should have used troops at Maidan," Yevgeniy said,
referring to the Kiev square occupied by pro-European protesters who toppled the pro-Moscow
leader last month.
"He believed the wrong people... and where is he now? And where are we now? We are totally
fucked."
Not too good for the Ukrainian government if even the 20% of forces returning from Crimea have
this view.
Scipio1
History repeats itself. The Night of the Long Knives begins. The SA was liquidated in 1934,
as having secured the nazi ascendency in Germany's streets became an embarrassment to Hitler,
and this will be the fate of what have become an embarrassing neo-Nazi element in the Kiev regime.
The wolves devour each other, bravo.
fromtheUrals Scipio1
Allusion is quite plausible but Sashko Bilyi was not Rohm (SA leader in 1934), he was more
of a raunchy little fuhrer in western Urkaine. Rohm's analogy is Yarosh who still controlls the
Kiev government and even Ukrainian military (all generals he disliked were dismissed). The most
disgusting acts of this drama are still ahead. Cakes-granting Nuland was too stupid to understand
it
fromtheUrals
Now the Right Sector unequivocally named the organizer of this murder - Arseniy Avakov, the
acting interior minister - and promised revenge. Hope they'll kill him. Hope they all kill each
other without any Russian involvement, and so it goes. The Russian public opinion overwhelmingly
supports the re-unification with Crimea, but eastern and southern Urkaine is another matter. The
majority here thinks: let it remain within Ukraine but with a high degree of autonomy. Russia
doesn't need these lands (have a lot of this land stuff already) but it cannot stay away from
Russian-speaking people living there. Putin is unlikely to act against Russian public opinion,
he needs support at home much more than obamised-merkeldimed-camoronous approval abroad. So he's
most likely act in accordance with public opinion - i.e. federalization of Ukraine without military
occupation. The Right Sector may not like it surely, and so Sachko was eliminated by Kiev authorities
as a preparation for this deal with Russia
Vladimir Kamensky
Muzychko was captured in a cafe, his hands was handcuffed , torn clothes on his chest to see
if there is a bulletproof vest and shot two times in heart. He did not resist while was arrested.
The plotters started cleaning people that helped them come to power.Perhaps he knew too manifold
opposition leaders.
However, regret of his death is not ..
ParallelReality
Regarding Sashko Bily and Klitschko, another 'democrat' in Ukraine, a presidential hopeful
and a pet of Angela Merkel:
On March 8, 2914 Russian news agency Regnum published the following (it's been around Russian
and Ukrainian Internet for a while now):
'The influence of radicals on the leaders of the opposition (which are now in power Ukraine,
not opposition anymore) is getting more clear if to take into account the fact that that they
have common criminal past. A photograph is actively discussed now in blogs, at which the infamous
activist of 'Right Sector' Sashko Bily (real name Oleksandr Muzychko) is portrayed in company
of Klitschko brothers and their boss, the notorious criminal 'thief in law' Viktor Rybalko,
known in the Ukrainian criminal world as 'Rybka' ('Fish' in English).
Rybalko was the boss of the most influential organized crime gangs in Kiev, which did 'business'
in 'controlling' banks, hired killings, robberies, and racket. Viktor Rybalko gave to Klitschko
brothers 'start in life.' He brought them to US, introduced them to famous boxing agent Don
King. Having started his political career, Klitschko suddenly 'forgot' about his 'interesting'
past.
However, now he is again in company of his old buddies like Sashko Bily.'
One of the leaders of 'Right Sector' Oleksandr Muzychko was shot in a special operation
conducted by SBU operatives under cover of Ukrainian Department of Internal Affairs, on order
and instructions by SBU chief Valentin Nalivaichenko.
'The goal of the operation was not to detain Muzychko, but to 'neutralize' him, make him
'go from the scene', said to RIA-Novosti a source, having remarked that Muzychko began 'to
compromise the new Ukrainian government and interpret in his way instructions from 'Right Sector'.
The source said that 'regretfully, Ukrainian SBU (Security Service of Ukraine) in the past
was 'covering' for Muzychko, having fulfilling the task, given by one of Ukrainian oligarchs
directly connected with SBU chiefs.
The source also said that by information he has, on Monday a meeting was held between SBU
chief Nalivaichenko and a CIA 'employee' in Kiev and 'his guests.'
"It is not a secret for anyone that Nalivaichenko is now the main partner of the American
secret services and has very big trust from their side, if not to say more,' said the source.
According to the information of the source, he can't rule out 'other scenarios' being studied
at the present. 'Now in Kiev no one needs Yarosh (the leader of 'Right Sector')', added the
source.
The link: vzglyad.ru/news/2014/3/25/678845.html
fromtheUrals ParallelReality
Now in Kiev no one needs Yarosh (the leader of 'Right Sector')
But Yarosh doesn't care a damn for them, and that is the problem.The new Ukrainian National
guard being formed is surely no match for Russian professional troops (spetznaz, marines and paratroopers;
no draft soldiers were used in Crimea operation).
They cannot fight against well-trained soldiers but they are good enough for street-fighting
against civilians in eastern Ukraine cities. So what they are for. Kiev government desperately
needs Russian invasion to raise hell and to conceal beneath this hell the stinky tricks, snipers
and manipulations through which it has been pushed to power by US and EU degenerative politicians
TheAfricanMan
Get's interesting....
Dmitry Yarosh, leader of Ukraine's Right Sector nationalist party, is demanding the resignation
of acting Interior Minister Arsen Avakov and the arrest of police officers involved in the
killing of notorious radical militant Aleksandr Muzychko.
"We cannot watch silently as the Interior Ministry works to undermine the revolution," Interfax
reported Yarosh as saying. "We demand the immediate resignation of the Interior Minister Arsen
Avakov, and the arrest of the commander of the Sokol Special Forces and those guilty of [Muzychko's]
murder."
Earlier Tuesday, right-wing militant leader Muzychko, also known as Sashko Bilyi, was killed
in a police raid against his gang in Rovno, western Ukraine, Ukraine's Interior Ministry said
in a statement.
Right Sector leaders threatened Avakov with revenge, though they did not specify exactly
what they would do.
"We will take revenge on Arsen Avakov for the death of our brother," said Roman Koval, the
Right Sector organizer in Rovno, charivne.info news portal reported.
------
Avakov said in a reply to Right Sector that he accepts the far-right group's challenge,
adding that his stance toward lawbreakers will be harsh.
"If some gangsters threaten the minister, I accept this challenge and I am ready to accept
any challenge, because that's my job," Avakov said in a statement. "Henceforth my policy will
be very harsh toward bandits, toward those who take up arms to violate order."
By "bandits," Avakov said he was referring to people who loot enterprises or homes and possess
unregistered guns.
terziev
far-right activist
Just a month ago these were called "peaceful protesters"! It is not Muzychko who died,
it is the journalism. Actually it was killed in February, now they are desecrating the corpse.
It is such a shame there are no articles from Walker on the snipers in Kiev, especially when the
Kiev regime is getting rid of the evidences.
From Russian newspaper on March 7, 2014 about Muzychko's 'activities':
'In one of the previous
investigations conducted in Russia a member of Ukrainian nationalist organization UNA-UNSO (the
modern day followers of Bandera organization of WWII) was interrogated, who was participating
in fighting in Chechnya in 1994-2000.
'The UNA-UNSO member told that he joined UNA-UNSO in 1991. During a visit to the training center
of Ukrainian nationalists located in Ivano-Frankovsk, western Ukraine, he got acquainted with
other members of the organization, including one of its leaders and founders Oleksandr Muzychko.
At this training center, they were trained in marksmanship, martial arts, and also were given
'political and ideological' training by Muzychko,' the investigation report says.
By the words of this UNA-UNSO member during the interrogation, in the spring of 1993 he came
again to the training center in Ivano-Frankovsk, where for 18 months was trained as a sniper.
Muzychko was an instructor of tactics and combat fighting using knives and firearms. At the end
of December 1994, the most prepared members of the organization were dispatched in small groups
to fight against Russian troops in Chechnya. At first, they were transported to Kiev, from there
they flew by plane to Georgia (not American Georgia), the plane belonged to Georgian Air Force.
At the end of December 1994, in Grozny (Chechnya's capital), the members met Muzychko, who
as one of the leaders of UNA-UNSO was contacting the commanders of saboteurs groups, giving them
instructions. In 1994-1995 Muzychko and other members of UNA-UNSO participated in combats against
Russian troops during storming of Grozny.
The interrogated member in 'January of 1995 was witnessing many times as Muzychko was horribly
torturing captured Russian officers and soldiers, after which killed them. In total at this period
Muzychko personally tortured and then killed not less than 20 Russian soldiers. During the tortures
he was breaking fingers of the Russian officers, putting out their eyes using different tools,
pulling out their teeth and fingernails with pliers, cutting throats of some, shooting others.
His actions showed hatred towards Russian soldiers,' said the investigators.
The interrogated member of UNA-UNSO told about other 'actions' conducted by him, by Muzychko
and other members of UNA-UNSO against Russian troops in Chechnya in 1994-2000. When being shown
during the investigation photographs of different people, the interrogated recognized in one of
them Muzychko and identified him as the person with whom he served together in Chechnya.'
The link: http://vz.ru/society/2014/3/7/676042.html
BeKindToAll
Why is everyone so desperate on here for Ukraine not to be free?
I can understand people wanting Ukraine to have the right people leading the country, but the
people on here seem to be screaming and scrambling to make the point that the Ukrainians don't
deserve freedom?
It's getting pretty disgusting. Why don't people start voicing what they actually want to see
happen in Ukraine rather than just constantly trying to vilify it.
Terziev BeKindToAll
Ironically it is the "right people" who are leading the country. Extremely right
ones.
ParallelReality
Deputy of the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Vladimir Yevdokimov said today that Sashko
Bily 'could have killed himself.'
'He shot from his own firearm, the one he was firing at the police. One bullet went through,
the other got into his heart,' he said as Russian news agency Interfax reports.
'Right Sector' made another statement: 'We can't watch silently the active counter-revolutionary
activity by the Department of Internal Affairs. We demand immediate resignation of Arsen Avakov
(the Minister of Internal Affairs), demand to arrest the chief of 'Sokol' (the special force unit),
and those who are responsible for killing,' said 'Right Sector' leader Dmitry Yarosh, reports
RIA-Novosti.
By the way, Oleksandr Muzychko was born in 1962, not in Ukraine, but in Russia: in a village
Volodardkoye, now part of a mining town called Kizel in Permsky region in the Urals. There he
graduated from school, later from a vocational school. Then he was drafted to the army after which
didn't return to his home town. Became an Ukrainian 'patriot'...
Milogrim ParallelReality
Quote "Deputy of the Ukrainian Minister of Internal Affairs Vladimir Yevdokimov said today
that Sashko Bily 'could have killed himself.' "
Yeah, this is all over Ukrainian media now:
http://www.pravda.com.ua/rus/news/2014/03/25/7020288/
either the guy was handcuffed and managed to snatch back his own gun and shoot himself through
the heart, or for some reason the corpse was handcuffed after he killed himself. Kinda weird,
huh?
Normin
This is a classic play by the West.
Use right wing nationalists or violent others to overthrow a government they stand against
because they are available and willing foot soldiers to be exploited.
Then after a successful coup, since they are not desirable to Western PR in this case, remove
them from the equation.
This technique has been used time and again in "revolutions" throughout history. Their ranks
are already infiltrated by double agents who spy on them.
Yusuf Çabuk
They will all be eliminated like rats, those far-right guys! Those who planned Euromaidan
and the overthrow of Yanukovich (we all know who they are indeed) never tolerate nationalists.
They know that sooner or later they will be obstacles because they will never do anything at the
expense of their country. The same happened in my country, Turkey: They used nationalists against
communism in the 70s and then all of them were arrested and sentenced to life in prison.
Unfortunately, collaborators are the first to get rid of and those far-right guys should have
known this. West (by west I don't mean western people or cultures but those who plot all these
nasty things around the world) has never had faithfulness.. They use them and then throw them
away like a condom..Bin Laden, Saddam, Islamic Brothers in Egypt are just a few examples..
Purbachal
Why most of the "western " journalists from the free press do not write anything about
the activities of the "right sector" , "Svoboda" or other extreme right nationalist fractions,
who are worse than BNP or EDL?
In fact these people turn the peaceful protest in Kiev's Maidan, in to a violent bloody battle
by attacking and killing police who were doing ther public duty. In any civilised country it would
have been considered as crime but in Kiev they are the revolutionaries. But why?
I am sure Cameron, Hague, Clegg would not agree to rule our country with BNP and EDL. Why then
supporting the new Kiev regime who are in coalition with "Right sector", Svoboda and the Nazi
followers like Banderas supporters?
Notorious Ukrainian right-wing militant leader Aleksandr Muzychko, also known as Sashko Bilyi,
has been shot dead during a police raid against his gang, confirmed Ukraine's Ministry of Interior.
Muzychko was killed in Rovno, western Ukraine, where he coordinated actions of local groups belonging
to the nationalist Right Sector movement.
Police discovered a spare loaded magazine for a Makarov pistol and a total of $3,500 and 5,000
Ukrainian hryvnas in cash on Muzychko's body, UNN agency reported to a Ukrainian Interior Ministry
official as saying. Muzychko received three gunshot wounds to his chest and two to his right leg,
the official said.
At a press conference dedicated to Muzychko's death, First Deputy Interior Minister Vladimir Yevdokimov
announced that charges of hooliganism and obstructing law enforcement agencies had been filed against
Muzychko March 8, and on March 12 Muzychko was put on the Ukrainian police's wanted list.
Yevdokimov provided a dramatic version of the events leading up to Muzychko's death.
The operation to arrest him took place in a village near Rovno, where the militant leader and
three of his bodyguards, all of them armed, were in a local restaurant, called "The Three Crucians."
An assault group from the Sokol special police task force stormed the restaurant to detain Muzychko
and his henchmen. The militant leader made an attempt to flee through a window. He opened fire, and
two of his bullets wounded a police officer, who returned fire and shot Muzychko in the leg. Other
police officers shot in the air, Yevdokimov said.
Even after Muzychko fell to the ground, he continued shooting.
"When [the police] attempted to detain him, they found out he was wounded. The medics who
arrived at the scene proclaimed Muzychko dead," Yevdokimov said.
The three bodyguards, who were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles and Makarov pistols, were
detained by police.
A former senior official at the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) told RIA Novosti that the objective
of the operation – carried out by SBU with the help of the Interior Ministry – was to kill Muzychko,
rather than to detain him.
"The goal of the operation was not to detain, but to neutralize Muzychko, to remove him from
the stage," the source said, adding that the militant leader was undermining the new Ukrainian
authorities and pursuing his own interests through his leadership of the Right Sector movement.
Muzychko himself earlier said he believed he could be killed. In a video address recently posted
on YouTube he said that the leadership of "the Prosecutor General's office and the Interior Ministry
of Ukraine made a decision to either eliminate me or to capture me and hand me over to Russia, to
then blame it all on the Russian intelligence."
The man was known for his radicalism, attacks on local officials during the coup in Kiev, and
refusing to give up arms after the new authorities were imposed.
Under the name Sashko Bilyi, he took an active part in the First Chechen War in 1994-1995, when he
headed a group of Ukrainian nationalists fighting against Russian troops.
Russia's Investigative Committee initiated a
criminal case
against Aleksandr Muzychko in early March. The Ukrainian was accused of torturing and murdering at
least 20 captured Russian soldiers as he fought alongside Chechen militants. Aleksandr Muzychko came
under the spotlight of the Russian authorities after a series of scandals in Ukraine, when the radical
nationalist leader went on with the rampage against regional authorities,
lashing out
at a local prosecutor, threatening local authorities with an
AK-47
and making openly anti-Semitic
statements.
The most prominent among these groups is an organization called Svoboda. The Svoboda party which
traces its roots to the Ukrainian partisan army of World War II, was loosely allied with Nazi Germany.
Until 2004, Svoboda had been called the Social-Nationalist Party, a deliberate reference to the National
Socialism of the Nazis.
We're not throwing the term Neo-Nazi around as an empty slur here. The leader of Svoboda, Oleh
Tyahnybok, has openly targeted Jews and ethnic Russians in Ukraine for many years. In 2004 he was
kicked out of Viktor Yushenko's government for a speech calling for Ukrainians to fight against a
"Muscovite-Jewish mafia", and in 2005 he signed his name to an open letter to the leadership of Ukraine
entitled "Stop the Criminal Activities of Organised Jewry".
And none of this was
a secret. The BBC was already reporting on the danger that Svoboda's rise posed back in 2012, and
the EU passed a resolution that same year condemning Svoboda, as "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic".
Yet somehow the U.S. government thought it was appropriate to back these extremists.
This is a picture of Victoria Nuland from the U.S. State Department meeting with Oleh Tyahnybok
in February, and this is a picture of Senator John McCain sharing a stage with Tyahnybok in December.
Why would the U.S. government work
with Neo-Nazis?
Because they thought they could control the situation. They thought they could install their puppets
behind the scenes and manipulate the situation in their favor. This isn't a theory. That same Victoria
Nulland who met with Svoboda in February was caught in another leaked phone call discussing who would
they would put in power.
The mainstream media tried to draw your attention away from the important part of this conversation
by focusing on the fact that she used a cuss word when referring to the E.U.
The U.S. government thought they could control this beast. But they were wrong. Svoboda and the Right
Sektor are not toys to be played with. These groups are armed, they're forceful, and they view this
crisis as an opportunity to reshape Ukraine in their own image.
This video shows a prominent leader from the Right Sektor, Alexander Muzychko, brandishing an
Ak-47 in parliament letting them know who is in charge.
This is the same Alexander Muzychko who publicly vowed to fight "against Jews communists, and
Russian scum" for as long as he lives.
Apparently the U.S. government has been a little slow to catch on to the fact that their hand
has been exposed. In March a senior U.S. official told Reuters that "Since entering the Ukrainian
Parliament in October 2012, the Svoboda leadership has been working to take their party in a more
moderate direction and to become a modern, European mainstream political party, The leadership has
been much more vigilant about expelling or otherwise punishing individual members who engage in xenophobic
behavior or rhetoric."
So it's ok to
use known Neo-Nazi groups to topple a government as long as their leaders keep their people from
saying anything stupid in front of cameras for a few months? The reality of the matter is that as
ridiculous as this assertion makes Washington look, they are trapped. They can't deny that Svoboda
and the Right Sektor are running the coalition government when Svoboda holds five senior posts including
the deputy prime minister position and the Right Sektor's Dmytro Yarosh is now the country's Deputy
Secretary of National Security.
But what about that dramatic video "I am a Ukrainian" that went viral as this crisis was unfolding.
It was so compelling, so heart wrenching. Yeah, but who made it? Did you notice the link in the description?
Awhispertoaroar... who are these people? Oh look, a link in the description. Let's click it. They
have a website and a behind the scenes section. Oh it list the film makers. Who's this here? Larry
Diamond, inspiration and executive producer. He's also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations
and the National Endowment for Democracy and an advisor for the U.S. State Department. You know the
funny thing about the National Endowment for Regime Change Democracy is that even
though they call themselves an NGO they get virtually all of it's money from the U.S. federal government.
You can verify this by downloading their annual financial disclosures. I'm sure it's just a coincidence
that the NED has been pouring massive amounts of money into Ukraine to "strengthen democracy and
civil society"?
That sound nice doesn't it? Democracy... civil society. Of course by
now you've realized that when they talk about spreading democracy what they really mean is regime
change, and they are willing to work with the most despicable elements when it's expedient.
It's exactly the same game they played in Syria. The U.S. government funded known extremists,
literal terrorist organizations who have been documented massacring whole towns. They gave them money,
they gave them weapons, and even after those extremists used sarin gas on thousands of civilians
and got caught by the U.N., Washington still covered for them. Even to this day they are still funding
those murderers, they are still training them, and they are still sending them weapons. There's a
word for this kind of activity: state backed terrorism.
But the situation in Ukraine didn't
unfold as planned. The parliament of Crimea, in the South of Ukraine voted to secede, and they are
putting the decision up for a public referendum. The U.S. claims that this referendum is "unconstitutional"
and says they won't recognize Crimea's decision as legitimate regardless of the outcome. So a foreign
backed Neo-Nazi coup is constitutional, but a declaration of independence placed to a general vote
is not? Seriously? That's the best you guys can do? Who writes these scripts?
[Mar 25, 2014] Ukraine Leader In New Leaked Recording: 8 Million Russians In Ukraine "Must Be Killed
With Nuclear Weapons"
Submitted by
Tyler Durden on 03/24/2014
13:48 -0400
While the NSA is busy justifying its spying of every American its existence thanks to famous Moscow
resident Edward Snowden, its Russian counterparts have been busy intercepting even more phone Ukrainian
conversations.
After a month ago a
leaked phone call between US assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and the US envoy to
the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt confirmed that it was the US that was pulling the strings in what was
about to be a violent coup overthrowing Ukraine's president Yanukovich, "someone" has just leaked
another phone conversation, this time between parliamentarian Nestor Shufrych and former PM and ideological
leader of the Ukraine "revolution" Yulia Tymoshenko and most probable future president of West Ukraine,
in which Tymoshenko is makes the following threats, "It's going too far! Bugger! We must grab arms
and go whack those damn katsaps [a Ukrainian word used to refer to the Russians in a negative tone]
together with their leader", "I'll use all my connections, I'll raise the whole world – as soon as
I'm able to – in order to make sure.. Bugger!.. not even scorched earth won't remain where Russia
stands" although all her empty threats collapse in the last sentence of the phone conversation in
which she says, regarding the Crimea annexation, that "we are going to take it to the Hague International
Criminal Court." Good luck with that.
But the smoking gun, and where Putin once again shows just how masterful of a chess player he
is, is the following statement by Tymoshenko, after asked, rhetorically, by her counterparty, "what
should we do now with the 8 million Russians that stayed in Ukraine. They are outcasts"... to
which she replies: "They must be killed with nuclear weapons."
Needless to say, that is not how you make Russian friends, or diffuse geopolitical
tensions with your superpower neighbor, who just happens to be set on recreating USSR 2.0. Because
just like that Putin has his provocation carte blanche, as the second something, anything happens to any ethnic Russian in east Ukraine, Putin can point to
precisely this conversation as proof of how Ukraine's "government" feels toward the ethnic minorities
in the east, and why "they deserve to be protected" the Russian bearhug. Which has
been precisely Putin's plan all along.
It is not surprising that after this recording was leaked, that Tymoshenko admitted the validity
of the recording except for this part, because she knows just how greatly it can and will be used
against her once Putin decides it is time to expand a little further beyond just Crimea.
Some of the other statements,
transcribed by
RT, confirming just how powerless Ukraine truly is in this struggle between David backed by the
world's most insolvent and natgas hungry countries, and an ascendent Kremlin goliath:
Tymoshenko, who plans to run in Ukraine's presidential election, expressed confidence that
she would have found "a way to zap those assholes [Russia]."
"I'll use all my connections, I'll raise the whole world – as soon as I'm able to – in order
to make sure.. Bugger!.. not even scorched earth won't remain where Russia stands," she promised.
Despite being incapacitated by spinal disc hernia the ex-PM stressed she's ready to "grab a
machine gun, you know what I'm saying, and go shoot this bastard [Putin] in the forehead."
Full recording below:
fonestar
Nuke 8 million Russians? Well we know who's up for the next Nobel Peace Prize.
Paveway IV
Psychopaths' don't converse at any intellectual level - they are either prying for information
for use in a future scheme, or are projecting their dominance and superiority to the other person.
There's no 'exchange of ideas' like there are in normal people's conversations.
Psychopaths are suppose to be scary. If they can't outright control you, then they want to
be sure you're - at the very least - intimidated by them. Discomforting or not, Tymoshenko is
absolutely delighted that this got out....
crazzziecanuck
Sort of.
First of all, this was a private phone call to some former official that was sent to jail for
corruption with dealings with Russia. The state that enabled her to loot her own people. Putin
helped Little Miss Priviledge get rich. But let's not discuss that.
She offered up an outlandish opinion that was clearly hyperbole. The problem? It starts to
make simple things like forciable evacuations of minorities seem "moderate" in comparisson.
She should have also expected this would eventually be leaked in these days of NSA spying.
Then again, she has no downside for making comments like this. It's not as if any Russian inside
Ukraine would ever vote for her but it does allow her to potentially ciphon off votes of Svoboda
types. Assuming she tries to run again.
It's expected but these comments will never make the MSM because they were traditionally
to enamoured with her and shaping her into Saint Yulia.
The Obama administration has vehemently
denied charges that
Ukraine's nascent regime is stock full of neo-fascists despite
clear evidence suggesting otherwise. Such categorical repudiations lend credence to the notion
the U.S.
facilitated
the anti-Russian cabal's rise to power as part of a broader strategy to draw Ukraine into the West's
sphere of influence. Even more disturbing are apologists, from the American left and right, who seem
willing accomplices in this obfuscation of reality, when just a cursory glance at the profiles of
Ukraine's new leaders should give pause to the most zealous of Russophobes.
In a State Department "fact
sheet" released last week the U.S. accused Putin of lying about the Ukrainian government being
under the sway of extremist elements. The report stated that right wing ultranationalist groups "are
not represented in the Rada (Ukraine's parliament)," and that "there is no indication the government
would pursue discriminatory policies."
It isn't too surprising that conservative outlets like
FOX News would downplay Russian allegations but the so-called "liberal" press has also contributed
to the American disinformation campaign. Celestine Bohlen from
The New York Times considers harsh epithets, like the word "neo-Nazi," which Putin has hurled
at the demonstrators in Kiev as part of a Russian propaganda effort to tarnish Ukraine's revolutionary
struggle against authoritarianism.
Yet after simply Googling the terms "Ukraine" and "Neo-Nazi," the official position of the United
States government along with the stance taken by many in the American media both now seem quite dubious,
if not downright ridiculous, especially considering that one would be hard-pressed to machinate the
lineup that now dominates Ukraine's ministry posts.
For starters,
Andriy
Parubiy, the new secretary of Ukraine's security council, was a co-founder of the Neo-Nazi Social-National
Party of Ukraine (SNPU), otherwise known as Svoboda. And his deputy,
Dmytro Yarosh, is the leader of a party called the Right Sector which, according to historian
Timothy
Stanley, "flies the old flag of the Ukrainian Nazi collaborators at its rallies."
The highest-ranking right-wing extremist is Deputy Prime Minister Oleksandr Sych, also a member
of Svoboda, who believes that women should "lead the kind of lifestyle to avoid the risk of
rape, including refraining from drinking alcohol and being in controversial company." This is the
philosophy underlying one of his "legal initiatives," according to the
Kyiv Post, "to ban all abortions, even for pregnancies that occurred during rape."
The Svoboda party has tapped into Nazi symbolism including the "wolf's
angel" rune, which resembles a swastika and was worn by members of the
Waffen-SS, a panzer division
that was declared a criminal organization at Nuremberg. A
report from Tel-Aviv University describes the Svoboda party as "an extremist, right-wing, nationalist
organization which emphasizes its identification with the ideology of German National Socialism."
According to this BBCnews clip two Svoboda parliamentarians
in recent weeks posed for photos while "brandishing well-known far right numerology," including the
numbers 88 -- the eighth letter of the alphabet -- signifying "HH," as in "Heil Hitler." This all
makes Hillary Clinton's recent comments comparing Putin to Hitler appear patently absurd, as Stanley
adeptly points out: "After all, in the eyes of many ethnic Russians, it is the Ukrainian nationalists
-- not Putin -- who are the Nazis."
Last week Per Anders Rudling from Lund University in Sweden, an expert on Ukrainian extremists,
told Britain's
Channel 4 News: "A neo-fascist party like Svoboda getting the deputy prime minister
position is news in its own right." Well, except in the U.S.
Even more disconcerting has been the emergence of phone intercepts between high-ranking U.S. and
Ukrainian officials which make it look as if the U.S. was basically, in the words of Princeton's
Stephen Cohen,
"plotting a coup d'état against the elected president of Ukraine." In other words, the U.S., in addition
to providing moral support, may have paved the way for extremists to seize power in Kiev. Such a
development would counter the American right's condemnation of Obama for not "engaging" in the world.
The real problem is actually the administration's over-engagement in this case -- as in meddling
in the affairs of another state and trying to rearrange its domestic political machinery to suit
Washington's agenda.
This gambit has backfired in a number of ways. Not only has a neo-fascist-laden regime secured
power in Kiev but it may have played the U.S. and its allies for fools by insinuating it would become
part of the Western sphere when it really had no such designs. As Svoboda political council member
Yury Noyevy baldly
admitted:
"The participation of Ukrainian nationalism and Svoboda in the process of EU [European Union] integration
is a means to break our ties with Russia."
Be they radical mujahideen or neo-fascists, Washington certainly has a penchant for bolstering
shadowy forces, usually labeling them with risible euphemisms like "freedom fighters," in order to
satiate short-term geopolitical needs, despite said factions being inimical to America's true long-term
interests.
On March 13, 2014 the monument to sailor Peter Koshka destroyed in the village Ometintsy of Nemirovsky
region Vinnitsa province
Monument stood since 1955 , while its Sevastopol sailors brought and installed in the village
in deference to Sailor Cat , his exploits during the defense of Sevastopol in 1855 .
In the village say that demolished bust of the hero because of the situation in Crimea.
Manifestation of political provocation or unbelted crime in Ukraine?
What are the true reasons for this barbaric act - time will tell . But the empty seats from the
monuments left blank memory space .
Left Party leader criticizes German attitude to far-right forces in Ukraine
BERLIN, March 13. /ITAR-TASS/. Chairman of the Left Party's faction in the Bundestag Gregor
Gysi criticized the German government for its attitude to the right-wing forces in the Ukrainian
government, where, he said in Bundestag on Thursday, "many Nazis are represented".
Even so, the USA, the European Union and the German Cabinet "immediately recognized this interim
government", said Gysi who believes the German Government "should have at least drawn the line
- for the sake of the German history alone".
Gysi noted verbal "attacks on Jews and leftists in Ukraine".
"You are not opposing this, but you are talking to the people of Svoboda [Ukrainian radical nationalist
party]," he told the German government describing this as a "scandal".
Meanwhile, Chairwoman of the Green Party faction Katrin Goering-Eckardt said, "We should not
make pretence as if right forces took the lead" in the Ukrainian government. Svoboda and Right
Sector parties "without doubt have nothing in common with European values and democratic ideas,"
she added.
...........
en.itar-tass.com/world/723414
For those who read German: deutsche-wirtschafts-nachrichten.de/2014/03/13/gysi-lehrstunde-eu-hat-in-der-ukraine-alles-falsch-gemacht/
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."
-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Quote from
comments:
"This is not a fascist coup, this is a western coup where fascists were used as shock troops and a huge
demonstration was conjured up by paying a large number of people to protest for 25 dollars a day. That
money was western tax money. There were certainly a hard core of demonstrators who were genuinely demonstrating
for freedom and democracy (whatever one understands as democracy, certainly freedom in the west means
primarily the freedom of speculative capital to hollow out economies for financial entities). This revolution
was driven by western financial and military interests under the cover of humanitarian aid. OTPOR have
been assisting in instigating fake revolutions in various countries including Venezuela and the Ukraine.
They receive funding from the USA. Their logo appears anywhere a country needs destabilizing so that
western strategic interests may be furthered."
Svoboda ("Freedom") – a radical Ukrainian nationalist party that enjoys support in the west of
the country, particularly in Galicia, and polled over 10% in the 2012 elections – winning 38 seats
in the 450-strong parliament. Led by Oleh Tyahnybok, Svoboda is now part of Ukraine's government,
holding four cabinet positions, including deputy prime minister.
The party's neofascist past is clear. Founded in 1991 as an anti-Communist movement, Svoboda was
previously called the Socio-National Party of Ukraine – a nod to national socialism. Its symbol was
Nazi too: a swastika-like Wolfsangel. Tyahnybok dumped the Hitler paraphernalia when he renamed the
party Svoboda in 2004, on becoming leader. The same year, however, he was ejected from the mainstream
Our Ukraine faction after referring to the "Muscovite-Jewish mafia".
... ... ...
The language issue is fraught. The pro-Russian faction of the Party of the Regions pushed for
Russian to be an ethnic minority language. In 2012, Yanukovych signed this into law but, critics
say, used unconstitutional means to do so. Some in the new government wanted to reverse this.
palindrome, 13 March 2014 8:27pm
Fascist coup 100%.
Next question...
alazarin, 13 March 2014 8:32pm
Ukraine uprising: fascist coup or broad-based grassroots movement?
It could quite easily be both. Not that I condone fascism, but it's not out of the realm
of possibility.
jgbg alazarin , 13 March 2014 9:19pm
It could quite easily be both
Exactly. Someone from Right Sector was interviewed in December 2013 and they stated that Right
Sector intended to take advantage of the demonstrations to cause instability which they could
then use to overthrow the government. When asked if they had sufficient weapons to achieve this,
the reply was that Right Sector had enough weapons and had been training for this eventuality.
PeterBrit, 13 March 2014 8:43pm
"The party's neofascist past is clear. Founded in 1991 as an anti-Communist movement, Svoboda
was previously called the Socio-National Party of Ukraine – a nod to national socialism. Its symbol
was Nazi too: a swastika-like Wolfsangel....On Monday, the US ambassador in Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt,
said he had been "positively impressed" by Svoboda's evolution in opposition and by its behaviour
in the Rada, Ukraine's parliament."
So, what, was Svoboda like the British National Front ten years ago and now it's a bit more
like the BNP? Is that it? It's ditched the fascist combat gear for business suits and managed
to tone down the racist rhetoric a bit? Or are the UK and US governments claiiming that now Svoboda
are lovely cuddly liberal western democrats all set to join Nick Clegg in the Lib Dems?
It's still hard to believe that Svoboda and Right Sector are anybody our government should
be willingly consorting with.
jgbg PeterBrit, 13 March 2014 9:23pm
It's still hard to believe that Svoboda and Right Sector are anybody our government should
be willingly consorting with.
In 2012, the European Parliament passed a resolution deploring the rise of the extreme
right in Ukraine and indicated that the likes of Svoboda should not be part of any coalition.
They all seem to have forgotten about that in just over a year.
DrPreobrazhensky girondistnyc, 13 March 2014 11:48pm
Yes, Jobbik is pro-Putin. It looks like the German neo-Nazis far right is also leaning against
Ukraine and towards Russia in this conflict also:
German NPD Vice Chairman Condemns NATO Warmongery in Ukraine
On March 4, 2014, Karl Richter, Vice Chairman of the German National Democrats, has given an
official press release concerning the actual situation in Ukraine. He calls for a stop of NATO
warmongery and western interference in Ukraine:
"The Western warnings of a further escalation of the situation are pure hypocrisy, considering
the over 20 years of subversive activities in Ukraine and a financial support worth billions for
pro-Western and anti-Russian forces."
Richter names the situation a further crisis provoked by the West, following the Syrian pattern,
according to him, the NPD proved as only credible peace party in the Federal Republic of Germany.
indoorain jgbg , 14 March 2014 12:41am
what's so surprising there? Two examples from recent past:
Al kaida
KLA, albanians guerrilla blacklisted as terrorists by US - EU, and in a year time became liberation
army of Kosovo.
deja vu
coffeegirl mudkipz, 14 March 2014 5:35am
The Huffington Post published an excellent article that rebukes everything Harding wrote:
It isn't too surprising that conservative outlets like FOX News would downplay Russian allegations
but the so-called "liberal" press has also contributed to the American disinformation campaign.
Celestine Bohlen from The New York Times considers harsh epithets, like the word "neo-Nazi,"
which Putin has hurled at the demonstrators in Kiev as part of a Russian propaganda effort
to tarnish Ukraine's revolutionary struggle against authoritarianism.
Yet after simply Googling the terms "Ukraine" and "Neo-Nazi," the official position of the
United States government along with the stance taken by many in the American media both now
seem quite dubious, if not downright ridiculous, especially considering that one would be hard-pressed
to machinate the lineup that now dominates Ukraine's ministry posts.
and
The Obama administration has vehemently denied charges that Ukraine's nascent regime is
stock full of neo-fascists despite clear evidence suggesting otherwise. Such categorical repudiations
lend credence to the notion the U.S. facilitated the anti-Russian cabal's rise to power as
part of a broader strategy to draw Ukraine into the West's sphere of influence. Even more disturbing
are apologists, from the American left and right, who seem willing accomplices in this obfuscation
of reality, when just a cursory glance at the profiles of Ukraine's new leaders should give
pause to the most zealous of Russophobes.
latestnick, 13 March 2014 8:49pm
c'mon anybody with contacts to the autonomous left in central and eastern europe has heard
about those guys long before maidan protests. they didn't pop out of the blue, they have been
around for ages and are not a figment of imagination of russian propaganda. they were not at the
origin of the protests, but they have high jacked them for their own means. and now the government
is recruiting armed militias, mostly from their ranks. maybe you're interested how the autonomous
ukrainian left sees the protests, then read this:
http://avtonomia.net/2014/02/20/maidan-contradictions-interview-ukrainian-revolutionary-syndicalist/
SwanwickColliery , 13 March 2014 9:14pm
Channel Four News made it around seven members of the interim government with links to the
far right. That doesn't make it a Fascist coup. It does make things rather easy for Russian propagandists
and, surely, a little difficult for the EU, especially as the political forces that did best in
the last presidential election and the last parliamentary election have no place in the new order.
musubi SwanwickColliery, 14 March 2014 12:36am
"around seven members of the interim government with links to the far right. That doesn't make
it a Fascist coup."
"links"??? like they have a cup of coffee now and then? The article does name the party membership
of these persons, and the parties are on any account far right parties, linking strongly nationalist
discourse with violence.
monkie SwanwickColliery, 14 March 2014 4:11pm
Channel Four News made it around seven members of the interim government with links to the
far right.
im going to be cheeky and link to a article written in the 70's by that giant in the world
of journalism, carl bernstein.
In 1953, Joseph Alsop, then one of America's leading syndicated columnists, went to the
Philippines to cover an election. He did not go because he was asked to do so by his syndicate.
He did not go because he was asked to do so by the newspapers that printed his column. He
went at the request of the CIA.
Alsop is one of more than 400 American journalists who in the past twenty‑five years
have secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to
documents on file at CIA headquarters. Some of these journalists' relationships with the Agency
were tacit; some were explicit. There was cooperation, accommodation and overlap. Journalists
provided a full range of clandestine services
given the revelations about the near limitless surveillance we live with, and western government
use of
army of sockpuppets on social media to massage public opinion is it more or less likely that
a significant proportion of journalist are paid or unpaid agents of a state that during the cold
war?
greatwhitehunter, 13 March 2014 9:20pm
The protest movement was a keiv movement-like any country in europe or around the world the
major city dosnt represent a true cross section of the country.Ukraine is a very good example
of this. All the major citys have a large amount of disenfranchised people and because of the
ukraine has a history of bad government they have a lot more than most. Actually watching the
current PM I had flash backs to movies Id seen of the russian revolution and some sudo intellectual
wipping up the masses. Am I mistaken or is this guy a bit hysterical to be in charge of a country
of 40 million - cant believe the usa backed him - most ukrainans dont like him , his fellow politicians
cant get on with him I suspect he dosnt even like himself much. How the hell did he get to be
the boss
"We are not dealing with a transitional government in which Neo-Nazi elements integrate
the fringe of the coalition, formally led by the Fatherland party.
Moreover, this is the first full-fledged Neo-Nazi government in Europe in the post World
War II period.
This US-NATO sponsored Coup d'etat –which has led to the formation of a coalition government
integrated by Neo-Nazis– is an Act of Warfare against Ukraine.
"We have to ask ourselves: Are the architects of this Neo-Nazi government, the people who
conspired to install a Nazi regime in Ukraine, are they Neo-Nazis or Neoliberals? They claim
to be Neoliberals. They are acting in support of a neoliberal economic policy agenda"
There is no question that it was a Fascist / neo-nazi coup.
In Ukraine, the West supported an unconstitutional putsch against an elected government perpetrated,
among others, by fascist/neo-nazi storm troopers (Svoboda, Right Sector) instrumentalized by US intelligence.
After a Russian counterpunch, US President Barack Obama proclaimed that any referendum in Crimea
would "violate the Ukrainian constitution and violate international law."
This is just the latest instance in the serial rape of "international law". The rap sheet is humongous,
including; NATO bombing Serbia for 78 days in 1999 to allow Kosovo to secede; the 2003 US invasion
and subsequent trillion-dollar occupation and civil war creation in Iraq; NATO/AFRICOM bombing Libya
in 2011 invoking
R2P ("responsibility to protect") as a cover to provoking regime change; US investment in the
secession of oil-wealthy South Sudan, so China has to deal with an extra geopolitical headache; and
US investment in perennial civil war in Syria.
Security people of ex-government told that the coup has been planned and prepared by CIA since
December. They tracked money flying into Ukrainian capital in bigger amounts than usual, also
snipers were from outside.
The worst thing is that no one journalist will ever tell here "pro-russian" point of view
SybilSanderson, 13 March 2014 9:41pm
And here as well,.the comment section taken over by people who believe any bullshit RT or PressTV
throws as them, as long as it fits their belief.
They are the "left" equivalent to the Palins of this world. Warmongers who have no problem
that a sovereign country is invaded because a propaganda machine told them it is because there
are "Nazis" everywhere..
Nixon, Reagan or Bush would be so proud of you.. just a little tweak in the propaganda and
you would invade Vietnam..or Iraq.
spiceof -> SybilSanderson, 14 March 2014 12:10am
And you Sybil believe any bullshit the corporate press throws to you, you've been nicely
domesticated. I oppose the coup and am no warmonger, quite the contrary, hence the opposition.
Democracy has a due process, it must be followed and respected by all sides. The people
who toppled the legitimate government of Ukraine, (and the Western governments who encouraged
such behaviour) are setting precedent that the same principle of mob rule will be applied against
them by others. You've on the wrong side here Sybil.
If you go to this link, you can see what appears to be protesters with baseball bats (or wooden
clubs of some sort), standing guard outside the Kiev parliament building. This is from 22nd February,
the same day Yanukovych was ousted by a 328-0 vote. I don't know if the picture itself is from
22nd February. Does anyone know when it was taken?
I'm just thinking that it might be intimidating to go into the building to vote on whether
to impeach the President, when men with weapons are standing outside. Particularly if the men
with weapons thought it a good idea to dismiss the President.
I've noticed a lot of people discussing how Russian troops in Crimea could influence voting,
making any decision invalid. I may agree with that, although the same reasoning ought to apply
to the Kiev parliament dismissing Yanukovych, if that picture really is from the day of the vote.
According to those who took part in it, the uprising was a broad-based grassroots movement,
launched by people fed up with Yanukovych and involving all sections of society. Some demonstrators
were indeed nationalists. Others were liberals, socialists and libertarians.
That might be so but rather than believe the words of those who took part in it, who were actually
there; surely we should all instead prefer to believe the gaggle of self-loathing, anti-Western
sock puppets who clearly know far more (their tin foil hats have helped to deflect the evil empires
z-rays)
If you've got resort to 'self-loathing'(shades of the 'self-hating Jew') and invoke tin-foil hats
to get your point across, you've lost the argument.
Most of the demonstrators weren't fascists,
but in the vanguard was Right Sector, an outfit reminiscent of the SA. Their leader is now
a deputy interior minister, with his hands on the tools of internal repression.
Svoboda has the deputy PM and several other ministers. There are fascists in the government
glennor, 13 March 2014 9:46pm
The West aligned itself with right-wing people in the Western half of Ukraine to topple
the democratically elected government, for the common interest of moving Ukraine away from Russia.
Now the Eastern half of Ukraine does not recognise or take orders from Kiev because they are
not legitimate. Russia has offered protection to the Eastern regions if Kiev and their American
backers attack.
All the anti-Russian propaganda in the world does not change this fact. In Europe we should
start to distance ourself from the Americans. Because of this debacle, Germany is now backing
fascists in Ukraine to split it from Russia. This is beyond absurd...
SexyWhiskers, 13 March 2014 9:48pm
Surely there was some grassroots movement, decidedly not "broad-based" tho. Whatever the scale
of the popular discontent however, it was certainly taken advantage of by a motley bunch of political
adventurers who seized the moment and (with a little help of paramilitary thugs) grabbed the power
on the back of this movement - and that's the banal pattern of the popular revolutions, Eventually
all of them were betrayed.
Hopefully things will shape up but I wouldn't be surprised if before long all these grassroots
protesters suddenly realized how good they had it under Yanukovitch compared to these new guys.
Dictatorship of "Svoboda", anyone?..
Haran characterised the events of the tumultuous past three months as a "national liberation
and anti-corruption movement". It was pro-decency, and opposed to a president who behaved "like
a puppet of Russia", he said.
But exactly the same thing happened in 2004, and nothing changed except replacing pro-Moscow
oligarchs with a set of pro-West oligarchs
Sitting at his home in Kiev's high-rise suburbs, he looked exhausted and strung out. He
dismissed Sunday's poll in Crimea as a "pseudo-referendum".
If a Crimean majority wants to leave Ukrainian control, then to oppose such an outcome would
be anti-democratic and totalitarian
Congratulations, EU/USA! Another civil war up your sleeve!
You moronic imbeciles...
comrade1, 13 March 2014 10:03pm
I've certainly suspected in the very least some sort of Western intelligence involvement
in the protest movement in Kiev, simply because the West has a history in recent years of fomenting
and agitating protests and chaos as a method of removing governments they find undesirable - certainly
the outcome serves Western geopolitical interests.
realsayer, 13 March 2014 10:03pm
In today's parlamentary discussion on Ukraine in Berlin, Germany, Oleh Tyahnybok, member of
the new Ukrainian goverment was quoted:
"Take up guns, fight the Russian sows, the Germans, the Jewish pigs and other underhumans.."
I would say there is nothing more to add.
bongoid, 13 March 2014 11:30pm
This is not a fascist coup, this is a western coup where fascists were used as shock troops
and a huge demonstration was conjured up by paying a large number of people to protest for 25
dollars a day.
That money was western tax money. There were certainly a hard core of demonstrators who were
genuinely demonstrating for freedom and democracy (whatever one understands as democracy, certainly
freedom in the west means primarily the freedom of speculative capital to hollow out economies
for financial entities).
This revolution was driven by western financial and miltary interests under the cover of humanitarian
aid.
OTPOR have been assisting in instigating fake revolutions in various countries including
Venezuela and the Ukraine. They receive funding from the USA. Their logo appears anywhere
a country needs destabilising so that western strategic interests may be furthered.
bilejones -> Putitout, 14 March 2014 1:02am
You live in a fantasy world.
The US has been fucking around in Ukraine since 1991
I'm not trying to argue all protesters were fascists, but the above argument about why Mr.
Joseph Schilling could not have been a fascist, struck me as one of those typical preconceptions
leads to applying double standards for Jews.
Following the following WikiPedia description of fascism...:
Fascist movements shared certain common features, including the veneration of the state,
a devotion to a strong leader, and an emphasis on ultranationalism and militarism. Fascism
views political violence, war, and imperialism as a means to achieve national rejuvenation
and asserts that stronger nations have the right to expand their territory by displacing weaker
nations.
... fascism has nothing to do with whatever kind of religion. It doesn't promote any, it doesn't
condemn any. Actually, under Mussolini most fascists were Catholics.
So why could a Jew not be at the same time a fascist? Comparing the above description of fascism
with the way Israel currently behaves toward dissent and toward the Palestinians, I see striking
similarities.
So excuse me for being a bit off topic, but regarding the Israelis as a special kind of people
to whom apply special standards, is something that annoys me tremendously and I think we should
dump it in the rubbish bin of history.
AndrewSa20, 13 March 2014 11:51pm
"Oleh Tyahnybok, Svoboda is now part of Ukraine's government, holding four cabinet positions,
including deputy prime minister. The party's neofascist past is clear." – Guardian.
"Protest leader Andriy Parubiy has become chairman of the National Security Council (NSC).
A co-founder of Svoboda and labeled an extremist by the ousted president, one of Mr Parubiy's
deputies at the NSC is Dmytro Yarosh, the head of the far-right paramilitary group Right Sector."
– BBC
"One of its first actions was to repeal a 2012 law recognising Russian as an official regional
language." - BBC
"But amongst the crowds of ordinary citizens were a small number of far-right groups, who
were often responsible for the most organised and violent protests." - BBC.
All of the above is Russian propaganda. These people are angels!
alphard -> AndrewSa20, 14 March 2014 12:20am
so, russia should kill them with 100000-1000000 innocent peoples?
AndrewSa20 -> alphard, 14 March 2014 2:05am
No, killing of 100000-1000000 innocent peoples, that is not Russian way. That would be UK and/or
US way of action, have a look at Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Iraq, Yugoslavia, oh yes I forgot
about drones! All Russian propaganda!
ArticSunrise, 14 March 2014 12:05am
In reality whether they are fascist or they belong to the Ukrainian knitting club, the fact
is that there was a coup, and regardless of what criminal was in power, he was an elected criminal
who have agreed to hold elections in December. please read The Ukrainian constitution, article
111 then, if you have time and, bias permitting go and read the constitution of the Autonomous
Republic of Crimea, article 18.7. then I suggest you look at what happen in Kosovo.
The bottom line is that if the coup wouldn't have happened, Crimea would wake up on Monday
as part of Ukraine, not Russia. This was a gross miscalculation by the west and the "fuck the
EU" lady.
Pravy Sektor, he explained, does not divide people along ethnic or religious lines. "We
divide people into three categories," he says. "The first belong to the brotherly communities
that fight with us for our ideals, regardless of their nationality. The second are the ethnic
minorities who respect the right of Ukrainian people to be the rulers of our own land,
and as a result we are tolerant of them and their religion.
The third category is made up of the people who threaten our national rights to have an
independent Ukrainian nation." The latter group, regardless of their ethnic background, are
the enemies of Pravy Sektor.
Spoken like a true democrat.
Scipio1, 14 March 2014 12:12am
Another attempt to whitewash the overthrow of a democratically elected government by mob violence.
If, as Mr Harding asserts, the majority of the protesters were not ultra-nationalist paramilitaries,
and were ordinary moderate folk demonstrating against the corrupt government of Yanukovich, and
if they also represented the majority of the Ukrainian people, why did they not simply remove
Yanukovich in the Presidential elections due in 2015? This is, to be sure, a rhetorical question;
the problem for Harding and the rest of the whitewash brigade is that there is no convincing answer.
Doesn't sit well does it. Liberal/left Guardian journalist supports extra-parliamentary violence
spearheaded by openly fascist paramilitaries against a sitting democratically elected government.
Takes a bit of Jesuitical sophistry to get around that one.
The fact is that the glorious revolution was hijacked by ultra-nationalist groups who turned
protest into armed insurrection.
Having been a visitor to the Ukraine since 2006, I distinctly remember TV political discussions,
where all shades of political opinion were given air time, including Yatsenyuk and his Fatherland
party. I can also remember buying English language papers, as well as the Kyiv Post (or was it
Kyiv News) a Ukrainian English language publication with a broadly centre-right perspective.
Okay so Yanukovich's was not a perfect democracy by any means (can you name any which are?),
but the Ukraine was not a dictatorship, and Yanukovich was certainly not Ceaucescu.. Oppositionists
were able to give voice and there were opposition parties who were openly allowed to put forward
their views and programmes. This unlike the new regime in Kiev however which has seen fit to ban
opposition parties. Moreover, opposition parties have had the HQs burnt down, their members and
supporters intimidated, and their activities outlawed.
Is this the brave new world that Mr Harding, speaking for the Guardian is presenting to us.
We must assume therefore that the Guardian takes the same view, unless otherwise stated. Even
Max Keiser's programmes carries the disclaimer that the views expressed do not necessarily reflect
the position of the Russian Government. Come on Guardian, where do you stand? But this might also
be a rhetorical question.
grimpeur, 14 March 2014 12:18am
What with the USA/NED attempts to overthrow democracy in Venezuela and the Ukraine, the attempt
to blame the Syrian chemical attack on the Syrian government which to be fair is nothing more
than I expect from US neo-cons intent on 'full spectrum dominance, but the Guardians treatment
of these issues has been outrageous.
For a supposedly left of centre newspaper committed to some kind of objectivity and authenticity
it has really sunk to new depths over the last few months, but they really don't get any lower
than this article from Harding! Ignoring the Nuland video and the Ashton video, trying to whitewash
the Far Right, claiming that the Right Sector are not interested in 'post-revolutionary politics'
when their leader has indicated he may run for President, ignoring the number of Far Right in
the Government, relying on the testimony of one, hardly objective person, who was in the Maidan's
organising committee, using the evidence of one fatality who was not a fascist to claim that this
shows it was not a fascist coup is simply breathtaking.
Harding may be a journalist but this kind of approach would not even pass muster for an 'A'
level answer much less an undergraduate response. Never has Craig Roberts description of western
journalists as 'prestitutes' been more apt! Finally Mr Harding things might seem fine in
Kiev but you do realize that the Ukraine is a deeply divided country and the actions of the last
few weeks may seem positive in that Western city but those same actions may be anathema to the
southern and eastern provinces, and particularly the Crimea. In such a deeply divided nation you
need the politics of compromise but the idiocy of the USA and EU in promoting this extreme right-wing
nationalistic Russophobia within the Ukraine will probably lead to the country splitting in two.
My only objection to such a scenario is that the UK and the EU will have promoted neo-nazis
into western governmental institutions as the price for developing a NATO crusade to the Russian
borders. After the collapse of the USSR NATO should have been closed down, it had lost it's
raison d'etre, and the West should have stuck to its promises of not using NATO to advance into
former Soviet countries.
geot22, 14 March 2014 12:33am
This is the problem Americans (and UK?) have in understanding fascism.
"Schilling, however, was an unlikely fascist. A father of two daughters, he and his wife Anna
had lived in Italy. They had four grandchildren. Moreover, he was Jewish"
Fascists have children; Nazii's insisted on it. And some fascists even famously lived in Italy.
But it's not antisemitic Naziism we're talking about. (Although that is clearly an element in
that part of the world. Russia too. It was USSR who was the more universal.) Although Nazii's
are fascist, fascist are not Nazii's. Something else, not quite definite for being a broad category,
but certainly as abhorrent.
I think for us the difficulty lies with our people's corporate culture. We're so at home in
it. Challenging it is odd, and threatening, quite like people of the 17th century must have felt
overthrowing kings. Corporate leaders are seen as the great, iron, men, the 'deciders,' certainly
the knowing and 'smart' decision makers, who transcend history to make the future. In spite of
democracy's supposed leadership, it's in their hands, by our will. What has democracy to say against
them, when we're all obliging capitalists? Now we trust them to make this war from our European
side, and from the Eurasian side.
Severe corporatists' influence is in a sense government within the government, a fascist eluding.
They are in DC daily, and actively, vs citizen's biannual holiday. The corporate fascism of Mousalini.
A big hit, with Hitler, in America's corporate anti-unionism before the actual war. We stand guard
against little Austrian corporals with funky moustaches. But NSA, Wall Street, corporations-are-people,
super people - all of that founds fascism. They really want Ukraine in EU, even NATO.
Mobs in the street. Brown shirts, thugs. The Nationalist hoards, suddenly, 'whipped up,' bringing
down the elected gov. Fascist-like. Let alone the self proclaimed, or associated, elements. They
are really, essential royalists at base, vs democrats. As are fascists. As we are, though we seldom
face it.
But let's not fear to call it fascism,if it is, simply because there are differences from Nazi
Germany. That is a terrible mistake. To say a fasicist regime is not fascist, because Nazi Germany...,
is just as bad as so many complacent Americans, smug, because Russia... No. Only democracy (with
a civil rights set aside), and all it entails, like secure citizenry.
Overlooking fascism today, here and abroad, I think, is the mistake we are doomed to make,
that will be our unbinding. For lack of insight. Because it can't be faced as we do, merely territorially;
we must deliberately make a philosophical moral commitment to peace and democracy generally, not
simply assume it. Let NSA, and all its tendrils, corporate and secret, be our measure of our will
and efficacy.
nouvelleorleans, 14 March 2014 12:36am
It was a CIA coup - the current installed government is illegitimate and they have no right
to deprive Ukraine of democracy - should they have a gripe they can refer to the ballot box
During the Russian Revolution when Red Army marched back into Kiev, it was received with enthusiasm;
the retreating nationalist forces massacred Jews,
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lenin stated, "The national programme of working-class democracy is: absolutely no privileges
for any one nation or any one language; the solution of the problem of the political self-determination
of nations, that is, their separation as states by completely free, democratic methods.
This situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian cliques
who express their 'nationalism' by seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or
another in return for a promise of fictitious independence."
Seems nothing has changed.
priceus, 14 March 2014 1:05am
It is no grassroots movement, it was launched and organised with foreign money from Washington
and Brussels.
I don't think there have been many 'grassroots' revolutions in history - the medieval peasant
revolts maybe. Revolution in these times is usually the glove worn by foreign-empire 'regime change'.
Sad thing is, often there is an underlying grievance and truthful argument among some protesters
which the foreign regime changers ride on for a while (and always eject in the end win or lose).
Won Hturt, 14 March 2014 1:10am
Good piece of propaganda work, i like how you state that 102 "protestors" were killed by snipers
while completely ignoring the fact that a majority were riot police... hummm bias reporting? Likely
another copy and paste journalist from the west!
Orphadeus, 14 March 2014 1:23am
Its a weasel article.
White supremacist banners and Confederate flags were draped inside Kiev's occupied City Hall,
and demonstrators have hoisted Nazi SS and white power symbols over a toppled memorial to V.I.
Lenin. After Yanukovich fled his palatial estate by helicopter, EuroMaidan protesters destroyed
a memorial to Ukrainians who died battling German occupation during World War II. Sieg heil salutes
and the Nazi Wolfsangel symbol have become an increasingly common site in Maidan Square, and neo-Nazi
forces have established "autonomous zones" in and around Kiev.
An Anarchist group called AntiFascist Union Ukraine attempted to join the Euromaidan demonstrations
but found it difficult to avoid threats of violence and imprecations from the gangs of neo-Nazis
roving the square. "They called the Anarchists things like Jews, blacks, Communists," one of its
members said. "There weren't even any Communists, that was just an insult."
"There are lots of Nationalists here, including Nazis," the anti-fascist continued. "They came
from all over Ukraine, and they make up about 30% of protesters."
" The activists were attacked by more than thirty of the Nazis, who rushed at them with crying
"slatterns!" Alexander Levin got a broken nose, Denis Levin was treated with gas, Anatoly got
broken ribs. A tent of the Confederation of Free Trade Unions of Ukraine was cut with knives.
The Nazis smashed a sound equipment, and stole generators" – Sergey Kiriczuk, an activist of a
Marxist organization "Borot'ba" ("Struggle"), described then the attack on his comrades. He noted
that the conflict was watched by a deputy from the nationalist party Svoboda, Igor Miroshnichenko.
Later Denis Levin confirmed that they were invaded by "elements close to Svoboda".
The Guardian was also deceiving with regard to the government. The Nazis have all the security
positions.
Krystallnacht was in 1938.
Alexunder, 14 March 2014 2:06am
I think this author is oversimplifying the whole situation to the point of mockery. This whole
mess is about a few things.
East and west of Ukraine are not getting along, with west part Maidan movement is more
aggressive ( or may be more well financed ) in getting their wishes right away. I think point
of view on Bandera makes the separation line very clear. Another one is who voted for the party
of Region in the last election.
Disregard for the democratic principles in overthrowing Yanukovich government regardless
of how corrupted he was. His government was elected by majority of Ukrainians. Maidan
leaders had to wait only until December to have their wishes come true - without causalities
on both sides.
Disregard for Russian wishes to have NATO country on other side of the border.
Oligarchs controlling both movements - former Party of Region and
About article - constant portraying Yanukovich as a puppet of Russian government ( until he
was overthrown and nowhere to go ) is really annoying me - it is certainly on par with portraying
the revolt as fascists putsch by someone in Russia. Would not be shy to say that it is piece of
propaganda at their best - just on the opposite side.
For another unbiased news analysis on the attempts by the US to make Ukraine a NATO vassal slave
state, read this unbiased serious article from Asia Times:
Everyone remembers the "good Taliban", with which the US could negotiate in Afghanistan. Then
came the "good al-Qaeda", jihadis the US could support in Syria. Now come the "good neo-nazis",
with which the West can do business in Kiev. Soon there will be "the good jihadis supporting neo-nazis",
who may be deployed to advance US/NATO and anti-Russian designs in Crimea and beyond. After all,
Obama mentor Dr Zbigniew "The Grand Chessboard" Brzezinski is the godfather of good jihadis, fully
weaponized to fight the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan.
As facts on the ground go, neo-nazis are definitely back as good guys.
Lysander1, 14 March 2014 3:23am
It was not neo-Nazi mainly because US paid for organising this protests initially. Suddenly
Mr.Yanukovych became "pro-Moscow", only because he didn't hate Russians, although he initially
wanted closer ties with Europe, but problem emerged in loosing privileged status with Russia!
Well it is well known that US was doing businesses with Nazis well into 1943, at the time when
most of Europe was occupied by Nazis... US doesn't mind dealing with pro-Nazis as long it sees
it's future gains.
It is just a matter of manufacturing their public image, and they are experts in that. Lets
see how will glossing of murders by snipers in Kiev "by third party force" go. I wander what "difficulties"
will emerge here.
Khurram Khalid, 14 March 2014 3:28am
Western propaganda has reached epic proportions during this Ukrainian crisis and this article
is a perfect example of that.
Facts are being so profoundly distorted that even the lies during the Iraq war seem minor
to them.
The Western establishments and media, in their pursuit to control Ukraine and make it an
anti Russian state, are plunging it to chaos and a possible disintegration disregarding its people
altogether
cveks156, 14 March 2014 3:40am
Picture says more than thousand words. Look this picture from Maidan protest of Neo-Nazis from
Pravy Sector - strongest party in this new Ukranian "interim" government:
As everyone who has followed these events knows, the mass protests against the Yanukovych regime
that began in November involved millions of people,
As everyone who's been paying attention
knows, the protests in Kiev had almost NO support outside Lvov and a couple of other towns.Most of Kiev refused to join them, too.
As everyone who's been reading this paper regularly also knows, seeking support, the then opposition
called for a general strike 3 times in 3 months -- and the rest of Ukraine just ignored them.
<< EU resolution contains 18 points of concern over policies embedded in laws of the
Ukrainian Rada, or Parliament. A key paragraph reads that the EU "is concerned about the rising
nationalistic sentiment in Ukraine." The Parliament stresses that "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic
views go against the EU's fundamental values and principles."
The resolution also appeals to pro-democratic parties in the Rada "not to associate with, endorse
or form coalitions with this party."
THIS PARTY TODAY HOLDS KEY GOVERNMENT MINISTRIES!
Editor's note: David C. Speedie is senior fellow director for the U.S. Global Engagement Program
at the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, an educational, nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization that produces lectures, publications and multimedia materials on the ethical challenges
of living in a globalized world.
(CNN) -- Russian President Vladimir Putin says neo-fascist far-right groups are firmly behind
the putsch -- coup d'etat -- in Kiev and questions the democratic credentials of "men with black
masks and Kalashnikovs" who became the poster children of the Maidan for Russians.
Does this assessment have any truth to it? In the fast-moving and chronically complex course
of events in Ukraine, the issue has been debated from the beginning: the role of the far right
in the events that led to the toppling of the Viktor Yanukovych government and in the present
and future disposition of political power in the country.
David Speedie
There are some known facts: First, far-right, anti-Semitic, anti-Russian and openly fascist
groups have existed and do exist as a blight on modern Ukraine. A 2012 European Parliament resolution
condemned the main -- but by no means most extreme -- ultra-right party, Svoboda, as "racist,
anti-Semitic and xenophobic."
'For the first time since the end of World War II, fascists and neo-nazis are at the helm of a
European nation (although Ukraine most of all should be characterized as the key swing nation
in Eurasia). Few in the West seem to have noticed it.
The cast of characters include Ukrainian
interim defense minister and former student at the Pentagon Ihor Tenyukh; deputy prime minister
for economic affairs and Svoboda ideologue Oleksandr Sych; agro-oligarch minister of agriculture
Ihor Svaika (Monsanto, after all, needs a chief enforcer); National Security Council chief and
Maidan commander of Right Sector neo-nazis Andry Parubiy; and deputy National Security Council
chief Dmytro Yarosh, the founder Right Sector. Not to mention Svoboda leader Oleh Tyanhybok, a
close pal of John McCain and Victoria "F**k the EU" Nuland, and active proponent of an Ukraine
free from the "Muscovite-Jewish mafia."'
This 'report' requires complete ignorance of recent history.
The protests started because Yanukovych rejected a very unfavorable deal with the EU and
instead took the "Hey, have $15 billion" deal with Russia.
The EU tried to negotiate a compromise deal that would've kept Yanukovych in power,
at least temporarily, and "F##k the EU" Victoria Nuland rejected that.
The new prime minister, 'Yats', was handpicked by Nuland.
The violent protesters essential to the coup were armed, well-trained and well-equipped
Right-Sector and Svoboda-associated militias firing on and killing government police, and fire-bombing
government buildings. When the police finally retreated, the militias barged into parliament,
assaulted and chased out any Yanukovych-aligned elected representatives, and that was the coup.
The coup bosses know they came to power on Right Sector and Svoboda violence, and have
dutifully rewarded their leaders with important posts in the coup government, in particular
in the security and military ministries.
Estonian foreign minister Paet, in a leaked phone call, reported to Catherine Ashton a
discussion with doctor Olga Bogomolets, who told him it looked like, from a comparison of their
similar injuries, that 'new coalition' snipers had shot both police and protesters. Afterwards,
Bogomolets said she had not treated police victims, but did not otherwise deny the content
of the phone call. She says she is satisfied that an independent investigation of the sniping
is being carried out by the coup-installed government.
Oleh Tyahnybok, the leader of Svoboda, is an anti-Semite and a far-right nationalist. Because
of the party's obvious far-right character, in 2012 the European Parliament urged other parties
in Ukraine not to associate with Svoboda.
hkbabylon, 14 March 2014 5:30am
if the coup was not a coup, why on earth were the US getting involved? Why were US officials
flying in and out of Kiev? What were Nato 'military advisors' doing in the Ukraine for months
? Why have old pictures of Tymoshenko's visit to American white supremacists been completely erased
from the Net? I saw her doing a Nazi salute, but that picture is nowhere to be found. Somebody
has been very busy cleaning her image, and the image of Svoboda. No brownie points for guessing
who. Ukraine shares a border with Russia, certainly NATO interference in this country must be
regarded with alarm by Moscow.
Sure, Yanukotvich was a corrupt and ineffective leader. Let people vote him out in the next
elections. Many US-friendly states are ruled by corrupt leaders. When people protest against them
the US do not support opposition parties and paramilitary groups with money, training and promises.
Svoboda ("Freedom") was founded in 1991 as the Social National Party of Ukraine. The party idolizes
Stepan Bandera, whose followers fought on the side of the Nazis during World War II against the
Red Army and Ukrainian communist militias. Bandera's Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN)
had direct support from the Germans: Hitler wanted them to police Ukraine after the Germans took
it, and the OUN organized volunteer militias that actively participated in the Holocaust. "The
Jews of the Soviet Union," declared the Banderists, "are the most loyal supporters of the Bolshevik
Regime and the vanguard of Muscovite imperialism in the Ukraine."
When the Germans took Lvov in the summer of 1941, the Banderists sent a message to Lvov's Jews
in the form of a pamphlet which said: "We will lay your heads at Hitler's feet"! Which they did;
the OUN worked with the SS to round up and slaughter 4,000 of the city's Jews. Their weapons of
choice: everything from guns to metal poles.....
"You are the ones that the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears most."..
For the first time since 1933, the followers of a movement that valorizes Adolf Hitler and
preaches anti-Semitism has entered a European government.
Ihor Tenyukh – interim defense minister and a member of Svoboda's political council.
Formerly commander of Ukraine's navy, in 2008, during Russia's war with Georgia, he ordered
Ukrainian warships to block the entrance of the Russian Navy to the bay of Sevastopol.
Andriy Parubiy – National Security Council chief, co-founded Svoboda back when it
was the "Social National" (ahem!) party.
Dmytro Yarosh – deputy head of the National Security Council, i.e. the police, and
the founder-leader of "Right Sector," a militant neo-Nazi paramilitary group that took charge
of security in the Maiden.
Oleh Makhnitsky – Svoboda member of parliament, is prosecutor-general.
Oleksandr Sych – Svoboda parliamentarian and the party's chief ideologist, is deputy
prime minister for economic affairs.
Serhiy Kvit – a leading member of Svoboda, is to head up the Education Ministry.
Andriy Moknyk – the new Minister of Ecology, has been Svoboda's envoy to other European
fascist parties. Last year, he met with representatives of Italy's violent neo-fascist
gang, Forza Nuovo.
Ihor Shvaika – agro-oligarch and a member of Svoboda, has been appointed Minister
of Agriculture. One of the richest men in the country, his massive investments in agriculture
would seem to indicate a slight conflict of interest.
FASCISTS IN UKRAINE GOVERNMENT!
Macabre2011, 14 March 2014 6:14am
wow, USA is Ukraine's new best friend, See how strategically this is playing out. CIA are very
good at their jobs right now, I wouldn't doubt, some are getting awards for their work in Eastern
Europe. The Cold war was the term given to the military stand-off, and world has taken a few turns
since. But the two adversaries remain, and Russia sees the destabilisation of their neighbour
as reason to intervene. I think they have a point. In fact when the exceptionally super-powerful
Grenada, dangerously democratically elected a new president, didn't the Heroic little USA invade
to fight the good fight for freedom (from the evils of a peaceful democracy)?
exiledoffmainstreet, 14 March 2014 6:48am
Is it a grassroots uprising or an astroturf rebellion paid by yankee stipends? Was it coincidental
that the one the yankees wanted ended up as premier of the post-putsch regime? How can you explain
that even the Estonian Foreign Minister, Mr. Paet had discovered that the shootings at the square
were done by snipers paid by the same resistance element? The writer is also cherry-picking in
his discussion of elements accused in the past of being fascists. On earlier occasions even European
Union types made such accusations. In any event, why would people acting in the real interests
of the Ukrainians install a government cut their pensions in half unless there were other ulterior
motives? Yankee fingerprints are all over this.
merlin2, 14 March 2014 7:05am
This article is a whitewash of a coup, one funded (to the tune of $5B), supported (with training
and whatever else), and urged on by the Nuland F***k Europe, a neocon instigator, the wife of
kagan, one of the chief Iraq atrocity (neartly 1M murdered and the country destroyed).
harding attempts to make the riot leaders into almost lovable, not-really fascist (we love
israel!) standard issue freedom loving citizens reluctantly turned revolutionaries. Not a word
about the fact that the Right sector and Svoboda plus those even further on the right used extremely
violent means to bring down a democratically elected government. Not a word about the by-now obvious
fact that the snipers were not from Yanukovich's government. Not a word about the extreme anti-Russian
attitude os some of these cuddly revolutionaries (cf. "heros"). Not a word about the money that
was distributed to keep people on the streets ready to scuttle any agreement made by the Europeans
(but not supported by the regime-change artists, cf, that Nuland creatures). Why, they are almost
ike that other famous liberty-seeking entity, the "Free" Syrian Army, ever so valiantly fighting
on side-by-side with the fervent al-Qaeda colleagues, working hard to lend "legitimacy" to another
western engineered attempt at a regime change.
Of course the neo-fascists will temper their anti-semitic pronouncements - after all like Le
Pen and a host of other neo-fascist extreme right movements in Europe, Israel is a fellow ultra-nationalist
country, its jewishness entirely secondary. Alliances were made between forces far less similar
in the past. Besides, that's the beauty of neo-fascism - it can shift the list of its enemies
at a blink of an eye. Today it may be Russians, or Muslims, or "leftists". Tomorrow it can be
anyone who dares resist extreme nationalism. See - the ethno part of nationalism is flexibly defined,
like a fungible commodity.
The sad thing is the picture of Kerry shaking hands with the puppet "government" leaders
installed by his neocon "liberty peddlers". It is truly pathetic. One of the Ukranian guys
looks almost embarrassed (may be has shreds of conscience? just because they are oligarchs doesn't
mean they are entirely without redeeming values. Yats may even like puppies, for all I know).
But Kerry - he just looks smug. why wouldn't he be - the powers-that-Be are no doubt quite
pleased with his performance and that of the Nuland-kagan F***K everyone axis. I expect they will
all be handsomely rewarded (not that they are not wallowing in dough already).
peterDKK, 14 March 2014 7:15am
How interesting, The Guardian (and the Western press as a whole) is so mum on last night's UN
Security Council meeting. The Russians presented quite a bunch of evidence that it was 'pro-democracy'
snipers that shot their own in Kiev in late February. No mention of that meeting, Yatsenyuk's
UN debut, by the way.
"The April 6 rally in
Cherskasy, a city 100 miles southeast of Kiev, turned violent after six men took off their
jackets to reveal T-shirts emblazoned with the words "Beat the Kikes" and "Svoboda," the name
of the Ukrainian ultranationalist movement and the Ukrainian word for "freedom."
–Jewish Telegraphic Agency, April 12, 2013
While most of the Western media describes the current crisis in the Ukraine as a confrontation
between authoritarianism and democracy, many of the shock troops who have manned barricades in Kiev
and the western city of Lviv these past months represent a dark page in the country's history and
have little interest in either democracy or the liberalism of Western Europe and the United States.
"You'd never know from most of the reporting that far-right nationalists and fascists have been
at the heart of the protests and attacks on government buildings," reports Seumas Milne of the British
Guardian. The most prominent of the groups has been the ultra-rightwing Svoboda or "Freedom"
Party.
And that even the demand for integration with Western Europe appears to be more a tactic than
a strategy: "The participation of Ukrainian nationalism and Svoboda in the process of EU [European
Union] integration, " admits Svoboda political council member
Yury Noyevy, "is a means to break our ties with Russia."
And lest one think that Svoboda, and parties even further to the right, will strike their tents
and disappear, Ukrainian News
reported Feb. 26 that Svoboda Party members have temporarily been appointed to the posts of Vice
Prime Minister, Minister of Education, Minister of Agrarian Policy and Food Supplies, and Minister
of Ecology and Natural Resources.
Svoboda is hardly a fringe organization. In the 2012 election won by the now deposed president,
Viktor Yanukovitch, the Party took 10.45 percent of the vote and over 40 percent in parts of the
western Ukraine. While the west voted overwhelmingly for the Fatherland Party's Yulia Tymoshenko,
the more populous east went overwhelmingly for the Party of the Regions' Yanukovitch. The latter
won the election handily, 48.8 percent to 45.7 percent.
Svoboda –which currently has 36 deputies in the 450-member Ukrainian parliament-began life in
the mid-1990s as the Social National Party of the Ukraine, but its roots lie in World War II, when
Ukrainian nationalists and Nazis found common ground in the ideology of anti-communism and anti-Semitism.
In April, 1943, Dr. Otto von Wachter, the Nazi commander of Galicia-the name for the western Ukraine-turned
the First Division of the Ukrainian National Army into the 14 Grenadier Division of the Waffen SS,
the so-called
"Galicia
Division."
The Waffen SS was the armed wing of the Nazi Party, and while serving along side the regular army,
or Wehrmacht, the Party controlled the SS's 38-plus divisions. While all Nazi forces took part in
massacres and atrocities, the Waffen SS did so with particular efficiency. The post-war Nuremberg
trials designated it a "criminal organization."
Svoboda has always had a soft spot for the Galicia Division and one of its parliament members,
Oleg Pankevich, took part in a ceremony last April honoring the unit. Pankevich joined with a priest
of Ukrainian Orthodox Church near Lviv to celebrate the unit's 70th anniversary and re-bury
some of the Division's dead.
"I was horrified to see photographs…of young Ukrainians wearing the dreaded SS uniform with swastikas
clearly visible on their helmets as they carried caskets of members of this Nazi unit, lowered them
into the ground, and fired gun salutes in their honor," World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder
wrote in a
letter to the Patriarch of the Ukrainian church. He asked Patriarch Filret to "prevent any further
rehabilitation of Nazism or the SS."
Some 800,000 Jews were murdered in the Ukraine during the German occupation, many of them by Ukrainian
auxiliaries and units like the Galicia Division.
Three months after the April ceremony, Ukrainians re-enacted the battle of Brody between the Galicia
Division and Soviet troops, where the German XIII Army Corps was trying to hold off the Russians
commanded by Marshall Ivan Konev. In general, going up against Konev meant a quick trip to Valhalla.
In six days of fighting the Galicians lost two-thirds of their division and XIII Corps was sent reeling
back to Poland. The Galicia Division survivors were shipped off to fight anti-Nazi partisans in Yugoslavia.
In 1945 remnants of the unit surrendered to the Americans in Italy, and in 1947 many of them were
allowed to emigrate to Britain and Canada.
The U.S. press has downplayed the role of Svoboda, and even more far right groups like Right Sector
and Common Cause, but Britain's Channel 4 News reports that such quasi-fascist groups "played a leading
role" in organizing the demonstrations and keeping them going.
In the intercepted phone call between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria
Nuland and U.S. Ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, the two were, as Russian expert
Stephen
Cohen put it to Democracy Now, "plotting a coup d'état against the elected president of
the Ukraine."
At one point Nuland endorses "Yat" as the head of a new government, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk
of the Fatherland Party, who indeed is now acting Prime Minister. But she goes on to say that Svoboda
leader Oleh Tyahnybok should be kept "on the outside."
Her plan to sideline Tyahnybok as a post-coup player, however, may be wishful thinking given the
importance of the Party in the demonstrations.
Tyahnybok is an anti-Semite who says "organized Jewry" controls the Ukraine's media and government,
and is planning "genocide" against Christians. He has turned Svoboda into the fourth largest party
in the country, and, this past December, U.S. Senator John McCain shared a platform and an embrace
with Tyahnybok at a rally in Kiev.
Svoboda has links with other ultra-right parties in Europe through the Alliance of European National
Movements. Founded in 2009 in Budapest, the Alliance includes Svoboda, Hungary's violently racist
Jobbik, the British National Party, Italy's Tricolor Flame, Sweden's National Democrats, and Belgium's
National Front. The Party also has close ties to France's xenophobic National Front. The Front's
anti-Semitic leader Jean-Marie Le Pen was honored at Svoboda's 2004 congress.
Svoboda would stop immigration and reserve civil service jobs for "ethnic Ukrainians." It would
end abortion, gun control, "ban the Communist Ideology," and list
religious affiliation and ethnicity
on identity documents. It claims as its mentor the Nazi-collaborator Stephan Bandera, whose Ukrainian
Insurgent Army massacred Jews and Poles during World war II. The Party's demand that all official
business be conducted in Ukrainian was recently endorsed by the parliament, disenfranchising 30 percent
of the country's population that speaks Russian. Russian speakers are generally concentrated in the
Ukraine's east and south, and particularly in the Crimean Peninsula.
The U.S. and the EU have hailed the resignation of President Yanukovych and the triumph of "people
power" over the elected government-Ambassador
Pyatt called it "a day for the history books"-but what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the
gander.
Prior to the deployment of Russian troops this past week anti-coup, pro-Russian
crowds massed in
the streets in the Crimea's capital, Simferopol, and seized government buildings. While there was
little support for the ousted president-who most Ukrainians believe is corrupt-there was deep anger
at the de-recognition of the Russian language and contempt for what many said were "fascists" in
Kiev and Lviv.
Until 1954 the Crimea was always part of Russia until, for administrative and bureaucratic reasons,
it was made part of the Ukraine. At the time, Ukraine was one of 15 Soviet republics.
The Ukraine is in deep economic trouble, and for the past year the government has been casting
about for a way out. Bailout negotiations were opened with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the European Union (EU), but the loan would have required onerous austerity measures that, according
to Citibank analyst Ivan Tchakarov, would "most
probably mean a recession in 2014."
It was at this juncture that Yanukovych abandoned talks with the EU and opened negotiations with
the Russians. That turn around was the spark for last November's demonstrations.
But as Ben Aris,
editor of Business News Europe, says "Under the terms of the EU offer of last year-which virtually
nobody in the Western media has seriously examined-the EU was offering $160 million per year for
the next five years, while just the bond payments to the IMF were greater than that."
Russia, however, "offered $15 billion in cash and immediately paid $3 billion…Had Yanukovych accepted
the EU deal, the country would have collapsed," says Aris.
The current situation is dangerous precisely because it touches a Russian security nerve. The
Soviet Union lost some 25 to 27 million people in World War II, and Russians to this day are touchy
about their borders. They also know who inflicted those casualties, and those who celebrate a Waffen
SS division are not likely to be well thought of in the south or the east.
Border security is hardly ancient history for the Kremlin. As Russian expert Cohen points out,
"Since the Clinton administration in the 1990s, the U.S.-led West has been on a steady march toward
post-Soviet Russia, beginning with the expansion of NATO…all the way to the Russian border."
NATO now includes Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungry, Slovenia, and former Soviet-led
Warsaw Pact members Albania, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Poland and Romania.
NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's comment that the IMF-EU package for the Ukraine
would have been "a major boost for Euro-Atlantic security" suggests that NATO had set its sights
on bringing the Ukraine into the military alliance.
The massive demonstrations over the past three months reflected widespread outrage at the corruption
of the Yanukovych regime, but it has also unleashed a dark side of the Ukraine's history. That dark
side was on display at last year's rally in Cherkasey. Victor Smal, a lawyer and human rights activist,
said he told "the men in the T-shirts they were promoting hatred. They beat me to the ground until
I lost consciousness."
Svoboda and its allies do not make up a majority of the demonstrators, but as Cohen points out,
"Five percent of a population that's tough, resolute, ruthless, armed, and well funded, and knows
what it wants, can make history."
It is not the kind of history most would like to repeat.
Conn Hallinan can be read at dispatchesfromtheedgeblog.wordpress.com
I am a great fan of Kiev, an affable city of pleasing bourgeois character, with its plentiful
small restaurants, clean tree-lined streets, and bonhomie of its beer gardens. A hundred years ago
Kiev was predominantly a Russian resort, and some central areas have retained this flavour. Now Kiev
is patrolled by armed thugs from the Western Ukraine, by fighters from the neo-Nazi -Right Sector,
descendants of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian Quisling's troopers, and by their local comrades-in-arms
of nationalist persuasion.
After a month of confrontation, President Viktor Yanukovych gave in, signed the EC-prepared surrender
and escaped their rough revolutionary justice by the skin of his teeth. The ruling party MPs were
beaten and dispersed, the communists almost lynched, the opposition have the parliament all to themselves,
and they've appointed new ministers and taken over the Ukraine. The Brown Revolution has won in the
Ukraine. This big East European country of fifty million inhabitants has gone the way of Libya. The
US and the EU won this round, and pushed Russia back eastwards, just as they intended.
It remains to be seen whether the neo-Nazi thugs who won the battle will agree to surrender the
sweet fruits of victory to politicians, who are, God knows, nasty enough. And more importantly, it
remains to be seen whether the Russian-speaking East and South East of the country will accept the
Brown rule of Kiev, or split off and go their own way, as the people of Israel (so relates the Bible)
after King Solomon's death rebelled against his heir saying "To your tents, o Israel!" and proclaimed
independence of their fief (I Kings 12:16). Meanwhile it seems that the Easterners' desire to preserve
Ukrainian state integrity is stronger than their dislike for the victorious Browns. Though they assembled
their representatives for what could be a declaration of independence, they did not dare to claim
power. These peaceful people have little stamina for strife.
Their great neighbour, Russia, does not appear overtly concerned with this ominous development.
Both Russian news agencies, TASS and RIA, didn't even place the dire Ukrainian news at the top, as
Reuters and BBC did: for them, the Olympics and the biathlon were of greater importance, as you can
see on these print screens:
This "ostrich" attitude is quite typical of the Russian media: whenever they find themselves in an
embarrassing position, they escape into showing the Swan Lake ballet on TV. That's what they did
when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. This time it was the Olympics instead of the ballet.
Anti-Putin
opposition in Russia heartily approved of the Ukrainian coup. Yesterday Kiev, tomorrow Moscow,
they chanted. Maidan (the main square of Kiev, the site of anti-government demos) equals
Bolotnaya (a square in Moscow, the site of anti-government protests in December 2012) is another
popular slogan.
The majority of Russians were upset but not surprised. Russia decided to minimise its involvement
in the Ukraine some weeks ago as if they wished to demonstrate to the world their non-interference.
Their behaviour bordered on recklessness. While foreign ministers of EC countries and their allies
crowded Kiev, Putin sent Vladimir Lukin, a human rights emissary, an elder low-level politician of
very little clout, to deal with the Ukrainian crisis. The Russian Ambassador Mr Zurabov, another
non-entity, completely disappeared from public view. (Now he was recalled to Moscow). Putin made
not a single public statement on the Ukraine, treating it as though it were Libya or Mali, not a
neighbouring country quite close to the Russian hinterland.
This hands-off approach could have been expected: Russia did not interfere in the disastrous Ukrainian
elections 2004, or in the Georgian elections that produced extremely anti-Russian governments. Russia
gets involved only if there is a real battle on the ground, and a legitimate government asks for
help, as in Ossetia in 2008 or in Syria in 2011. Russia supports those who fight for their cause,
otherwise Russia, somewhat disappointingly, stands aside.
The West has no such inhibitions and its representatives were extremely active: the US State Department
representative Victoria "Fuck EC'' Nuland had spent days and weeks in Kiev, feeding the insurgents
with cookies, delivering millions of smuggled greenbacks to them, meeting with their leaders, planning
and plotting the coup. Kiev is awash with the newest US dollars fresh from its mint (of a kind yet
unseen in Moscow, I've been told by Russian friends). The US embassy spread money around like a tipsy
Texan in a night club. Every able-bodied young man willing to fight received five hundred dollar
a week, a qualified fighter – up to a thousand, a platoon commander had two thousand dollars – good
money by Ukrainian standards.
Money is not all. People are also needed for a successful coup. There was an opposition to Yanukovych
who won democratic elections, and accordingly, three parties lost elections. Supporters of the three
parties could field a lot of people for a peaceful demonstration, or for a sit-in. But would they
fight when push comes to shove? Probably not. Ditto the recipients of generous US and EC grants (Nuland
estimated the total sum of American investment in "democracy building" at five billion dollars).
They could be called to come to the main square for a demo. However, the NGO beneficiaries are timid
folk, not likely to risk their well-being. And the US needed a better fighting stock to remove the
democratically elected president from power.
Serpent Eggs
In the Western Ukraine, the serpent eggs hatched: children of Nazi collaborators who had imbibed
hatred towards the Russians with their mothers' milk. Their fathers had formed a network under Reinhard
Gehlen, the German spymaster. In 1945, as Germany was defeated, Gehlen swore allegiance to the US
and delivered his networks to the CIA. They continued their guerrilla war against the Soviets until
1956. Their cruelty was legendary, for they aimed to terrify the population into full compliance
to their command. Notoriously, they strangulated the Ukrainians suspected of being friendly to Russians
with their bare hands.
A horrifying
confession
of a participant tells of their activities in Volyn: "One night, we strangulated 84 men. We strangulated
adults, as for little kids, we held their legs, swung and broke their heads at a doorpost. …Two nice
kids, Stepa and Olya, 12 and 14 years old… we tore the younger one into two parts, and there was
no need to strangulate her mother Julia, she died of a heart attack" and so on and so on. They slaughtered
hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews; even the dreadful Baby Yar massacre was done by them, with
German connivance, somewhat similar to Israeli connivance in the Sabra and Chatila massacres of Palestinians
by the Lebanese fascists of the Phalange.
The children of these Bandera murderers were brought up to hate Communism, Soviets and Russians,
and in adoration of their fathers' deeds. They formed the spearhead of the pro-US anti-government
rebels in the Ukraine, the Right Sector led by out-and-out fascist
Dmytro Yarosh. They
were ready to fight, to die and kill. Such units attract potential rebels of differing backgrounds:
their spokesman is young Russian -turned -Ukrainian -nationalist Artem Skoropadsky, a journalist
with the mainstream oligarch-owned Kommersant-UA daily. There are similar young Russians who
join Salafi networks and become suicide-bombers in the Caucasus mountains – young people whose desire
for action and sacrifice could not be satisfied in the consumer society. This is a Slav al-Qaeda
- real neo-Nazi storm troopers, a natural ally of the US.
And they did not fight only for association with EC and against joining a Russia-led TC. Their
enemies were also the Russians in the Ukraine, and Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians. The difference
between the twain is moot. Before independence in 1991, some three quarters of the population preferred
to speak Russian. Since then, successive governments have tried to force people to use Ukrainian.
For the Ukrainian neo-Nazis, anyone who speaks Russian is an enemy. You can compare this with Scotland,
where people speak English, and nationalists would like to force them to speak the language of Burns.
Behind the spearhead of the Right Sector, with its fervent anti-communist and anti-Russian fighters,
a larger organisation could be counted on: the neo-Nazi Freedom (Svoboda), of Tyagnibok. Some years
ago Tyagnibok
called
for a fight against Russians and Jews, now he has become more cautious regarding the Jews. He is
still as anti-Russian as John Foster Dulles. Tyagnibok was tolerated or even encouraged by Yanukovych,
who wanted to take a leaf from the French president Jacques Chirac's book. Chirac won the second
round of elections against nationalist Le Pen, while probably he would have lost against any other
opponent. In the same wise, Yanukovych wished Tyagnibok to become his defeatable opponent at the
second round of presidential elections.
The parliamentary parties (the biggest one is the party of Julia Timoshenko with 25% of seats,
the smaller one was the party of Klitschko the boxer with 15%) would support the turmoil as a way
to gain power they lost at the elections.
Union of nationalists and liberals
Thus, a union of nationalists and liberals was formed. This union is the trademark of a
new US policy in the Eastern Europe. It was tried in Russia two years ago, where enemies of Putin
comprise of these two forces, of pro-Western liberals and of their new allies, Russian ethnic nationalists,
soft and hard neo-Nazis. The liberals won't fight, they are unpopular with the masses; they include
an above-average percentage of Jews, gays, millionaires and liberal columnists; the nationalists
can incite the great unwashed masses almost as well as the Bolsheviks, and will fight. This is the
anti-Putin cocktail preferred by the US. This alliance actually took over 20% of vote in Moscow city
elections, after their attempt to seize power by coup was beaten off by Putin. The Ukraine is their
second, successful joint action.
Bear in mind: liberals do not have to support democracy. They do so only if they are certain democracy
will deliver what they want. Otherwise, they can join forces with al Qaeda as now in Syria, with
Islamic extremists as in Libya, with the Army as in Egypt, or with neo-Nazis, as now in Russia and
the Ukraine. Historically, the liberal–Nazi alliance did not work because the old Nazis were enemies
of bankers and financial capital, and therefore anti-Jewish. This hitch could be avoided: Mussolini
was friendly to Jews and had a few Jewish ministers in his government; he objected to Hitler's anti-Jewish
attitude saying that "Jews are useful and friendly". Hitler replied that if he were to allow that,
thousands of Jews would join his party. Nowadays, this problem has vanished: modern neo-Nazis are
friendly towards Jews, bankers and gays. The Norwegian killer Breivik is an exemplary sample of a
Jew-friendly neo-Nazi. So are the Ukrainian and Russian neo-Nazis.
While the original Bandera thugs killed every Jew (and Pole) that came their way, their modern
heirs receive some valuable Jewish support. The oligarchs of Jewish origin (Kolomoysky, Pinchuk and
Poroshenko) financed them, while a prominent Jewish leader, Chairman of the Association of Jewish
Organizations and Communities of the Ukraine,
Josef Zissels,
supported them and justified them. There are many supporters of Bandera in Israel; they usually claim
that Bandera was not an anti-Semite, as he had a Jewish doctor. (So did Hitler.) Jews do not mind
Nazis who do not target them. The Russian neo-Nazis target Tajik gastarbeiters, and the Ukrainian
neo-Nazis target Russian-speakers.
Revolution: the Outline
The revolution deserves to be described in a few lines: Yanukovych was not too bad a president,
prudent though weak. Still the Ukraine came to the edge of financial abyss. (You can read more about
it in my previous
piece) He tried to save the situation by allying with the EC, but the EC had no money to spare.
Then he tried to make a deal with Russia, and Putin offered him a way out, without even demanding
from him that the Ukraine join the Russian-led TC. This triggered the violent response of the EC
and the US, as they were worried it would strengthen Russia.
Yanuk, as people call him for short, had few friends. Powerful Ukrainian oligarchs weren't enamoured
with him. Besides the usual reasons, they did not like the raider habits of Yanuk's son, who would
steal other men's businesses. Here they may have had a point, for the leader of Belarus, the doughty
Lukashenko, said that Yanuk's son's unorthodox ways of acquiring businesses brought disaster.
Yanuk's electorate, the Russian-speaking people of the Ukraine (and they are a majority in the
land, like English-speaking Scots are majority in Scotland) were disappointed with him because he
did not give them the right to speak Russian and teach their children in Russian. The followers of
Julia Timoshenko disliked him for jailing their leader. (She richly deserved it: she hired assassins,
stole billions of Ukrainian state money in cahoots with a former prime minister, made a crooked deal
with Gazprom at the expense of Ukrainian consumers, and what not.) Extreme nationalists hated him
for not eradicating the Russian language.
The US-orchestrated attack on the elected President followed
Gene Sharp's instructions to a tee, namely: (1) seize a central square and organise a mass peaceful
sit-in, (2) speak endlessly of danger of violent dispersal, (3) if the authorities do nothing, provoke
bloodshed, (4) yell bloody murder, (5) the authority is horrified and stupefied and (6) removed and
(7) new powers take over.
The most important element of the scheme has never been voiced by the cunning Sharp, and that
is why the Occupy Wall Street movement (who thumbed through the book) failed to achieve the desired
result. You have to have the Masters of Discourse™ i.e., Western mainstream media, on your side.
Otherwise, the government will squash you as they did with the Occupy and many other similar movements.
But here, the Western media was fully on the rebels' side, for the events were organised by the US
embassy.
At first, they gathered for a sit-in on the Independence Square (aka "Maidan Square") some people
they knew: recipients of USAID grants via the NGO network,
wrote a Ukrainian expert Andrey Vajra, networks of fugitive oligarch Khoroshkovski, neo-Nazis
of the Right Sector and radicals of the Common Cause. The peaceful assembly was lavishly entertained
by artists; food and drink were served for free, free sex was encouraged – it was a carnival in the
centre of the capital, and it began to attract the masses, as would happen in every city in the known
universe. This carnival was paid for by the oligarchs and by the US embassy.
But the carnival could not last forever. As per (2), rumours of violent dispersal were spread.
People became scared and drifted away. Only a small crowd of activists remained on the square. Provocation
as per (3) was supplied by a Western agent within the administration, Mr Sergey Levochkin. He wrote
his resignation letter, posted it and ordered police to violently disperse the sit-in. Police moved
in and dispersed the activists. Nobody was killed, nobody was seriously wounded, – today, after a
hundredfold dead, it is ridiculous even to mention this thrashing, – but the opposition yelled bloody
murder at the time. The world media, this powerful tool in the hands of Masters of Discourse, decried
"Yanukovych massacred children". The EC and the US slapped on sanctions, foreign diplomats moved
in, all claiming they want to protect peaceful demonstrators, while at the same time beefing up the
Maidan crowd with armed gunmen and Right Sector fighters.
We referred to Gene Sharp, but the Maidan had an additional influence, that of Guy Debord and
his concept of Society of Spectacle.
It was not a real thing, but a well-done make-believe, as was its predecessor, the August 1991 Moscow
"coup". Yanukovych did everything to build up the Maidan resistance: he would send his riot police
to disperse the crowd, and after they did only half of the job, he would call them back, and he did
this every day. After such treatment, even a very placid dog would bite.
The Spectacle-like unreal quality of Kiev events was emphasized by arrival of the imperial warmonger,
the neocon philosopher Bernard-Henri Levy. He came to Maidan like he came to Libya and Bosnia, claiming
human rights and threatening sanctions and bombing. Whenever he comes, war is following. I hope I
shall be away from every country he plans to visit.
First victims of the Brown Revolution were the monuments – those of Lenin, for they do hate communism
in every form, and those of the world war, because the revolutionaries solidarise with the lost side,
with the German Nazis.
History will tell us to what extent Yanuk and his advisors understood what they were doing. Anyway,
he encouraged the fire of Maidan by his inefficient raids by a weaponless police force. The neo-Nazis
of Maidan used snipers against the police force, dozens of people were killed, but President Obama
called upon Yanuk to desist, and he desisted. After renewed shooting, he would send the police in
again. An EC diplomat would threaten him with the Hague tribunal dock, and he would call his police
back. No government could function in such circumstances.
Eventually he collapsed, signed on the dotted line and departed for unknown destination. The rebels
seized power, forbade the Russian language and began sacking Kiev and Lvov. Now the life of the placid
people of Kiev has been turned into a living hell: daily robberies, beating, murder abound. The victors
are preparing a military operation against the Russian-speaking areas in the South East of Ukraine.
The spectacle of the revolution can yet turn really bloody.
Some Ukrainians hope that Julia Timoshenko, freshly released from jail, will be able to rein the
rebels in. Others hope that President Putin will pay heed to the Ukrainian events, now that his Olympic
games are, mercifully, finished. The spectacle is not over until the fat lady sings, but sing she
will – her song still remains to be seen and heard.
Ukraine's "peaceful pro-European" protesters leave a burnt land behind. Photo of a burnt police
bus taken by S.Morgunov at the Euromaidan in Kyiv on January 20, 2014
Rioters have seized the administration building in Lvov and forced the governor to resign. It
is not known who is currently in power in this region, but a puppet government formed by 'opposition
forces' may soon be set up. Demands for 'autonomy', or quite possibly, explicit separatist flirtations,
may give Klitschko and his thugs added bargaining power to use against the democratically elected
government during 'negotiations'. It is likely that even more extremist activity will occur, led
by Klischko, as he proclaimed on 22 January that, "If I have to go (on to the streets) under bullets,
I shall go there under bullets." Batkivshchyna Party leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk seconded this provocative
threat to delve Ukraine into de-facto civil warfare, as he similarly stated on 22 January that "Tomorrow
[23 January] we will go forward together. And if it's a bullet in the forehead, then it's a bullet
in the forehead, but in an honest, fair and brave way."
It is evident now that both men kept their threats in encouraging their respective militias to
unleash carnage within the country. As with the Arab Spring events, these provocateurs are fiending
for 'some of their own' to be killed by government forces seeking to re-establish control over anarchic
areas. A full-fledged military or Berkut response by Yanukovich is exactly what Klitschko and Yatsenyuk
want. For them, the more dead 'protesters', the better. It should be kept in mind that 1980s Poland
was placed under martial law for much less violent disturbances than what we are witnessing in Ukraine
at the moment.
The authorities now have to make a tough decision over whether to try to restore order to the
restive region or to attempt to regain control over the capital. The situation is extremely grave,
and it is now obvious that this hybrid Color Revolution/Arab Spring frankenstein is schizophrenically
taking on more characteristics of the latter (not that any is good, for that matter). The Libyan
method has apparently been 'perfected' to the point where outside actors feel comfortable deploying
this Pandora's Box inside of Europe itself.
It is clear that ever since the 'Bulldozer Revolution' in Serbia over a decade ago, the Color
Revolution template has evolved into the Arab Spring, and now the two have morphed into EuroMaidan,
a new type of warfare for our century. Because of the ease of NGO infiltration of targeted nations
in today's globalized world, as well as the synchronized terrorist and weapons-trafficking rings
under the strong influence of various intelligence organizations, the threat of this 'social' weapon/virus
being deployed in more and more countries has never been higher. It should be seen as no coincidence
that 3,000 Middle Eastern terrorists were planned to be relocated to Romania, possibly for use in
militantly training certain elements of the Ukrainian 'opposition'. This demonstrates that the outside
powers are intent on digging in for the long-run and unleashing as much destabilization as possible.
Ukraine's "peaceful pro-European" protesters leave a burnt land behind. Photo of a burnt police bus
taken by S.Morgunov at the Euromaidan on January 20, 2014
Gene Sharp is the mastermind of the seemingly innocuous strategies that serve as a prelude and
'dog whistle' to this viral outbreak, and George Soros is the financier. Nations need to work together
to repel this leprosy and protect themselves, their citizens, and global stability. The movement
of Arab Spring-like warfare to Europe shows the confidence that the coordinators have in using this
weapon anywhere they please. Today, Ukraine - Tomorrow, any other subjectively defined 'non-Western
non-Liberal-Democratic' state.
Ukraine has long been the focus of Western meddling as part of a larger geostrategic game aimed
at countering Russia. Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in 1994 that "it cannot be stressed strongly enough
that without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be an empire, but with Ukraine suborned and then subordinated,
Russia automatically becomes an empire." A little over a year ago, the US implicitly released a statement
via then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that it would do whatever is within its means to roll
back Russia's economic integrationist efforts. After describing Russia's Eurasian Union plans as
"a move to re-Sovietize the region", she proceeded to threaten that "we know what the goal is and
we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it."
Undoubtedly, the world is now witnessing what the US had in mind when it threatened to "slow down"
and "prevent" economic cooperation between Ukraine and Russia. With Ukrainian stability cracking
under the pressure of continued chaos and the economy on the brink of near-total collapse, the lie
of EuroMaidan's 'pro-EU integrationist' goals have been revealed. Either the EU will in no way accept
a future failed-state Ukraine, licking its wounds from prolonged civil strife, to enter into the
organization, or it, in coordination with its NATO overseers, had it planned all along to collapse
the country and profitably rebuild it under the aegis of the West. Either way, the fabled 'path to
Europe' has been exposed as the sham that it is, and absolutely nothing of positive value can come
to the average citizen from what the militant participants have done to their country in the name
of 'Euro-integration'.
The much-publicized talks of a 'ceasefire' are nothing more than an attempt for the saboteurs
to buy time and continue overthrowing as many regional governments (in Western Ukraine) as possible.
They are unfortunately as much of a sham as the Geneva II talks, as both 'opposition' groups want
nothing more than regime change, and will stop at nothing to achieve this. Every action, every word,
is no more than a deception to trick, disarm, and pacify any resistance to them so that they can
inch ever more closely towards their directed-from-abroad nationwide coups.
Coverage focused on the call for European integration has largely glossed over the rise in
nationalist rhetoric that has led to violence.
Kiev's two-month-long "Euromaidan" protest turned violent on Sunday as people in masks, outraged
over restrictive protest laws hurriedly passed last week, marched on parliament and ran into police
cordons that they pelted with stones and Molotov cocktails. Police hurled gas canisters, stun grenades,
and a water cannon and rubber bullets at them, setting off a wave of clashes previously unknown at
the largely peaceful protest.
Spearheading the clashes with police was Right Sector, a group with ties to far-right parties
including the Patriots of Ukraine and Trident, which BBC Ukraine reported is largely comprised of
nationalist football fans. In a statement the next day, the group claimed credit for Sunday's unrest
and promised to continue fighting until President Viktor Yanukovich stepped down.
"Two months of unsuccessful tiptoeing about under the leadership of the opposition parties showed
many demonstrators they need to follow not those who speak sweetly from the stage, but rather those
who offer a real scenario for revolutionary changes in the country. For this reason, the protest
masses followed the nationalists," the statement read.
The surge in violence sparked by Right Sector has revealed how uncritical and undiscerning most
of the media has been of the far-right parties and movements that have played a leading role in the
"Euromaidan," the huge protests for closer ties to Europe that flared up in November and have taken
over Kiev's Independence Square ("Maidan Nezalezhnosti"). Protest coverage focused on the call for
European integration and the struggle against the Yanukovich regime has largely glossed over the
rise in nationalist rhetoric, often chauvinist, that has led to violence not just against police,
but also against left-wing activists.
According to Maksim Butkevich of the coordinator of the No Borders Project of the Center for Social
Action NGO, which works against discrimination and xenophobia, far-right groups have grown in popularity
over the course of Euromaidan.
"I wouldn't say it's big, that huge numbers of activists will join far-right groups after this,
but they became more acceptable and in a way more mainstream than before for many active citizens,"
Butkevich said.
Although the outcome of the protests is still up in the air, if they lead to snap elections, nationalists
could win greater political power, Butkevich said, especially Svoboda, the far-right parliamentary
party in the coalition of three opposition parties leading the protest. (Right Sector criticizes
all three for "pacifism," including Svoboda.)
It was Svoboda that was responsible for the most iconic image to come out of Euromaidan: On December
8, masked protestors waving blue Svoboda flags and yelling "Hang the Commie!" toppled a 67-year-old
statue of Vladimir Lenin in the city center. Svoboda leader Ihor Miroshnychenko, who has faced charges
for pulling down a Lenin statue in another city, told journalists his party was responsible.
Svoboda is the most visible party on the square, it has essentially taken over Kiev City Hall
as its base of operations, and it has a large influence in the protestors' security forces.
It also has revived three slogans originating in the Ukrainian nationalist movement of the 1930s
that have become the most popular chants at Euromaidan. Almost all speakers on Independence Square-even
boxer-turned-opposition-leader Vitaly Klitschko, who has lived mostly in Germany and has a US residence
permit-start and end with the slogan, "Glory to Ukraine!," to which the crowd responds "To heroes
glory!" Two other nationalist call-and-response slogans often heard on the square are "Glory to the
nation! Death to enemies!" and "Ukraine above all!"
Progressive activists have "to fight on two fronts, against a regime that supports harmful police
violence … and also against extreme nationalism, which is recognized and legitimate on Maidan," Nikita
Kadan, an artist and activist in Kiev, said via Skype during a discussion of nationalism at a Moscow
bookstore in December.
The Euromaidan protests began on November 21 after the government halted the process of signing
an Association Agreement and a Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with the European Union.
The EU offered Ukraine what many have framed as a "civilizational choice" between East and West,
which have recently been at odds over a traditionalist social agenda-including a controversial law
against gay propaganda-implemented under President Vladimir Putin in Russia.
The association agreement would have reduced tariffs but would not have led automatically to visa-free
travel or the ability for Ukrainians to work in Europe. (EU politicians and even Senator John McCain
have come to Kiev to stump for European integration, and McCain had dinner with Svoboda's head and
the two other leaders of the opposition coalition.) Instead, President Yanukovich, who is from the
generally Russian-speaking eastern half of the country, later signed an agreement with Putin that
will see Russia buy $15 billion in Ukrainian government bonds and discount the gas it delivers to
Ukraine by a third.
The protests come amid a resurgence of nationalist sentiment in Ukraine that can be compared to
a Europe-wide rise of nationalist parties. Svoboda, which was originally known by the Nazi-esque
moniker "Social-National Party of Ukraine" and whose leader Oleh Tyahnybok is infamous for a 2004
speech in which he argued that a "Moscow-Jewish mafia" was ruling Ukraine, entered parliament for
the first time in 2012 by winning 10.44 percent of the popular vote. Before this, the party had come
to dominate regional parliaments in three provinces in the largely Ukrainian-speaking west of the
country. In last year's elections, Svoboda notably finished second in cosmopolitan, Russian-speaking
Kiev.
"In the 2010 and 2012 elections, it became visible that a big part of the youth are moving toward
nationalism," said Georgy Kasyanov, a researcher at the Institute for the Development of Education.
He noted that one factor is youth unemployment, which is rising in Ukraine as in the rest of Europe.
Despite its leading role at Euromaidan, Svoboda's political program is at complete odds with the
"European values" for which the protestors at Euromaidan are ostensibly agitating. (Admittedly, some
of the party's populist economic program is in fact relatively progressive.) During its time in parliament,
the party was best known for introducing a bill to ban abortions, but in its program, it also promises
to abolish gun control, "ban the communist ideology," criminalize "Ukrainophobia," ban the adoption
of Ukrainian children by foreigners and reinstate a "nationality" graph on passports and birth certificates.
On New Year's Day, Svoboda led about 15,000 people in a torchlight march in honor of Stepan Bandera,
the controversial leader of the wartime Ukrainian Insurgent Army, which fought the Soviets for an
independent Ukrainian state but also ethnically cleansed tens of thousands of Polish civilians. (Right
Sector also announced its own march that day in honor of Bandera.) Some historians have accused the
Ukrainian Insurgent Army of cooperating in the massacres of thousands of Ukrainian Jews during the
Nazi occupation, and Tyahnybok even commended the rebels in 2004 for fighting "Russians, Germans,
Jewry and other crap." The Simon Wiesenthal Center put Svoboda at number five on its 2012 list of
top anti-semitic slurs, citing Tyahnybok's "Moscow-Jewish mafia" comment and Miroshnychenko calling
Ukrainian-born actress Mila Kunis a "dirty Jewess."
How can the slogan "Ukraine above all!" sound on Independence Square alongside the slogan "Ukraine
in the EU!", Ukrainian progressive activist Olga Papash asked in a recent piece on the politics and
culture website Korydor. Any ideology has a certain point that integrates dissimilar ideas into a
single system, Papash argued.
"I think the attachment point, that shared place of rightist ideology in Ukraine today, that 'ideal'
that removes the contradiction between different calls to action and messages, is the fear of (dislike
of, reluctance toward) entering into any sort of 'civilized' relationship with Russia," Papash wrote.
Even Yury Noyevy, a member of Svoboda's political council, admitted that the party is only pro-EU
because it is anti-Russia.
"The participation of Ukrainian nationalism and Svoboda in the process of EU integration is a
means to break our ties with Russia," Noyevy said.
For now, Svoboda and other far-right movements like Right Sector are focusing on the protest-wide
demands for civic freedoms government accountability rather than overtly nationalist agendas. Svoboda
enjoys a reputation as a party of action, responsive to citizens' problems. Noyevy cut an interview
with The Nation short to help local residents who came with a complaint that a developer was tearing
down a fence without permission.
"There are people who don't support Svoboda because of some of their slogans, but they know it's
the most active political party and go to them for help," said Svoboda volunteer Kateryna Kruk. "Only
Svoboda is helping against land seizures in Kiev."
Kruk freely admitted she doesn't support Svoboda's nationalist platform and "would be very concerned"
if the party won a majority in parliament. Nonetheless, she volunteers for Svoboda because she likes
"the idea of a party that is Ukrainian-focused" and thinks it is the most active of the opposition
parties.
This kind of reserved support of Svoboda as the party most likely to enact change despite its
intolerant rhetoric was echoed by several protestors on Independence Square. Katerina, a doctor who
also declined to give her last name for fear of repercussions at work, said although she disagrees
with Svoboda's nationalist program, she supports them "for now" for their strong anti-oligarch stance.
"They're not afraid to make demands," she said.
Alexander, who came to Independence Square from a village outside Kiev, said that the nationalists
have been essential to the growth of Euromaidan.
"Without nationalists, there wouldn't be any protest," Alexander said, declining to provide his last
name.
Ivan Kozar, a Cossack from Khmelnitsky who came with his brethren to provide security on Independence
Square, said Svoboda "is the one political party that has a well-formed concept."
"Sure there are those who say, 'Beat Moskali!'" he said, referencing the derogatory term for Muscovites
sometimes heard on the square, "but they are few in number."
Nonetheless, some left-wing parties, including the Marxist party Borotba, don't support the protests
because they worry about the growing power the demonstrations have given to Svoboda. Their concern
alludes to a darker side to patriotic hymns and sayings.
The fact that nationalist slogans "became mainstream of course points to the danger of providing
greater legitimacy to groups promoting positions that yesterday were really marginal, and this danger
is still in place," Butkevich of No Borders said.
But rhetoric can quickly escalate into action, and already protestors with apparent nationalist
sentiments have taken part in a spate of attacks on left-wing activists on Independence Square. On
November 27, activists with signs reading "Freedom, Equality, Sisterhood," "Europe is sex education,"
"Europe is equality" and "Organize trade union instead of praying for Europe" said they were assaulted
by "far-right thugs" calling themselves "organizers of the protest," who tore the banners. On November
28, several men with covered faces pepper-sprayed a group of feminists and tore a banner reading
"Europe means paternity leaves."
On December 4, labor organizer Denis Levin and his two brothers were beaten by a small crowd shouting
"Glory to Ukraine" and "Death to Enemies" after a nationalist writer on the stage pointed them out
as "provocateurs" with red flags, Levin told The Nation. Shortly before and after the attack, Miroshnychenko,
a member of Svoboda's political council, came by the tent where the brothers were agitating for the
Confederation of Free Labor Unions, Levin added. The nose of one brother was broken, and Denis suffered
from the irritative gas used against the trio.
Men wearing armbands with the wolfsangel nationalist symbol also started the violent clashes on
nearby Bankova Street on December 1 that led to riot police counter-attacking and beating journalists,
photos from the incident show, although it's not clear in whose interests they were acting.
"People are not thinking about how an association with the EU will actually affect us, they're
still finding simple answers for complicated questions. They are blaming the Moskali for everything,"
Levin said.
"The main mistake of Maidan is that the parties came, and social questions were replaced by nationalist
ones," he added. "Maidan didn't grow into Occupy [Wall Street], it became reactive."
Please support our journalism. Get a digital subscription for just $9.50!
However, Noyevy denied Svoboda activists had beaten the Levin brothers.
"I know this situation, unfortunately Svoboda wasn't involved in this action," he said. "Thank
god everything turned out okay. Those provocateurs are mainly extremists, they have an extremist
liberal ideology and are using the funding of western organizations."
"Anyone who says he's a communist is a provocateur," he added. "We will be against any left-wing
party."
Former Svoboda member Ivan Ponomarenko, an architect from Kiev, said the party is ineffective
politically and will not be able to enact its measures, as its leadership is only "pretending" to
be extreme nationalists for their own political and economic gain.
"They are playing at Klu Klux Klan," Ponomarenko said.
But political analyst Kost Bondarenko, commenting on Svoboda's recent torch-lit march in Radio
Free Europe/Radio Svoboda's Russian service, said that as the dominant far-right political party,
Svoboda could benefit politically from any continuation of radical actions at Euromaidan.
"Any radicalization on the right, and Maidan is right-wing in its essence and ideology, will lead
to a growth in the ratings … of this political force," Bondarenko said. "On the other hand, such
a turn of events is desirable to the authorities, I think, since Viktor Yanukovich understands that
he will win if Oleh Tyahnybok makes it to a second round" in the presidential election in 2015.
For his part, a bright-eyed Noyevy promised to implement a radical nationalist platform.
"Svoboda is going to be the biggest winner among the opposition parties in increasing its level
of support after Euromaidan," he added. "Right now the majority of people on Maidan demand more radical
actions, and I don't see how other parties will enact these wishes."
Alec Luhn January
This guys is trying to whitewash Ukrainian nationalists...
10 June 2013
Ukrainian "nationalism" has been in the news these last few years. As usually happens with words
that have seeped into our daily vocabulary, nationalism in general and Ukrainian nationalism in particular
have come to mean just about anything. Its detractors, many of whom believe that Adolf Hitler's National
Socialism demonstrates that nationalism and fascism are inextricably connected, insist Ukrainian
nationalism is a form of fascism. Its supporters, who often invoke Giuseppe Mazzini, say it's noble
and empowering.
Compounding the problem, many of the historians who study Ukraine show little interest in conceptual
clarity. How we define things matters enormously, because definitions enable us to group similar
things together and explain them systematically. The alternative, a habit of sloppy scholars, is
a seat-of-the-pants approach that permits flawed comparisons. So please bear with me, as we go through
some conceptual exercises.
Let's start our enquiry by asking what fascism is not. Well, for starters, it's not any
of the things that casual users of the term appear to mean when they apply it to people they dislike.
Intolerance may be a bad thing, but it is not fascism. Violence may be abhorrent, but it too isn't
fascism. Nor is conservatism, xenophobia, or racism. Richard Nixon may have been soft on all these
features, but it would be absurd to suggest, as many on the left do, that he was a fascist. The term
fascist is not and cannot and should not just be shorthand for stuff we don't care for, if only because
everybody soon becomes a fascist.
So how do we define fascism? Fascism, I suggest, is best conceived of as a type of regime,
political system, or state on the same order as democracy, authoritarianism, dictatorship, oligarchy,
totalitarianism, and the like. That is, fascism, like other types of regimes, political systems,
or states, is fundamentally concerned with how regimes, political systems, or states are
structured and organized. Fascism is thus "about" the political institutions of regimes, systems,
and states.
Fascism may also be conceived of as an ideology or as a movement, group, or organization.
Fascism as an ideology is a set of core beliefs that justify and promote fascism as a type of regime,
political system, or state, while fascism as a movement, group, or organization is a human collective
that shares a fascist ideology. A fascist individual would obviously be someone who believes in such
an ideology.
Fascism as a type of regime, political system, or state; fascism as a set of beliefs about the
correct organization of a regime, political system, or state; and fascism as a human collective with
a fascist ideology all presuppose an existing state that should be transformed into one that corresponds
to fascist ideals. Fascism and fascists aspire to change existing non-fascist regimes, political
systems, or states into fascist regimes, political systems, or states. Fascism and fascists may aspire
to do so legally, democratically, and constitutionally or they may aspire to do so illegally, undemocratically,
and unconstitutionally, but their end goal is always anti-democratic.
The type of regime, political system, or state that fascism and fascists aspire to create
is generally acknowledged to be a variant of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Fascist regimes,
political systems, or states are thus invariably anti-democratic, but, in contrast to run-of-the-mill
authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, political systems, or states, fascist regimes, political systems,
or states exalt "the leader." In turn, fascist leaders in fascist regimes, political systems,
or states are, or attempt to be, charismatic, and they usually view themselves as spokesmen for "the
nation," an entity that fascism treats as a monolith.
As the quintessential fascist, Benito Mussolini was the charismatic leader of a movement with
a fascist ideology that proceeded to establish a fascist regime within an already existing Italian
state. ...The way in which fascists seize power may therefore vary, but where they seize it (within
an existing state) and what they then do (transform it into an authoritarian state with a charismatic
leader) is pretty much constant.
To summarize:
Fascism's two preconditions are an already existing state and an already existing non-fascist
type of regime, political system, or state. Fascists do not build states de novo;
nor do they build types of regimes, political systems, or states de novo. Unsurprisingly,
it is in fact the case that fascism and fascists are always found in already existing states with
already existing non-fascist types of regimes, political systems, or states.
As violent scenes play out on the streets of Kiev, we look at the major role extremist right-wing
movements have played in Ukraine's "pro-democracy" movement.
Ukraine's far-right is gaining support and confidence through its role in the street protests,
with the Svoboda party assuming a leading role in the movement and paramilitary groups leading the
street fighting.
In December US senator John McCain travelled to Ukraine to offer his support to the opposition,
appearing on stage with leaders of the three opposition parties leading the protests - including
the far-right Svoboda party.
Svoboda is currently Ukraine's fourth biggest party and holds 36 seats in parliament. It is also
part of the Alliance of European National Movements, along with the BNP and Hungary's Jobbik.
Svoboda leader Oleh Tyahnybok is one of the faces of the protests, appearing regularly along with
opposition leader and former boxer Vitali Klitschko (see picture right) voicing opposition to Putin's
influence over the region.
However, Tyahnybok has provoked controversy in the past with his anti-Semitic claims that a "Moscow-Jewish
mafia" controls Ukraine.
His party was registered in 1995 and initially used a swastika-style "wolfsangel" rune as its
logo. It restricted membership to ethnic Ukrainians. Until 2004 it had a paramilitary wing called
Patriots of Ukraine, and though it ended its link to the group in 2005, the two continue to be closely
associated and to participate in protests together.
Svoboda has played a leading role in the protests. Its member of parliament, Igor Myroshnychenko,
claimed responsibility for the toppling of the statue of Lenin, and it led the occupation of the
city hall.
In December inside city town hall, an organisational hub for the protests, a white power logo
was displayed in the centre of the stage alongside Svoboda party flags.
Fascism is like a fashion now with more and more people getting involved. Sergey Kirichuk
It has helped to revive 1930s Ukrainian nationalist chants, which even Vital Klitschko has now
adopted, shouting "Glory to Ukraine!", to which the crowd reply "To heroes, glory!".
Svoboda flags have been a permanent fixture in Independence Square, with pictures from clashes
also revealing the presence of militant far-right groups carrying neo-Nazi flags and the red and
black Ukrainian "insurgent army" flags.
On new year's day, Svoboda led a 15,000-strong torch-lit march in memory of controversial Ukrainian
nationalist Stepan Bandera, who fought against the Soviets during world war II.
Read more: far-right group at heart of Ukraine protests meet US senator
Hooligans strike
As violent scenes played out in recent days, groups of "autonomous nationalists" separate from
Svoboda, who recruit from far-right football hooligan groups, have taken a leading role in the fighting.
Acting under the name Pravy Sektor, they are reported to have 500 militants inside government
buildings seized by the protesters.
Sergey Kirichuk, a member of the group Borotba, which publishes and anti-fascist magazine in Ukraine,
told Channel 4 News that these neo-Nazis are the most violent elements on the streets.
"These people are separate from Svoboda, though they will have many links through activists -
but they are not controlled by any one group," he explained.
"They are the ones throwing molotovs and trying to kill policemen, the most violent element fight
at European Square.
"When left-wing groups tried to join the protests they were attacked and beaten by fascists. Svoboda
are leading ideologically now. Fascism is like a fashion now, with more and more people getting involved."
(Above: militants carry shields marked with neo-Nazi logos)
Paramilitaries from the Patriot of Ukraine group, Svoboda's former paramilitary wing, have been
present throughout the protests. Their masked activists, wearing distinctive yellow armbands, have
been pictured carrying chains and bricks through the crowd and leading attacks on riot police.
In 2012 the presence of a violent and highly organised far-right in Ukraine and Poland became
global news ahead of the Euro 2012 tournament.
The dominance of racist chants, Nazi salutes and neo-Nazi banners among football fans provoked
controversy ahead of the tournament, prompting President Yanukovych to promise matches would be closely
watched by security services.
Anti-Semitic attacks
The World Jewish Congress has called for Svoboda to be banned for its hardline anti-Semitic stance,
and public Jewish events celebrating hanukkah were cancelled last month due to fears of violence,
with Jewish leaders urging people to "increase security everywhere".
An ultra-Orthodox Jewish student, Dovbear Glickman, was stabbed while leaving a synagogue last
week, suffering massive blood loss. It is the second anti-Semitic assault this month after a Hebrew
teacher was followed home from synagogue by a gang before being beaten.
[Jan 9, 2014] Incredible story for WashingtonPost
One of the most influential American newspaper the Washington Post published an article by former instructor
of Viktor Yushchenko in the presidential elections" Adrian Karetnikov "Warlords and armed groups threaten
Ukraine's rebuilding". And although the article does not mention neither Oleg Lyashko, nor his party,
looks like the United States message addressed to him too. Among "radicals" in the Parliament are now
combat "Aydar" Sergey Melnichuk, "Azov" Ihor Mosiychuk
Government prosecutors have opened
38 criminal cases
against members of the Aidar battalion alone.
A pattern of blatant disregard for the chain of command, lawlessness and
racketeering is posing a growing threat to Ukraine's stability at a critical juncture. Concern about
volunteer groupings is widely shared in the Poroshenko administration, which reportedly raised the
question of dealing with these dangers at a meeting in November of his National Security and Defense
Council.
Most alarming, however, is the role of Ukraine's interior minister, Arsen
Avakov. Instead of reining in these fighters, conducting background checks on their records and reassigning
those who pass muster, he instead has offered them new heavy weapons, including tanks and armored
personnel carriers, and given them enhanced brigade status. Amazingly, in September he even
named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region.
Equally worrying is the activity of Ihor Kolomoyskyy, the governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast. Kolomoyskyy,
who played a crucial and widely respected role in stabilizing his East Ukrainian region, is now flouting
central authority by interdicting aid convoys headed to the Donbas and permitting brigades he finances
to engage in activities that contravene the law.
What can be done? Poroshenko clearly wants this problem resolved but has been reluctant or unable
to act. For him to succeed will likely require coordination with Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk,
who has also been slow to address the threat, possibly because Avakov is one of his key political
allies.
Incredible story for WashingtonPost, talking about uncontrollable warlords…. in Kiev Ukraine.
Not a word about any in Donbass, in fact barely a passing mention of Donbass.
So have they started to recognise Novorossiya as being a separate country?
Also on the Ukrainian topic:
Czech President Miloš Zeman
debates with Banderites.
State Department take note:
This man is OVERDUE for a colour revolution!
TRANSLATION
Stepan Bandera planned to create in Ukraine a puppet Nazi government, declared Czech President
Miloš Zeman, in response to a letter penned by supporters of Bandera.
"I received your letter, in which you defend Stepan Bandera. (….) Are you up to speed about
Bandera's words: 'I will kill every Polak from 16 to 60 years old' ? If you never heard of these
words of Bandera, then you don't know your own (Ukrainian) history. And if you DO know about this
declaration (of Bandera), then do you agree with it? Or not. And if you DO agree with it, then
my discussion with you ends right here," Zeman wrote.
Turning to the current day, the Czech President reminded people that Viktor Yushchenko [when
he was President of Ukraine] signed a decree granting to Bandera the title of "Hero of Ukraine".
He (Zeman) also reminded people, that today's Ukrainian government wishes to also make a "national
hero" out of Roman Shukhevich, former commander of UPA, under whose orders, in 1941 were shot
thousands of Jews.
"I really don't feel like congratulating Ukraine on having such national heroes," Zeman declared.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gives a press conference at the end of an EU-Ukraine Summit at the European Council in Brussels, Belgium, October 6, 2020. © Reuters/Stephanie Lecocq 21 Follow RT on
Ukraine's top court has ruled that Volodymyr Zelensky must only use the country's state language when exercising his official duties as president, after a citizen claimed he broke the law by speaking Russian at a public event.
Strategic Culture
Search History Why Canada Defends Ukrainian Fascism
Michael Jabara Carley
March 9, 2018 © Photo: Public domain
Print this article
Also by this author Michael Jabara Carley Professor of history at the Université de Montréal. He has published widely on Soviet relations with the West
What Poland Has to Hide About the Origins of World War II
To the top
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/55b273a2371d2211008b9793?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
ORDER IT NOW
Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
For a limited time only, get unlimited access to On Point, The Big Picture, and the PS Archive, plus our annual magazine, for less than $2 a week.
![11 Nations]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/55b273a2371d2211008b9793":{"contentType":"image/jpeg","aspectRatioW":3167,"aspectRatioH":2159}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/55b273a2371d2211008b9793?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![Syracuse New York]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/59b2be5c45e2381d008b5876":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":4,"aspectRatioH":3}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/59b2be5c45e2381d008b5876?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
debra
millet/Shutterstock
![soho New York city]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de800e9fd9db247a976a267":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":4,"aspectRatioH":3}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de800e9fd9db247a976a267?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Ryan
DeBerardinis/Shutterstock
![The Liberty Bell.]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80a7ffd9db23e5a1dd0f7":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":4,"aspectRatioH":3}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80a7ffd9db23e5a1dd0f7?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![Harrisburg, North Carolina]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5d60177b00ef2b6aa56bf1e1":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":6549,"aspectRatioH":4912}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5d60177b00ef2b6aa56bf1e1?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![kentucky derby]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80db9fd9db252bf4b2083":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":1333,"aspectRatioH":1000}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80db9fd9db252bf4b2083?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Michael Hickey/Getty
Images
![university of alabama football fans]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80dfcfd9db2413c3a5eea":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":911,"aspectRatioH":683}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80dfcfd9db2413c3a5eea?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Dave Martin/Getty
Images
![mexican american flag]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80748fd9db24dc40f4fe2":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":4,"aspectRatioH":3}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80748fd9db24dc40f4fe2?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
David McNew/Reuters
![San Francisco]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8079efd9db239ec1a8f34":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":1595,"aspectRatioH":1196}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8079efd9db239ec1a8f34?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![South Dakota]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80e54fd9db2417a02be09":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":517,"aspectRatioH":388}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de80e54fd9db2417a02be09?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
Scott Olson/Getty
Images
![louisiana music new orleans]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8086cfd9db24eb80e8128":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":5033,"aspectRatioH":3775}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de8086cfd9db24eb80e8128?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
![PIPELINE NATIVE AMERICANS]({"https://image.businessinsider.com/5de808bdfd9db23afd1df6e8":{"contentType":"image/png","aspectRatioW":709,"aspectRatioH":531}})
<img src="https://image.businessinsider.com/5de808bdfd9db23afd1df6e8?width=600&format=jpeg&auto=webp" />
What utter, bloody nonsense. I hope the citizens of Toronto will boycott the TSO in droves. The TSO is supposed to promote art, not politics. I am fully expecting the TSo to now schedule pianist Harper singing – Hey Jude. What crap!
Greetings ~
The decision by the management of the TSO to cancel Valentina Lisitsa's Rachmaninoff concert on political grounds is a ghastly blunder. Surely it will be reflected in declining ticket sales. Following that will come lay-offs and labour struggles.
I for one will not cock an ear in the direction of this orchestra until the situation is rectified in the interests of fairness and justice.
Bravo Lisitsa! All of Canada's political parties actively support the US-installed regime in Kiev and the powerful ultranationalist lobby the Ukrainian Canadian Congress. Like the pro-Israel lobby which also dominates our politicians in Ottawa, institutions like the TSO, which receive government and corporate funding, are wary of displeasing them.
Thanks for standing up for truth and justice!
In German history we had something like "degenerated art" and "degenerated music" during 3rd Reich. Artists had been oppressed because the kind of music did not fit into the NAZI view of culture or they were simply of Jewish descent. Some were killed, others could emigrate. Looking at the names you find composers like Bela Bartok, Hans Eisler, Paul Hindemith, Arnold Schönberg, Igor Stravinsky and more who left Europe to survive.
Nowadays it is not as easy anymore, oppression is more subtle. But having a kind of employment ban on artists because of their political opinion is the first step into that direction. What will be next? Having the wrong cultural bloodline?
This cannot be stopped early enough!