Archive | July 16th, 2016

Jewish Gestapo Suspected of Hacking French Prime Minister’s Phone


French authorities suspect that Prime Minister Manuel Valls’ cellphone may have been tampered with during his recent visit to the Nazi state, French media outlets reported Thursday.

Valls visited I$raHelLl on May 21-24 for talks with Nazi Reuven Rivlin and Benjamin Naziyahu, in a bid to revive the reconciliation process between Nazi regime and Ab-A$$ PA.

The prime minister and his staff were asked to submit their cellphones before attending the high-level talks, according to the French newspaper L’Express.

Upon retrieving them, French officials were “shocked” to find that many devices showed signs of an “anomaly,” the outlet claimed. One of the phones later broke down.

The suspicious cellphones were handed over for inspection to the National Agency for Computer Security (ANSSI), which declined to comment on the possibility that they had been hacked. A government official told the outlet the security check was standard procedure.

Nazi regime responded to the accusations, saying it considered France a friendly nation who it would never spy on. It denied having tampered with the phones of the French delegation.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, FranceComments Off on Jewish Gestapo Suspected of Hacking French Prime Minister’s Phone

Chilcot, ‘Israel’ and the Lobby

Image result for Chilcot Inquiry CARTOON
By Gilad Atzmon  

It took seven years for Sir Chilcot and his team to reach a set of conclusions that every Brit capable of thought understood back in November, 2013.

The inquiry produced a damning assessment of Blair’s conduct as well as the British military. But the Chilcot Inquiry failed to expose the crucial close ties between Blair’s criminal war, the Jewish Lobby and Israel.

At the time Britain entered the criminal war against Iraq, Blair’s chief funders were Lord ‘cashpoint’ Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). The prime advocates for the immoral interventionist war within the British press were Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen. The attorney general that gave the green light for the war was Lord Goldsmith.

In 2008 The Guardian revealed that the “Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) successfully fought to keep secret any mention of Israel contained on the first draft of the controversial, now discredited Iraq weapons dossier.”

Israel was conspicuously engaged in the vast production of WMDs. If Britain and America had any genuine concerns about WMDs, bombing Tel Aviv would have been the way to go.

In 2003 some intelligence experts insisted that Iraq’s WMD dossier was initially produced in Tel Aviv and only ‘sexed up’ in London.

Since the Iraq war, the same Jewish Lobby has mounted enormous pressure on western governments, promoting more Zio-centic interventionist wars in Syria, Libya and Iran. So why did the Chilcot Inquiry fail to address this topic?

This crucial failure by Chilcot was to be expected. In 2010, highly respected veteran British diplomat Oliver Miles had something to say about the Jewish make-up of the Chilcot Inquiry. Two out of the five members of the inquiry were Jews, pro war and Blair supporters.

This is what Miles wrote in the Independent :

“Rather less attention has been paid to the curious appointment of two historians (which seems a lot, out of a total of five), both strong supporters of Tony Blair and/or the Iraq war. In December 2004 Sir Martin Gilbert, while pointing out that the “war on terror” was not a third world war, wrote that Bush and Blair “may well, with the passage of time and the opening of the archives, join the ranks of Roosevelt and Churchill” – an eccentric opinion that would seem to rule him out as a member of the committee. Sir Lawrence Freedman is the reputed architect of the “Blair doctrine” of humanitarian intervention, which was invoked in Kosovo and Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

Both Gilbert and Freedman are Jewish, and Gilbert at least has a record of active support for Zionism. Such facts are not usually mentioned in the mainstream British and American media, but The Jewish Chronicle and the Israeli media have no such inhibitions, and the Arabic media both in London and in the region are usually not far behind.”

Miles’ point was valid, and proved correct. The Chilcot Inquiry wasn’t just destined to fail. It was designed to subvert any scrutiny of Israel and its hawkish pro war lobby.

The Chilcot Report gave the British public what it wanted. It blamed Blair for failing in his responsibilities to them. But the report’s focus on Blair, diplomacy, the military and  intelligence failures concealed the Lobby that was pulling the strings.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Chilcot, ‘Israel’ and the Lobby

Jewish and Zionist Influence at the BBC

By Karl Radl | Semitic Controversies 

Jewish influence, or power if you like, in mainstream media is one of those pink elephants in the room that everyone at some level realizes, but which badly needs to be openly discussed. This is happening more and more today due to, to their infinite credit, the efforts of the anti-Zionist left, which has found itself stymied by this influence and has spent some time documenting it. (1)

In order to contribute broadly to this discussion I thought it would be appropriate to explore the influence that Jews, be they pro or anti-Zionist, have in British state broadcaster; the BBC. This is important because the BBC has long been viewed, although less so today, as a relatively impartial broadcaster around the world and has been the subject of the umbrage of many a Zionist over the years.

The fact that Jews, as a minuscule part of the population of the British Isles, have so many members of their community in positions of power and influence in a state broadcaster committed to journalistic impartiality is obviously extremely concerning to any individual in their right mind. After all Jews, like any other group, are always going to promote their interests or push their particular perspective as a group and as such will knowingly or not distort the narrative to favour their perspective and interests.

When we look at the Executive Board we find the following individuals: (2)

Tony Hall (Director General, BBC)
Helen Boaden (Director, Radio)
Danny Cohen (Director, Television)
James Harding (Director of News and Current Affairs)
James Purnell (Director, Strategy and Digital)
Annie Bulford (Managing Director, Finance and Operations)
Tim Davie (CEO, BBC Worldwide and Director, Global)
Simon Burke (Non-Executive Director)
Sir Howard Stringer (Non-Executive Director)
Dame Fiona Reynolds (Non-Executive Director)
Sir Nicholas Hytner (Non-Executive Director)
Alice Perkins (Non-Executive Director)
Dharmash Mistry (Non-Executive Director)

Of these thirteen executives; three are jewish.

The executives who have jewish backgrounds are Danny Cohen, (3) James Harding (4) and Sir Nicholas Hytner. (5) This seems superficially reasonable until we note that, according to the 2011 census, jews are 0.5% of the British population. (6) Comparatively those of Jewish origin are 23% of the membership of the Executive Board of the BBC.

When we compare that to Indians who are a similar minority group in the United Kingdom; we note that while in the 2011 census they made up 2.3% of the British population. (7) They only have one representative (Dharmash Mistry) on the Executive Board of the BBC.

Therefore we can see that jews are both significantly over-represented among the individuals who are members of the Executive Board as well in them of themselves. In addition to being significantly over-represented relative to more populous ethnic minority groups such as those of Indian origin.

This situation becomes more concerning when we note that James Harding, one of the Jewish members, has made it explicitly clear that, after making the British daily The Times newsroom pro-Israel, he wants to do precisely the same at the BBC. (8)

This obviously already a violation of the BBC’s neutrality, which is explicitly required in its periodically renewed charter, since Harding is explicitly setting out to modify the BBC’s relative objectivity to a partisan pro-Israel stance.

Naturally Harding claims it is ‘injecting balance’ into the BBC newsroom, but such verbiage is a common linguistic trick (9) and is explicitly how Israel projects ‘soft power’ to attempt to create a pro-Israeli narrative (i.e. Hasbara). (10)

Even more concerning is the backgrounds of some of the other non-Jewish members of the Executive Board.

James Purnell is the former Chairman of the pro-Israel lobby group ‘Labour Friends of Israel’. (11) This group explicitly exist to influence the members and policy making of the Labour Party in Britain and has a substantial membership among Labour party Members of Parliament. (12)

Combined with James Harding this is enough cause for serious concern about jewish and Zionist influence within the Executive Board of the BBC.

However Sir Howard Stringer also has a strong Zionist connection given that he was the honorary chairman of the ‘American Jewish Committee’, a powerful Jewish communal organization dedicated to promoting Zionism in the United States, in 2004. (13)

That he has not repudiated his pro-Zionist views since this time is suggestive of the fact that Sir Howard continues to support the objectives and methods of the ‘American Jewish Committee’.

While Sir Nicolas Hytner, a Jewish member of the Executive Board, has often abused his positions in the world of acting and theatre to oppose the BDS (Boycott Divest Sanctions) movement against Israel. (14)

It is unlikely that Sir Nicholas will act any differently while he is part of the BBC’s Executive Board than he has when he was at the National Theatre. Indeed he has given us absolutely no reason to think he will do an about face on his track record of running political interference on behalf of Israel.

Danny Cohen, a jewish member of the Executive Board, has also publicly endorsed the Zionist cause only a year ago. (15) Since he has not given us reason to think otherwise; we may be confident that he will continue in his support for Israel and the pro-Zionist narrative.

Once we take the political affiliations of the Executive Board of the BBC into account we can see that all three of the Jewish members are openly pro-Israel/pro-Zionist, while two of the non-Jewish members are also pro-Israel/pro-Zionist.

This takes the pro-Israel/pro-Zionist bloc in the BBC’s Executive Board to five members, while none of the other members have any known anti-Israel/anti-Zionist convictions.

This means that 38% of the BBC’s Executive Board is pro-Israel/pro-Zionist. When added to the fact that three of those five members (James Harding, James Purnell and Sir Nicholas Hytner) have a track record of political interference on behalf of Israel in organizations then it becomes even more sinister.

When we further note that Harding is in charge of the BBC’s newsroom it suggests that the narrative the BBC will produce going forward will be pro-Israel/pro-Zionist and not in any way neutral.

James Purnell’s role as the head of Strategy and Digital makes him an invaluable ally for Harding in manipulating the pro-Israel/pro-Zionist narrative in such a way as to promote it as the ‘wave of the future’ for the BBC.

Danny Cohen’s role as the head of television, the BBC’s most powerful arm, is even more subversive given that it is by news, documentary/factual and entertainment television programming that many people, in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, get their informational prism with which they view the world.

We get an absolutely intolerable situation where the neutral BBC has been/is being progressively hijacked by avowed pro-Israel/pro-Zionist activists with the stated aim of abusing its reputation for neutrality in order to promote Israel politically and neutralize dissenting views/unflattering coverage.

When we look at the next organizational layer down, the BBC’s Executive Team, we find the following individuals: (16)

Ken MacQuarrie (Director, BBC Scotland)
Rhodri Talfan Davies (Director, BBC Cymru Wales)
Peter Johnston (Director, BBC Northern Ireland)
Peter Salmon (Director, England)
Ralph Rivera (Director, BBC Digital)
Valerie Hughes-D’Aeth (Director, HR)
David Jordan (Director, Editorial Policy and Standards)
Philip Almond (Director, Marketing and Audiences)
Alan Yentob (Creative Director)
Francesca Unsworth (Director, BBC World Service Group)

Of the ten members of the Executive Team; one is Jewish.

The member of the Executive Team with a Jewish background is Alan Yentob. (17)

Peter Salmon is sometimes listed as being Jewish, (18) but while ‘Salmon’ could well be a contraction of the common Ashkenazi surname ‘Salomon’ there is no evidence I can find of such occurring here. Indeed ‘Salmon’ is a perfectly English surname to have (19) and without evidence to the contrary we can only assume that Peter Salmon is not Jewish.

While Yentob’s presence in the Executive Team takes the Jewish representation on it to 10%. The fact that it is only one individual that is Jewish suggests that the numbers alone here relative to the Jewish representation in the population of the British Isles (i.e. 0.5%) are in some-way reasonable (as you cannot get less than 10% of the membership of the Executive Team with representation).

It is worth noting however that the Indian population in the United Kingdom (i.e. 2.3%) are not represented at all, while no other ethnic or religious minorities are represented either.

This makes Yentob’s presence rather concerning given the general lack of diversity among the BBC’s Executive Team since Jews are a tiny minority even by ethnic minority standards and their having a voice on the Executive Team while no others do is inconsistent with the BBC’s fervent support for racial diversity and propagation of an anti-nativist narrative. (20)

We also need remember that there are internal politics in every organization and while Yentob seems rather innocuous as the ‘Creative Director’; he has recently openly boasted that he is very closely involved in the running of the BBC in general. (21)

Some would dismiss this as merely hot air, but we know that Yentob has long been tipped as a potential future Director-General of the BBC. (22) It was also Yentob who lead the charge against those BBC journalists who dared to doubt the BBC party line on the Jimmy Savile paedophile scandal and branded them ‘traitors’. (23)

One wonders why the BBC’s ‘Creative Director’ would get so closely involved in such things if he was not a significant political force within the BBC’s internal political world?

Contrast that with the fact that no other members of the BBC’s Executive Team have been named as behaving in a similar manner or censoring their own employees on said scandal and we can see that Yentob, in spite of being only one man, is a political force to be reckoned with within the world of organizational politics in the BBC.

Yentob is also quite active in the Jewish community (24) and is known to produce programming that lionizes said community. (25)

While I cannot link him directly to Zionist activity; given his background and lionization of the Iraqi Jews (who immigrated to Israel). It is reasonable to assume that, while not an open political partisan, Yentob is at least willing to allow a pro-Israel/pro-Zionist narrative on the BBC. Therefore while Jewish and Zionist influence in the BBC’s Executive Team is seemingly small; the fact that its only known representation is an obvious key political player in the BBC is suggestive that at the very least there would be no significant resistance to a pro-Israel/anti-Zionist, as opposed to a neutral, narrative from the Executive Team.

When we move on to the BBC’s editors and correspondents we find the following individuals listed: (26)

Mark Easton (Home [UK] Editor)
Bridget Kendall (Diplomatic Correspondent)
Andrew Harding (Africa Correspondent)
Carrie Gracie (China Editor)
Soutik Biswas (Delhi Correspondent)
Katya Adler (Europe Editor)
Anthony Zurcher (North American Reporter)
Robert Peston (Economics Editor)
Kamal Ahmed (Business Editor)
Mark D’Arcy (Parliamentary Correspondent)
Laura Kuenssberg (Political Editor)
James Landale (Deputy Political Editor)
Rory Cellan-Jones (Technology Editor)
David Lee (North American Technology Reporter)
David Shukman (Science Editor)
Jonathan Amos (Science Correspondent)
Nick Triggle (Health Correspondent)
Fergus Walsh (Medical Correspondent)
Hugh Pym (Health Editor)
Branwen Jeffreys (Education Editor)
Sean Coughlan (Education Correspondent)
Will Gompertz (Arts Editor)

Of these twenty-two editors and correspondents; six are Jewish.

Those with a Jewish background are: Katya Adler, (27) Robert Peston, (28), Laura Kuenssberg, (29), David Shukman, (30) Jonathan Amos and Will Gompertz. (31)

This means that the representation of Jews among the BBC editors and correspondents is currently running at a frankly frightening 27%. Compare this with their representation in the British population (0.5%) and it becomes obviously a matter of likely pro-Jewish/pro-Israel/pro-Zionist bias.

It is more difficult to prove sympathies (one way or another) with the BBC’s editor and correspondents than with the BBC’s Executive Board and Executive Team. Since editors and correspondents by the nature of their profession are very aware of the need to carefully manage any statements they make outside of a professional context as they are aware of how closely scrutinized they will be once they pass into the public domain.

However something of the pro-Jewish/pro-Israel/pro-Zionist views of some of the editors and correspondents can be gleaned from the fact that both David Shukman (32) and Will Gompertz (33) have abused their positions to insert an unbalanced historical narrative of Jewish suffering into the content they have produced for the BBC.

Meanwhile Rory Cellan-Jones, the non-Jewish Technology Editor, has been a major figure in the anti-BDS/pro-Israel movement since early 2007 (34) and has abused, like James Harding and Sir Nicholas Hytner have done in the past, his position as a BBC editor to give credence to his pro-Israel views (which was regarded as a significant contribution to the Zionist cause by the website ‘Totally Jewish’). (35)

Then we have Robert Peston, the Jewish Economics Editor, who believes that his Jewish heritage has provided him with superior genes compared to non-Jewish heritage. (36)

This clearly suggests that Peston holds to some form of Jewish nationalism (i.e. Zionism) given these, essentially, Jewish supremacist sentiments that necessarily label non-Jews as inferior beings when compared to Jews.

I would also be remiss if I didn’t mention that Laura Kuenssberg is a very recent appointment to the position of Political Editor; previously the position was held, for several years, by Nick Robinson. He is, like Kuenssberg, Jewish. (37)

Interestingly Kuenssberg was promoted to the position of political editor over Robinson’s non-Jewish deputy James Landale, (38) which suggests that Kuenssberg may have been promoted (she was formerly merely a guest blogger) (39) merely because she is Jewish and Landale is not.

I cannot prove it one way or the other, but the otherwise inexplicable appointment of Kuenssberg over Landale would then explicable.

Given all this information we can see there at least four of BBC’s editors and correspondents (David Shukman, Will Gompertz, Robert Peston and Rory Cellan-Jones) who are pro-Jewish/pro-Israel/pro-Zionist activists, while three others (Katya Adler, Laura Kuenssberg and Jonathan Amos) are likely to be such.

This then suggests that the pro-Jewish/pro-Israel/pro-Zionist narrative that seems to be part of James Harding’s overt plan for the BBC would find at least seven supporters out of the twenty-two current editors and correspondents at the BBC (i.e. 32% of all those concerned).

What we can see from the foregoing analysis is that the BBC has a disproportionate number of Jewish ethnic and non-Jewish pro-Zionist activists, particularly on its Executive Board and among its editors and correspondents to seriously impede the BBC charter’s requirement for neutrality.

In essence the bald way of putting it is that the BBC has been all but captured by Jewish ethic and non-Jewish pro-Zionist activists. We should therefore reasonably expect the BBC, a-la James Harding’s explicit plan, to become a particularly insidious weapon in the Israeli Hasbara arsenal.


(1) Notably Grant Smith, 2006, ‘Deadly Dogma: How Neoconservatives Broke the Law to Deceive America’, 1st Edition, Institute for Research: Middle East Policy: Washington D.C.; James Petras, 2007, ‘Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists, Militants’, 1st Edition, Clarity: Atlanta; James Petras, 2014, ‘The Politics of Empire: The US, Israel and the Middle East’, 1st Edition, Clarity: Atlanta
(9) See:
(18) For example:
(22) ;
(24) For example:
(25) For example: and
(26) Compiled through the BBC’s online news portal:
(39) ;

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Jewish and Zionist Influence at the BBC

Nazi minister: Kidnap Palestinian “terrorists”


Nazi Gestapo Minister Naftali Bennett advocated on Thursday for Nazi regime to kidnap Palestinians to be used as leverage to obtain the release of two Zionist ‘civilians’ and the bodies of two Nazi soldiers held in the besieged Gaza Strip, Zionist media reported.

In an interview with Radio Darom, Nazi Bennett — who leads the far-right Nazi Jewish Home party — discussed the issue of releasing Palestinian prisoners as part of a deal to obtain the return of Zionist citizens Avraham Mengistu and Hisham al-Sayed, as well as the bodies of Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul, two Nazi soldiers killed during Nazi Holocaust 2014 offensive on Gaza.

“My policies are consistent over the years: complete opposition to disproportionate deals to free terrorists, and certainly in exchange for bodies,” The Times of Israel quoted Nazi Bennett as saying.

According to Zionist news outlet The Jerusalem Post, Nazi Bennett then advocated for the kidnapping of Palestinians to pressure for the release of the slain Nazi soldiers and missing Zionist.

“We should do what the State of Israel once did,” he said. “What we once did in such situations was we would go and kidnap from the other side, and create new leverage against the other side, rather than releasing more and more terrorists.”

The Jerusalem Post quoted Nazi Bennett’s spokesperson as specifying that the far-right political leader was suggesting kidnapping “terrorists,” not Palestinian civilians.

It remained unclear from Nazi Bennett’s statement whether he advocated the kidnapping of Palestinians to use as a bargaining chip to exchange with Nazi’s, in contradiction of his earlier statement, or as an intimidation tactic to coerce those holding the Nazi’s in Gaza into releasing them.

It was also unclear whether Nazi Bennett was pushing for Nazi regime should detain more Palestinians in addition to the 7,000 currently held in Nazi camps prisons, or hold them completely extrajudicially.

Spokespeople for the Education Ministry and Bennett’s office were unavailable for comment on Friday, the weekend in Israel, to clarify the minister’s statements.

Bennett is well known for his incendiary rhetoric vis-a-vis Palestinians.

In the wake of several attacks last week which killed two Nazi’s, including a 13-year-old girl, and three Palestinians, Nazi Bennett advocated for a number of measures which have been denounced by rights groups as constituting collective punishment.

These proposed measures, many of which have been implemented, included increased settlement construction; stepping up Nazi policy of demolition of Palestinian property built without permits; full Nazi military control over the entirety of the occupied West Bank; military closures of suspected attackers’ hometowns; the detention of suspected attackers’ family members; and cutting off internet and cellular access to the southern West Bank district of Hebron.

Nazi regime is still withholding the bodies of at least seven Palestinians killed by Nazi forces since October, as the slain Palestinians’ families remain uncertain as to when, and if, they will be released for burial.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on Nazi minister: Kidnap Palestinian “terrorists”

An unholy alliance of leftists supporting a pro-NATO course against Russia

By Susann Witt-Stahl and Denis Koval 

The Rosa-Luxemburg Foundation and the ‘new left’ in Ukraine have forged a pro-NATO course directed against Russia.

The Die Linke (Left Party)-affiliated Rosa Luxemburg Foundation wants to play it safe. It relies not on historical pro-Soviet or Marxist left traditions but instead promotes a “new left”. The foundation is named after a world-renowned icon of anti-capitalist movements whose identity is bound with communist and anti-imperialist ideas. But the members of the Foundation’s leadership recommend to the left a convergence with the ‘liberal imperialism’ of the global hegemon, the USA.

Understandably, this requires some political flexibility. Progressive forces should not plant themselves on one side or the other of competing imperialist powers, says the Facebook page Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung Ukraine. It demands that the “independent left” distance itself from the NATO-EU bloc, on the one hand, and from Russia on the other hand.

Rosa Luxembourg FoundationThis agenda is followed by the Rosa Luxemburg Foundation (RLF) with its Ukrainian partners. But it never explicitly speaks out against the accelerated expansion of the Western powers to the very borders of the Russian Federation. Instead, it consistently warns about “Great Russian chauvinism” and denounces the former Soviet Union and the anti-imperialist left.

In Ukraine, the Foundation cooperates principally with the small ‘Left Opposition’ group (not to be confused with the political front of the same name in which the Ukrainian Communist Party participates). In April 2014, the Left Opposition (LO) along with the “independent” trade Union ‘Zachist Prazi’ (Labor Defence) of Oleg Vernik merged into the ‘Social Movement’. The aim was to create an alliance (so far without any success) to be a Ukrainian version of Syriza.

One of the founders of the ‘LO’ is Zakhar Popovich, who in 2003 together with Oleh Vernik was expelled from the Trotskyist Committee for a Workers’ International (reported in Junge Welt) because of a lengthy fraud they perpetuated. They had collected donations for non-existent left-wing organizations in Ukraine.

According to its self description, LO stands for a politics of peace, beyond the “nationalist polarisation” of pro-Ukrainian and pro-Russian forces. But it doesn’t dare to criticize Ukrainian ultranationalists. LO has openly supported the assaults by Euromaidan. Zakhar Popovich and his comrade Vitaly Dudin, the lawyer of the Kiev Center for Social and Labor Research, are also RLF partners. They marched in Maidan Square with a red EU flag side-by-side with the ultra-right.

The LO also welcomed the political section of the EU Association agreement, which includes clauses providing for military cooperation of Ukraine with the West.

Accordingly, LO has nothing to do with the “opposition” anymore. In March of 2014, Zakhar Popovich characterised the Yatsenyuk coup government as “legitimate” and appealed “to all governments in the world and Russia to recognize it”. He announced that his support was only “practical”, not political, because of the numerous, Goebbels-type followers from the Svoboda Party who were in the government.

LO’s demand to end the civil war in eastern Ukraine is expressed by the fact that in 2014, Fedor Ustinov, a member of its organizing committee, voluntarily joined the Ukrainian extremist ’ battalion ‘Shachtarsk’ in order to participate in the “punitive expedition” against the insurgents in the unrecognized people’s republics of Donbass. The “American anti-imperialist response” to  the “imperialist aggression of Russia” needed to be strenghthened. In this way did Ustinov understand the “balancing to be done against the two rival “imperialist” camps.

The LO is not only in the pro-NATO camp with both feet, it is also in the rightwing quagmire. The ‘Social Movement’–that is, LO andZachist Prazi–view the organisation ‘Autonomous Resistance’ as not only “comrades. In Odessa, they have gone so far as to hold a joint rally with fascists who organize memorial marches for Stepan Bandera’s Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) which committed massacres during WWII (especially of the Polish civilian population) and collaborated with Nazi Germany.

The LO member and co-organizer Andriy Ishchenko was until 2004 the chairman of the Odessa cell of the Ukrainian National Assembly – Ukrainian People’s Self-Defence (UNA-UNSO), a fascist party and the core organization of the Right Sector. The UNA-UNSO’s paramilitary force contributed to the 2004 ‘Orange Revolution’ of the famous Atlanticist Viktor Yushchenko, who became Ukraine’s president in 2005.

Perhaps Andriy Ishchenko is now an ‘ex’ neo-Nazi? Hardly. Until today, he still welcomes his former comrades as “friends”. “I am not ashamed of my membership in this organization. We were in the forefront of the struggle of the Ukrainian people for their rights and the the social struggles of the’ 90s,” said Ishchenko in 2014, speaking about his unfinished past.

The fact that Andriy Ishchenko wants to help the Right Sector to become “left wing” is enough for RLF, apparently, to present him in its pages as a “left activist”. Moreover, to whitewash the pro-Maidan ‘Autonomous Resistance’, Nelia Vakhovska, the project co-ordinator of the RLF in Ukraine, and Ivo Georgiev, from the centre for International Dialogue and Cooperation of the RLF, call Autonomous Resistance a “citizens ‘ movement” in a published post titled The life of left activists in Ukraine is dangerous. The RLF Facebook page provides weblinks to these neo-Nazi Banderites.

Although LO has a maximum of two dozen activist members, conferences and other events with speakers from the LO are promoted by RLF and LO’s positions are uncritically disseminated. This also applies to other structures from the spectrum of the ‘new left’ in Ukraine, for example, the magazine Prostory of the ‘Autonomous Workers’ Union’. The members of AWU regularly mobilize against “pro-Putin fascists” (their term for opponents of Maidan) and believe that there is “no alternative” to the “Anti-Terrorist Operation” taking place in Donbass.

Ukraine’s ‘decommunization’ law and other repressive measures against the Ukrainian Communists have opened space for what some critics call a “fake left” in Ukraine. The fact that this left holds a long-time monopoly on the funds of the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation is being hushed up.

The ‘new left’ is used to whitewashing the alliance of the Western powers with the fascists in Ukraine. They approve the cooperation of the NATO-oriented, Ukrainian economic elite with the Western neocons that took place on the Maidan and approve a new escalation against Russia.

* Translation to English by New Cold

Background: “Peace is War”

The Rosa-Luxemburg Foundation was involved in the creation of the pro-Maidan ‘left‘. In April 2014, for example, it promoted a conference ‘The Left and Maidan‘ organized by its Ukrainian partners.

The conference also served as a founding Congress of the ‘Social Movement‘ − initiated predominantly by the Left Opposition. The results of a survey were presented at the conference, according to which 93 per cent of Maidan-activists were presented as “apolitical” and only seven per cent (including the socialists) were organized politically. Accordingly, the proportion of fascists and other radical Right involved inMmaidan was said to be very low.

In December 2015, the Rosa Luxembourg Foundation supported the event ‘Aspects of the media coverage of the military conflict‘ organized by the Centre for Labour and Social Research, including experts “reporting from the ATO-zone” (‘Anti-Terrorist Operation‘ is  the Kyiv government’s official name for the military offensive of the Ukrainian army in eastern Ukraine). As stated in the event announcement, the participants included Yana Salakhova from George Soros’ ‘Renaissance Foundation‘ and Igor Burdyga, a journalist, member of the LO and militant of the ‘AutoMaidan who believes the arsonists of Odessa on May 2, 2014 were “patriots” while the protests of the victims’s relatives were “ukrainophobic”.

The RLF also supports projects of the Visual Culture Research Center in Kiev. For example, in 2014, it staged a series of benefits named ‘Peace Is War‘ which featured pro-Maidan propaganda films that encourage the viewer to understand that the militarisation of Ukrainian society is a “consequence of Russian aggression beginning in March 2014″.

The Foundation similarly promotes moderate nationalists from the artist scene. Sergiy Zhadan, according to the RLF, is a “leftist writer”, but he will participate in the ‘Banderstad Festival‘, a large gathering of Ukrainian fascists taking place in August 2016.

Posted in Germany, UkraineComments Off on An unholy alliance of leftists supporting a pro-NATO course against Russia

TURKEY & the ‘Failed Coup’: There Are 3 Possibilities For What Just Happened



The dramatic events in Turkey overnight are confusing, to say the least. All international outlets report that part of the Turkish military attempted to carry out a coup and oust President Erdogan from power.

We are also told the coup appears to have failed, that Erdogan is safely resuming his presidency and that all the conspirators are to be punished – there is talk of the death penalty returning for the case of these plotters.

If you’re confused as to precisely what has transpired last night in Turkey, don’t worry – everyone appears to be equally confused.

A statement claiming to represent the Turkish armed forces claimed to have seized control of the government. In Ankara, army tanks were rolling through city streets, planes flying overhead, and military vehicles quickly surrounded army HQ. In what was almost a civil war like scenario, the intelligence agencies and police forces were authorised by the Prime Minister to fight members of the Turkish military. A rocket was fired into the parliament building. There were gunfights in Istanbul.

There were scenes of the army supposedly taking over the state broadcasters, including the CNN affiliate. The death toll is reported to have been high. Almost 3,000 alleged members of the coup operation are reported to have been arrested, some killed.

Erdogan called on Turkish citizens to go out on the streets and oppose the military takeover, leading to extraordinary scenes of scores of civilians marching, blocking the roads, laying in front of tanks, and even attacking the soldiers (as shown in image below). Last night appears to have confirmed that Erdogan – for all this dictator-like actions and his subversion of Turkish democracy and the principles the modern state was founded on  – appears to genuinely have a great deal of popular support.

What unfolded last night appears to have been very dramatic and very unsettling. But there are conflicting views as to what is going on. And too much is still not known. We don’t know who the leaders in this coup attempt were. We don’t know how much of the military was involved or how much of the military stands in solidarity with it even now.

The first thing to acknowledge is that a military coup is part of Turkey’s historical mindset when a government is seen to be failing the people or abusing its power.

There have been such coups before and many would argue one has certainly been on the cards for some time now.The idea of the Turkish military moving in to restore order or democracy is in fact closely linked to the constitution itself.

What’s problematic in this narrative, however, is that the coup leaders – again, whoever they are – are reported to have said they would write a brand new constitution for Turkey once they had successfully ousted Erdogan and his militant Islamist mafia. That’s a little strange – why suggest a new constitution? Why not simply state a protection or restoration of the existing constitution? Or maybe it was misreported. Or maybe it was just a confused statement amid a chaotic situation.

The Constitution of the Republic of Turkey (also known as the Constitution of 1982), is modern Turkey’s fundamental foundation stone, laying out the rules for the state’s conduct and its responsibilities to its citizens, as well as clearly establishing the rights of the people and also clearly asserting that Turkey is a secular, democratic republic answerable to the people.

In fact, defending Turkey as a secular republic – particularly against militant political Islamism or any attempts to turn the country into a religious state – is regarded to be the job of the Turkish military.

Apart from possibly Lebanon, it is difficult to think of any ‘Muslim’ society as progressive, modernist and liberal as Turkey has traditionally been, particularly as it is also a democracy. This makes Turkey a relatively unique society in the world and a positive example of how moderate Sunni Islam and modern democratic and secular government and principles can work effectively in tandem and for the good of a society.

At a time when Muslim countries elsewhere are either harsh dictatorships, nations in a state of collapse or war, or aspiring-but-failing quasi-democracies, a Turkey true to its principles would stand as something of a shining beacon of both secular democracy and the modern-day capacity for a Muslim society to exist effectively and happily in that state of secular democracy.

Also given its unique position as the literal bridge between Europe and the Middle East, such a Turkey would, in these highly toxic, unstable and increasingly sectarian times, be all the more important and valuable a society and nation with a great capacity to play peacemaker and bridge-builder.

Instead Turkey is now governed by an increasingly undemocratic, overly religious and aggressive state that is seeing the society polarise and destabilise, while also engaging in illegal operations abroad and – as a NATO member – facilitating terrorism against its neighbour, Syria.

The reality is that Turkey, which for decades has sought to be a secular democracy that keeps religion at a safe distance from the affairs of government, is now being run by an increasingly dictatorial leadership that is surrounded by equally religious, Islamist conservatives who most likely regard the country’s secular constitution a nuisance. Control of the media and virtually all state institutions also means that the real dangers of this state of affairs are seldom discussed openly.

President Erdogan is a dictator in all but name. His regime has been using false-flag terrorism against its own citizens, shutting down media organisations, censoring (and even killing) journalists, carrying out purges of academics and political opposition, attacking and oppressing liberals and progressives, violating the principles of the Turkish constitution (and even seeking to change it), completely reorganising state institutions, as well as engaging in illegal hostile actions against Syria. The present Turkish state also stands accused of supporting and collaborating with the ISIS terror group.

If, for the moment, we assume all things are as they seem and take this story at face value, the Turkish military would have every business stepping in to remove a corrupt government, stabilise the country and restore the secular democracy to its proper form.

A lot of people are saying ‘well, a coup is not the way – if you want to change the government, you do it in elections’.

That, however, is naive in this sort of situation: how do you remove a regime that has taken almost total control of all state institutions, including the courts and the law, and that has frequently used violence against protesters and political opposition? It’s precisely the Emperor Palpatine scenario. And elections can be rigged – last year’s elections in Turkey are highly questioned, particularly as there was an election in June which was nullified after Erdogan’s AKP Party didn’t get the result it wanted.

It seems logical therefore that a military coup could be the only way to restore Turkish society and prevent this going any further. And in Turkey, the military is regarded as the guardian of the constitution and the principles of the secular republic: again, in essence, the military is expected to step in when a government is seen to be threatening that constitution or going off-rail.

At first glance, this is what appeared to be happening last night. And many would say ‘not a moment too soon’.

Turkish army officers and others have been accused of plotting against the present state on several recent occasions. Most recently, in September 2012, 324 soldiers were sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 13 to 20 years, allegedly for plotting to overthrow the current leadership. Highly placed officers – including former chief commanders in the air-force and the navy have been sentenced to 20 years‘ in prison. One can imagine that these current coup plotters will receive very harsh treatment for their operation.

But, as much as I would love to see Erdogan gone and the old Turkey restored, it isn’t that simple: and we should always be cautious when observing situations like this one.

The first problem is the question of who exactly was behind this coup attempt? Who was in charge of the military figures? And again, how much of the military did they represent?

A statement from the military group read out on NTV television said: “The power in the country has been seized in its entirety.” But the question of who represents that group was acknowledged by all international media to be ‘uncertain’. And obviously – given how things turned out later – this was a false statement anyway.

And what if there is far more to this event than meets the eye? There are two other possibilities.

As Wily Loman has pointed out, Peter Korzun of the Strategic Culture Foundation posted an article in which he calledfor the Turkish military to stage a coup and take control from Erdogan’s regime. Neo-Con (and pal of the likes of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld) and former Pentagon official Michael Rubin has also been talking about an imminent military coup in Turkey; the same Rubin who part of the royal fuck-up in post-war Iraq and was also a staunch advocate for the Neo-Nazi coup in Ukraine in 2014.

Erdogan, I am reminded by reliable sources, has refused to take out another IMF loan once Turkey had paid off its previous one. And in his opposition to Kurdish autonomy or a ‘Greater Kurdistan’ state, he is opposed to the partition of Syria, Turkey and Iraq – something Washington think-tanks and Zionist strategists are very keen on.

Could this coup attempt be foreign-sponsored? Could this be Washington secretly trying to remove Erdogan?

If so, they would deny it; but it has been apparent more and more that Washington and NATO has been falling out of love with Erdogan and his regime, despite the role Erdogan’s Turkish State has played in NATO’s destruction of Syria. With a divided, volatile population and an increasingly dictatorial government, could it have been decided that it was better to remove Erdogan, who might now be seen as a liability? This is the theory Loman is adopting on his blog. I’m not sure I agree with it; but there is logic to this thought.

Remember that Washington and NATO have a history of disposing of their ‘friends’ when the time is right.

Just think back to Saddam. Saddam was an ally of Washington against Iran and the Ayatollah and was armed and propped up by the Americans for many years… until the Neo-Cons decided to destroy him and his Iraqi state completely. History is riddled with this kind of shit. Even Gaddafi – though not an ‘ally’ of Washington or NATO per se – was attacked and destroyed by NATO at a point where his regime had been cooperating with Washington and the West in the fight against terrorism and Al-Qaeda.

In short, if it’s part of the plan or the perceived ‘common interest’, Washington wouldn’t see any problem in moving against its own ally.

There is no proof of that as yet. But it is a possibility. And one wonders what Erdogan’s regime would do if it discovered this to have been a foreign-backed coup. Wily Loman wrote last night, as the coup was still unfolding; ‘What’s at stake here is nothing short of earth-shattering. Turkey is a major power in NATO. If this coup fails and it turns out via interrogation and torture that the US backed this coup attempt, Obama’s destabilization efforts in Syria would be over. And we have nukes in Turkey right now not to mention a number of soldiers, pilots and advisors scattered all over the place. Erdogan says it was the Gulenists who are behind the coup and since we are behind Gulen, it could get real messy real quick.’

I’m not sure I agree with Wily Loman’s overall take on what’s going in Turkey, but he is absolutely right to raise that question regarding Washington and foreign sponsorship. Washington’s list of secretly-backed coups is very long: and Erdogan’s regime might be seen as a liability to NATO. As much as I loathe Erdogan and what his regime has done to Turkey, what those in Turkey who do support him love about him the most is that he is seen as a Turkish ‘strongman’ in the mold of a Putin or a Saddam – and as a leader who won’t be bossed around or manipulated by foreign interests or manipulations; not from Washington, nor the EU.

The explanation being forwarded by Erdogan  in Turkey is that this coup attempt was orchestrated by his chief political opponent.

Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag reportedly blamed the coup on Fethullah Gülen, a Turkish preacher currently residing in the US. A former ally of President Erdogan’s AKP party, Gülen fell out of favor in 2013. But Erdogan’s people WOULD say that. Him saying it doesn’t prove anything.

That said, a situation where someone like this was remotely supporting the operation is the way the US would do it if it wanted to: in 2011, Libyan defector Khalifa Haftar – who had been living in Virginia, right next to CIA Headquarters –was used by Washington to promote and guide the armed uprising against Gaddafi happening two continents away. And once Gaddafi’s army was beginning to buckle under the assaults from both NATO and Al-Qaeda, Haftar was transported into Libya by the US to lead the uprising.

The third theory being propagated is that Erdogan and his people staged this ‘coup’ themselves as a false-flag.

It does seem odd that it was over so quickly; and that a military coup that was claiming to be in control of the country would allow Erdogan to waltz back in in a matter of mere hours. They were reported to have had tanks outside Istanbul’s Ataturk International Airport, and yet the Sultan-President was able to return to Istanbul and the ‘coup’ was over – again, in just a matter of hours.
turkey tank man_0

There are good reasons for Erdogan’s people doing this.

If there were genuine fears for a long time that a coup from the military was coming – which, after all, is what the military in Turkey is supposed to do as the guardians of the state and the constitution – then *staging* a false coup would weed out many of the potential ‘traitors’ in the military who might’ve thought the coup was real and acted accordingly.

Even failing that, this event gives Erdogan’s people the basis to begin a thorough purge of the military and make sure no coup can happen again.

It also strengthens his position propaganda-wise as well, as he is seen to emerge as the great ‘strongman’ who couldn’t be overthrown – thus validating his position and deflating any hopes among his opponents, as well as the more liberal and democratic sections of Turkish society, of removing him or changing the direction of Turkish society.

A Turkish economist and international development expert notes, ‘The coup attempt is very puzzling. For one thing, it seems to have been very poorly planned. For example, most TV channels were left operating and there does not seem to have been an attempt to take Erdogan in.’

In short, some are predicting this ‘failed coup’ is in fact paving the way for a full dictatorship and lockdown under Erdogan and his regime. Basically, having already taken full control of every other Turkish institution – the judiciary, the police force, the media, academics – this was the Erdogan regime’s move to eliminate the final, and most important, institution in Turkey: the military.

Also, it is difficult to know where the infamous Turkish ‘Deep State’ stands in all of this: one would assume it’s with Erdogan and the state, which may now be on the brink of Absolute Power, but we can’t be sure.


All of this being said, I have no idea which theory is correct or what really happened overnight.

I am in fact mostly leaning, for now, towards a prima facie reading of the situation: that this was simply an attempted coup by a section of the military to end Erdogan’s increasingly dictatorial reign and try torestore law, order and human rights to the chaotic country.

Aside from the fact that military coups for removing corrupt governments are an established thing in modern Turkey, the main reason I currently believe this to have been the case is because the coup plotters were reported on multiple occasions last night to have stated they were doing this “to reinstate constitutional order, human rights and freedom.”

That would be a very odd thing to have them say if it was Erdogan secretly behind it – as it would imply, logically, that Erdogan’s own regime is NOT constitutional and doesn’t respect human rights or freedom (which is actually the truth – but it’s not a truth Erdogan would want to put in people’s minds).

Either way, while I have no idea what really just happened last night in Turkey, this coup attempt – genuine, staged orforeign-backed – is just about the worst thing that could’ve happened in Turkey now that it has failed. Because it gives Erdogan and the AKP more propaganda power; and moreover, the momentum and justification to conduct a final, comprehensive purge of the military to make sure there can never be another coup attempt.

That could essentially ensure the changes Erdogan’s regime has made to the Turkish state, society and constitution are long-lasting.

Yet, just to add to how confused I still am watching all of this, it does appear that the Erdogan regime does have a lot of popular support. And a coup (foreign-backed or  purely domestic) becomes ethically tricky when the government has so much support from the people.

This may not be over yet.

However much the military is now purged and brought into line, there may still be enough sharp division forming in the military – just as in society – to propel Turkey closer to the Civil War scenario that many have been fearing for some time already.

As for what really happened yesterday in Turkey, more information will emerge in coming days: however,  you may have to decide for yourself what you think this was – because information coming from the current Turkish state itself certainly can’t be trusted.

Also, it has to be said, watching these unsettling reports and images from Turkey, as tanks and soldiers took to the streets and tried to impose Martial Law, one can’t help but wonder if this is a glimpse of things to come in the West, given the mounting unrest and the fears of a collapsing EU.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on TURKEY & the ‘Failed Coup’: There Are 3 Possibilities For What Just Happened

The Nice Attack: French intelligence failure or Zionist agenda?


Image result for French ATTACK PHOTO

By Gearóid Ó Colmáin 

The death toll from the Nice attacks on the 14th of July, 2016 is rising. Latest reports suggest 84 deaths and possibly one hundred more injured. There have been reports of gunfire and the driver of the truck which drove into the crowd near the beach in Nice is reported to have been shot dead. Once again (as with the Charlie Hebdo and Bataclan attacks) there is no-one to stand trial and truthfully answer the questions that need to be asked – who and why?

At this point, there is not much that can be verified about the attack. One cannot exclude the possibility that it may have simply been the action of an insane individual. Atrocities of that type are rare but have happened in the past. But there is, however, the strong suggestion and indeed likelihood that this atrocity is a terrorist attack by ‘Islamists’. So, what does all this mean?

French domestic intelligence (DGSI) chief Patrick Calvar warned on the 26th of June 2016 that an ‘Islamist’ attack on French children would be the trigger for a civil war. He said France was currently on the brink of that civil war. Calvar also predicted that ISIS (Da’esh) would use trucks as weapons. It is not unusual in the never-ending war on terror to hear accurate predictions by intelligence officials before attacks, with the same officials seemingly powerless to prevent them.

This ‘uncanny coincidence’ could be the defining event of our time.

French Prime Minister, Manuel Valls is on record stating that the state of emergency in France would be permanent. There has been increasing pressure on the Hollande regime in France to change course in the Middle East. Attempts to reconcile with Russia and lift the sanctions have been blocked by Hollande and Valls, who are puppets of the Jewish Lobby. The Zionists want to continue the war on Syria, Iran and Russia. The Zionists have full control over US/NATO policy. Therefore, the ‘war on terror’, which was created as a pretext to further Zionist geopolitical interests, must be continued.

I believe this is the trigger for a civil war French intelligence warned us about. The question is whether the war will become high intensity or continue on a relatively low-intensity trajectory. There have been police whistleblowers in France who have warned of huge caches of arms in major cities, capable of arming hundreds of thousands of men. However, one must be cautious in referring to such ‘whistleblowers’ as they have proven to be highly unreliable and may be spreading disinformation.

In any case, the public’s belief that we are in a ‘state of war’ and that all military interventions abroad are therefore necessary will be enough to make citizens look to the state for protection – an oligarchic state which is currently pursuing a brutal class war against workers.

As 90 percent or more of intelligence operations today involve media disinformation, we cannot possibly assume that any of the reports we are hearing are accurate. However, it is hard to see how a psyop could have been carried out in the Promenade des Anglais which is so central in Nice. What we can say for sure is that the attack serves the two constants of the war on terror dialectic. The narrative would read as follows:

1. Make the state of emergency permanent, empowering the oligarchic state and further demoralising citizens by dividing the working class along religious and racial lines. This is part of NATO’s ‘strategy of tension’ in accordance with the longstanding intelligence operation Gladio. Citizens must turn to the anti-social state for ‘security’, thus precluding social revolt.

2. Justify an all out attack on Syria to finish the job of destroying Arab civilisation, in accordance with Zionism’s geopolitical interests. Only the willfully ignorant could possibly believe that ISIS is an enemy of France when the French have never had better relations with the country which openly backs them – Saudi Arabia. The intelligence reports, declassified documents and admissions of the highest officials of the French and American governments all confirm that ISIS is Israel’s Arab legion.

Both those two above-mentioned goals serve Zionism and until the French people liberate themselves from its yoke, Zionism will continue to poison the minds of men, making them consent to policies that no honest and compassionate human being would countenance. An awakening of working-class militancy is occurring but the labour movement in France remains divided and led by social-democratic reformists. Now, more than ever, seeing the link between terrorism and class war is essential if any political and social change is to occur. In an era of high-finance treason, oligarchy, austerity, and the triumph of avarice, terror increasingly becomes a feature of the normal rather than an exceptional exercise of state power.

Posted in FranceComments Off on The Nice Attack: French intelligence failure or Zionist agenda?

Turkey implies US is not its friend due to harboring cleric accused of staging coup

Image result for Fethullah Gülen CARTOON

The Turkish government has indirectly criticized its NATO ally, the US, for harboring Fethullah Gülen, whom Ankara blames for masterminding Friday’s military coup attempt. The cleric is currently living in self-imposed exile in the States.

“I do not see any country that would stand behind this man, this leader of the terrorist gang, especially after last night. The country that would stand behind this man is no friend to Turkey. It would even be a hostile act against Turkey,” Prime Minister Binali Yıldırım told reporters on Saturday, as Turkey was recovering from overnight violence.

Gülen, a cleric, was a political ally of Tayyip Erdogan when he was Turkey’s Prime Minister, but the two fell out and became bitter rivals. Ankara accuses Gülen of creating a “parallel state” in the form of a network of supporters among Turkish officials. Erdogan accused Gülen of masterminding a corruption scandal involving senior government figures in 2013, and launched a crackdown against his organization.

Commenting on Turkey’s hostility towards the 75-year-old preacher, US Secretary of State John Kerry said Ankara hadn’t requested the cleric’s extradition. Speaking during a trip to Luxembourg, the US official said he hoped that Turkey’s constitution will be observed when dealing with those behind the attempted coup. He said accusations against Gülen would have to be backed by evidence of his alleged foul play.

A faction of the Turkish military attempted to topple the government overnight, but failed in its bid. The attempted power grab involved tanks and helicopters, as government buildings were attacked and violent clashes erupted between government loyalists and rebels in Istanbul and Ankara.

The hostilities left over 260 people killed and many others injured. The government has responded to the coup by initiating a massive purge in the military.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Turkey implies US is not its friend due to harboring cleric accused of staging coup

Military Officer Fired for Gulenist Ties Named as Leader of Turkey’s Coup

Image result for Erdogan CARTOON

Colonel Muharrem Kose, a former officer in the Turkish Armed Forces was named by state-run Anadolu News Agency as the leader of the coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government.

The bloody coup attempt that struck Ankara on Friday now has a face — a former Turkish military officer who was dishonorably discharged in March 2016 for his alleged association with anti-government and US-based Imam Fethullah Gulen.

Colonel Muharrem Kose announced the formation of the “Peace Council,” an interim government to restore democracy and human rights in Turkey that Erdogan’s opponents claim have been stripped from the country as it had begun to drift ever closer to a theocracy after long being adored as the secular gem of the Middle East.

Military forces loyal to Colonel Kose seized the state-run TRT News station, the bridges, and Ataturk International Airport on Friday evening before being pushed back by Turkish forces loyal to Erdogan as bloody struggles have ensued throughout the country.

It appeared that the coup effort had succeeded until President Erdogan took to CNN Turk, calling in via FaceTime, pleading with his countrymen to resist the effort to overthrow the government by taking to the streets. The move, initially mocked by Western media and leaders, appears to have been successful with millions of Turks taking to the streets to resist Colonel Kose’s Peace Council.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan earlier in the day blamed supporters of the Pennsylvania-based Imam Fethullah Gulen, prior to identifying Colonel Kose as the lead agitator in the coup attempt. Despite Muharrem Kose’s apparent links to Gulen, the Imam’s non-profit, the Alliance for Shared Values, denies any involvement and has condemned “any military intervention in the domestic politics of Turkey.”

Gulenists are not hardliners as the Imam preaches a blend of piety and Sufi mysticism while calling for free markets, democracy and religious tolerance in keeping with the original vision of Turkey laid down by the country’s founder Kemal Ataturk.

Gulen’s movement known as Hizmet, once boasted as many as 2,000 officers within the Turkish military prior to crackdowns by President Erdogan. Supporters of Gulen have long attempted to use the judiciary to advance corruption investigations against Erdogan sparking a bitter divide between the two groups. Turkish authorities accuse Gulen of attempting to form an opposing “state within a state” known by many in Turkey as the “Parallel Structure.”

Prior to being ousted for his alleged ties to the Gulenist movement, Muharrem Kose proudly served as the chief legal counsel to the Turkish military’s chief of staff Hulusi Akar. Akar was taken hostage in the first hours of the coup attempt that began on Friday evening.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Military Officer Fired for Gulenist Ties Named as Leader of Turkey’s Coup

It Is Too Early for a Euro Area Budget

Adelina Marini

The drama, surrounding the British question returned once more the talk about an increase of euro area integration back on the agenda – a conversation that has been going on mostly on a theoretical level after the presentation of the second roadmap for deepening of integration within the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) last June. At the moment, work is in progress on the first stage in the two-stage program, drafted by the five presidents in the EU – of the EC, the European Council, the Eurogroup, ECB, and the European Parliament – the so called five presidents’ report. The second stage, however, is the one to shift integration in the currency club into higher gear, for it envisages changes that require opening of the founding treaties for deep amendments. Whether this will be possible, having in mind the concessions granted to Great Britain is a question that is out of the agenda until the 23 June referendum.

One of the largest integration steps envisaged in the second stage is the creation of something like a unified euro area budget. Its outlines are too unclear in the five presidents’ report, so, at the moment, discussions are purely theoretical and hypothetical. The document talks about the creation of a “fiscal stabilisation function for the euro area”, whose aim will be to mitigate large macroeconomic shocks. What this function will look like will be decided by a special expert group, which will start work on it. The presidents’ report just gives guidelines, or rather says what the future “function” should not be doing.

It should not lead to permanent and, most of all, one-way transfers between member states; should not be seen as a tool for levelling of wages between member states; definitely should not undermine the motivation for keeping a good fiscal policy, neither should it discourage the leading of structural reforms. Besides, the future “budget” should not be used for crisis management either. It is said that the euro area’s permanent bailout fund has already taken up this function. In other words, the five presidents see no option for the fund in question to lay the foundations for the future budget.

The explanation what the future function should not be only shows how far the euro area still is from such an integration step. The trouble is, however, that the situation in the currency club is not promising at all. Growth is unconvincing, for it is due to the generous monetary policy of the ECB and low oil prices. These two factors are not going to change soon, but there are already dark clouds gathering over the global economy, boding new troubles, which could affect the euro area’s recovery process. Benoit Coeuré, Member of the Executive Board of the ECB, warned that the euro area may not survive future economic shocks. He said so during a special hearing in the European Parliament, organised by the economic affairs committee and the budget committee. The subject was precisely a possible euro area budget.

Benoit Coeuré said that very few euro area countries had fiscal manoeuvring space if the risks to the recovery materialise. Everyone else has serious public finances problems. “We are all well aware that political attention is largely focused elsewhere, but we should not lose sight of the objective of completing Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), securing its capacity to absorb economic shocks and creating confidence today in its future economic performance”, he said in a speech, which is worth a careful read from beginning to end, for it provides not only a generous analysis of the current situation, but also a vision on what should be done in order to confidently push forward.

What the future budget should look like is a question of political decision, he said, but proposed some very important guidelines. First of all it is very important that euro area fiscal policies lead to macroeconomic stabilisation and a return of trust of financial markets in the stability of public finances. Especially today, this sounds like an anathema, for the refugee crisis served as a mighty catalyst to the return of the old resistance to the euro area’s rigid fiscal rules. A conversation, led once again by Italian PM Matteo Renzi. He is not, however, the only one demanding a loosening of belts, which have not been too tight everywhere anyway. Benoit Coeuré, however, warned that this is no longer about “theology” at all. “It is a political and economic imperative”. “Markets need to trust the capability of our governance framework to effectively coordinate fiscal policies in EMU, and citizens need to be confident that common rules are being respected”, he said in front of MEPs of the two committees in the evening of March 2nd.

The latter is very important, for an eventual future fiscal capacity (or budget) will be financed by current or future taxes, paid by the same taxpayers and companies, who are already financing their national budgets. Meaning the new “edifice” will not be stable if national budgets are not stable. Moving toward a stronger risk-sharing requires a reciprocal step towards common decision making with strong shared institutions. Access to the eurozone budget should be granted under strict conditions for following the fiscal rules, set out in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP). The French member of the ECB repeated what many EU leaders keep replying to Matteo Renzi,

when he starts demanding more flexibility – the pact already contains enough flexibility.

There is another very important thing that Mr Coeuré said to MEPs – fiscal risks do not necessarily  originate from fiscal actions, but from unsustainable economic and finance policies. This is why steps should be made towards a new process of convergence, including political convergence. The boss of the Dutch central bank, Klaas Knot, who also participated in the discussion, shares the view that the reason for the crisis is not always fiscal policies. The most affected by the crisis euro area countries – Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and Spain – owe it to not sufficient budget discipline before the crisis. Another reason are the serious macroeconomic balances, piled up during the years. This is why fiscal consolidation was inevitable in the long run, he said. This is exactly the reason why creating a budget stabilisation fund (which is another name of a potential euro area budget) will be much more difficult to achieve in practise, than it looks like in theory.

According to Klaas Knot, the challenges the future budget faces are several, and one of them is having it be politically acceptable to member states. This could turn out to be crucial in the current political context in the EU, when the discussion of a specific legislative bill begins, if it does so at all any time soon. The Dutch central banker outlined four challenges that will be faced by the future euro area budget. The first one is that the type of asymmetric shocks that the euro area went through will be difficult to effectively stabilise with a limited fiscal capacity. In other words, size does matter, and this is the point where comparisons were made with the common European budget, which is around 1% of the EU’s gross national income. Another problem is that stabilisation funds are inherently aimed at the business cycle, which usually lasts around 8 years. This is quite a limited period of time, meaning contributions to the future fund should be temporary. Business cycles in the euro area have generally been well synchronised since the introduction of the euro, unlike financial cycles, which are longer as well – 16-20 years.

Besides, differences within the euro area are still sizable regarding competitiveness, the current account, the growth of credits and real estate prices. So, if a future budget is only aimed at business cycles it will only be able to stabilise just a small part of the financial cycle. If, however, the budget is aimed at financial cycles it would lead to very prolonged transfers. Something, which member states are not ready to accept at the moment, said also Mr Knot. Another challenge is that an euro area fiscal capacity will surely affect national fiscal policies. It may even lead to an increase of taxes. Just like Benoit Coeuré, Klaas Knot reminded that taxpayers were the same people, both at the national and at euro area level. “We cannot levy tax on aliens from outer space unfortunately”, he joked, but no one in the room found it funny.

The problem could exacerbate if this fund, budget, or capacity is allowed to borrow. This means it could affect the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact. So, if such a step is taken, this should necessarily go hand in hand with a very strict implementation of fiscal rules, heavily focusing on debt levels. The third challenge is that such a fund could increase the sharing of public risk. It has grown significantly over the last years through the mechanisms of the euro area’s bailout fund. The problem is that member states still differ too much not only with regard to debt and current account, but also to their adaptability when the word is about competitiveness and the not insignificant quality of institutions.

Klaas Knot shares the view that we have heard many times from the Eurogroup boss – Dutch Finance Minister Jeroen Dijsselbloem – namely that stabilisation could also be achieved by private risk sharing. He quoted a “well known study”, which says that private risk-sharing through integrated financial markets has a much greater stabilising effect – around 62%, than public risk-sharing through the federal budget, whose effect is around 13%. The problem with private risk-sharing is that the European market is underdeveloped. The building of a capital markets union is an “excellent starting point” for that, believes The Netherlands’ central banker.

It also became clear from the discussion with MEPs that economic convergence, the strict adherence to the agreed rules, and placing decision-making out on an supranational level are the most important prerequisites for a possible euro area budget having sense. It is of not less importance that whatever is done should be done with the community method and step-by-step, although some MEPs feel there is no time for that. There may be no time, but the political and economic environment allows nothing else. The first step should be a rebuilding of trust. According to Klaas Knot, however, this will be difficult, having in mind that the implementation of country-specific recommendations on the European semester is extremely slow. “The construction of the rules is different than enforcement. And as long as the rules are there on paper, but they do not get sufficiently followed up 

on the ground, then I think there will be difficulty in also building enough trust”, said the boss of the Dutch central bank.

The most important conclusion from the discussion was the one of Benoit Coeuré, according to whom, a great role in the current uncertainty of investors is the uncertainty about the euro area’s future as well as how will it absorb shocks. Thus, he recommended, a clear roadmap should be drawn, which in itself will lower uncertainty considerably and lead to growth. Another conclusion of the March 2nd discussion is that the postponement of solving euro area problems will not lead to a more successful solving of the refugee crisis and success in the fight against terrorism. “If downside risks to the recovery were to materialise, this would not make it easier to respond to the refugee crisis or to counter terrorism”, said Benoit Coeuré. The large hindrance to euro area integration, however, is not just that everyone is fully absorbed in solving the migrant crisis, but also the coming referendum in Great Britain. It will be crucial to the currency club’s future.

Translated by Stanimir Stoev

Posted in EuropeComments Off on It Is Too Early for a Euro Area Budget

Shoah’s pages