Archive | January 13th, 2017

Nazi Forces Execute Palestinian Civilian at Point-Blank Range in al-Far’ah Refugee Camp


 Image result for Israeli Forces Execute Palestinian PHOTO

In an extra-judicial execution crime, on Tuesday dawn, 10 January 2017, Nazi forces shot dead in cold blood a Palestinian civilian in al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas, in front of his mother.  The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) stresses that this crime was committed after the Nazi political and military leaders gave the Nazi soldiers the green light to shed the Palestinian blood and tolerated the soldiers for their crimes against Palestinian civilians.

According to PCHR’s investigations and the mother’s testimony, Fawziyah Mahmoud Khamis Salhi (67) said to PCHR’s fieldworker that at approximately 02:00 on the above mentioned day, Nazi forces moved into al-Far’ah refugee camp, south of Tubas.  They surrounded the family house of Mohammed Subhi Ahmed Khamis Salhi (33) near an UNRWA School for Girls and the camp sports club, seemingly in order to arrest him.

A number of Nazi soldiers jumped from the outer wall of the 1-storey house. Mohammed and his mother then heard noise in the corridor and went out of their bedroom.  When his mother saw the soldiers, she stood between them and her son.  An Nazi soldier then ordered her to sit on a plastic chair there, but when she refused, the soldier forcefully seated her. She then twice stood between the soldiers and her son.

However in the third time she stood, the Nazi soldier forcefully pushed her and seated her on the chair.  The Nazi soldier then pulled out a gun with a silencer and directly fired 5 bullets at Mohammed at point-blank range.  As a result, the bullets penetrated his neck, chest, hand, armpit, pelvis and thigh from the left side of his body and killed him in front of his elderly mother.

The mother said that she did not hear any sound of shooting, but saw sparkles coming from the gun.  After that, her son swayed and fell on the ground.  His body was put on a litter and then taken by an ambulance belonging to the Palestinian Red Crescent Society (PRCS) to Tubas Turkish Governmental Hospital in Tubas, where medical sources announced him dead.  It should be mentioned that the Mohammed previously served a 3-year sentence in the Nazi camp.

PCHR strongly condemns this new crime, coinciding with the trial of Nazi soldier Elor Azaria, who killed a Palestinian young man namely ‘Abdel Fattah al-Sharif (20) in Hebron on 24 March 2016 when the latter was wounded and immobilised and with calls from Nazi leaders, including Naziyahu, to pardon the soldier if being convicted.  As these calls encourage the Nazi soldiers to shed the Palestinian blood, PCHR hereby:

  1. Demands the United Nations to provide international protection for Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories (oPt) and ensure guarantees to protect civilians in the oPt;
  2. Calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to oblige the Nazi regime to apply the Geneva Conventions in the oPt in its capacity as a Member State to these conventions;
  3. Demands the states signing the Geneva Conventions to fulfill their obligations by exercising their Universal Jurisdiction to hold the Nazi regime war criminals to account regardless of the criminals’ nationalities and the place where the crimes were committed and put an end to their impunity and
  4. Appeals the abovementioned states to extend their Jurisdiction to account war criminals regardless of their origins, not to be obedient to the Nazi regime pressure that aims to limit the states’ jurisdiction in order to keep the Nazi regime war criminals’ impunity.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Gaza, Human Rights, UK, West BankComments Off on Nazi Forces Execute Palestinian Civilian at Point-Blank Range in al-Far’ah Refugee Camp

New Cold War: Zio-Nazi Seeks Revenge


New Cold War: Israel Seeks Revenge


By Sajjad Shaukat

There is an interrelationship of the new Cold War, irresponsible statements of the US President-

elect Donald Trump, various developments in the world and terrorism-related attacks which are

part of the double game and secret strategy of Israel who is in collaboration with American CIA,

FBI, and Islamic State group (Also known as Daesh, ISIS, ISIL) to seek revenge. In this regard,

before analyzing the situation, two terror attacks are notable.

The suspected gunman Esteban Santiago-Ruiz, a US citizen and Iraq War combat veteran killed

five people and injured 11 individuals after opening fire in the Fort Lauderdale airport, Florida

on January 6, 2016. US media revealed that he told the “FBI voices were urging him to fight for ISIS.”

Four Israeli soldiers, three of them cadets, were killed and more than a dozen injured in

Jerusalem on January 8, 2016 when a truck ploughed into them deliberately. No one has claimed

responsibility for the attack. But, Palestinian media identified the attacker as Fadi al-Qanbar who

had reportedly previously served time in an Israeli prison.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, “We in Jerusalem have just experienced a

murderous attack that claimed the lives of four young Israelis and wounded others. This is part of the same pattern inspired by Islamic State, by Isis, that we saw first in France, then in Germany and now in Jerusalem.”

It comes at a time of warnings about growing tensions over Donald Trump’s highly controversial

plan to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, and calls from some rightwing Israeli ministers to

annex parts of the occupied Palestinian territories.

In fact, new Cold War has accelerated between Russia and the US on December 29, 2016 when

American President Barack Obama imposed sanctions on two Russian intelligence agencies and

expelled 35 diplomats from America over their involvement in hacking political groups in the

Nov. 8 US presidential election aimed to help Donald Trump.

US Intelligence agency leaders repeated the allegations on January 4, this year by saying that

senior most officials in Russia and Putin could have authorized recent hacks and election


Russian President Vladimir Putin said on December 30, last year, that Moscow would not expel

35 American diplomats in response to the US move. Putin repeatedly denied the false allegations

and demanded evidence in this respect. Trump also denied the accusations.

Annoyed by the self-fabricated allegations, prepared by the US intelligence agencies, President

Putin congratulated the US President-elect Donald Trump, rather than President Barack Obama,

in his annual New Year's greetings statement of December 31, 2016.

While, in order to divert the attention towards Moscow, Israeli secret agency Mossad which

clandestinely funded the election campaign of Trump was behind election-victory of Trump and

was in collaboration with the American intelligence agencies, especially CIA and FBI has been

seeking revenge against Russia due to several developments which have given a greater setback

to the dream of the greater Israel, while castigating the sinister designs of the Zionist Jews,

including double game of President Obama.

Everyone knows that throughout his presidency, by following the anti-Muslim policies of his

predecessor, President Obama continued the phony war on terror and further destabilized the

Middle East. Obama’s double game franchised both Al-Qaeda and ISIS and left no stone

unturned in advancing the agenda of the Zionist Jews, Israeli lobbies and the neoconservatives.

Secretly, Obama authorized CIA to create the ISIS. His perennial covert support to the Israeli

atrocities on the Palestinians, silence over the supply (Smuggling) of oil by ISIS to some

European countries whose governments had also not taken action against those companies which

were exporting oil from the ISIS-controlled regions of Iraq, CIA-assisted Al-Qaeda (Al-Nusra

Front) and ISIS militants in Syria might be cited as instance. Obama-led Administration went on

with various techniques of ruthless terror and extrajudicial killings of the innocent persons

through done attacks—assisting undemocratic forces, toppling the elected government in Egypt,

and like Iraq, creation of more failed states such as Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia etc.,

promoting sectarian and ethnic divide and violence in the vulnerable Islamic countries on the

basis of Shia and Sunni, opening the doors for Al-Qaeda and ISIS militants to establish Israel’s

supremacy in the Middle East in particular and the world in general.

Notably, The Reuters reported on September 15, 2016, “The US will give Israel $38 billion in

military assistance over the next decade, the largest such aid package in U.S. history, under a landmark agreement.”

However, Obama’s anti-Muslim policies were clearly exposed. Therefore before the end of his

tenure, President Obama wanted to rectify his blunders. In this context, on December 23, 2016,

the US abstained and allowed a UN Security Council resolution, condemning Israeli settlement

construction in the occupied territories of the Palestinians to be adopted, defying extraordinary

pressure from the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s government which is in alliance with

President-elect Donald Trump.

In a statement, Netanyahu’s office accused the Obama administration of “colluding” with the UN

and said it looked forward to working with Trump, as well as Israel-friendly members of

Congress, “to negate the harmful effects of this absurd resolution.” Netanyahu called the

resolution “shameful” and said Israel would not abide by its terms and continue the construction

of the settlements.

In this respect, in a series of tweets, posted on December 28, 2016, Donald Trump harshly

criticized the Obama’s policies on the settlement issue and reiterated his support for Israel. He

questioned the effectiveness of the UNO, saying, “it's just a club for people to have a good time.”

Trump who has vowed to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and has

nominated an ambassador in David Friedman who is supportive of settlers by pledging that the

Palestinians would no longer have a platform at the UN when he becomes president on January

20 this year, said, “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect. They used to have a great friend in the U.S…the beginning of the end was the horrible Iran deal, and now this (U.N.)! Stay strong Israel, January 20th is fast approaching!”

On the same day, US Secretary of State John Kerry also disclosed reality and issued a desperate

final warning to Tel Aviv by pointing out, “The settlement building policies being carried out by

Israel’s government on occupied land and applauded by Donald Trump were destroying hopes

for peace between Israelis and Palestinians…is jeopardizing Middle East peace. He explained, “The two-state solution is now in serious jeopardy…if the choice is one state, Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, it cannot be both…the most extreme elements” of Israel’s Right-wing were shaping the country’s future and strangling the prospect of a two-state solution.” 

In remarks in Hebrew, Netanyahu stated that Kerry’s speech was “a big disappointment,” and


Meanwhile, on the leftist side of the Jewish community leaders applauded the Kerry’s speech—

New Israel Fund echoes fears that Israel will not survive as one state, while right-wing Jewish

organizations and leaders condemned the speech and two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian


French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault hailed the courageous speech by John Kerry on

December 29, last year, by remarking that it outlined principles for solving the Israeli-Palestinian


France has been emphasizing to re-start peace process between Palestinians and Israelis. On

January 15, 2017, representatives from approximately 70 countries will gather in Paris for a

conference to throw the international community’s weight behind a two-state solution to the


Neither Israel nor the Palestinians will be present at the meeting, but Paris intends to invite

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to

Paris some time afterward to brief them on the outcome of the talks, as the French foreign

ministry said. Netanyahu has stated that he would not attend these talks. While, the Palestinians

have welcomed the initiative, Israel has remained critical of the plan.

Besides these developments, some previous developments have also frustrated the Israeli and

Zionist Jews who have intensified the new Cold War between the US-led Western countries and

Russia. Mossad has also arranged various terror attacks in Europe, America and other countries

of the world as part of the revenge. All these developments, including other ones need attention

which will also prove as to how Israel will seek revenge in future.

In this respect, since September 2015, unexpected developments such as Russian successful

airstrikes on the ISIS targets in the northern Syria and Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, its

coalition with Iran, Iraq, the Syrian army-the National Defense Forces (NDF) and Lebanon-

based Hezbollah in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, retreat of the CIA-supported

rebels and mercenaries after their failure to topple the Assad government, proving links of Al-

Qaeda’s Al-Nusra Front and ISIS with America and Israel, Putin’s clear-cut statement,

indicating the Zionist regime in the US and  Israel for their “phony war on ISIS” surprised the

Israel-led America and some European countries who wanted to oust the Assad regime. Russian-

led Syrian forces retook several cities which were in occupation of ISIS militant and rebel groups

in Syria and Iraq, who started fleeing.

Taking note of failure in its sinister designs, the agents of Mossad who were in connivance with

the CIA sympathizers and ISIL militants arranged terror attacks in Paris, Brussels, Orlando, San

Bernardino, Nice, Munich and latest one in Berlin. These were false flag operations and were

part of the secret strategy of America and especially of Israel who are in collaboration with each

other in order to obtain the covert aims of their countries against Russia and the Muslims.

Mossad might be alone involved in these terror assaults by using the ISIS terrorists who used the

home-grown terrorists of these countries.

After the false flag terror assaults and the shooting at San Bernardino, California etc., Israel

achieved its aims. Like the drastic aftermath of 9/11 tragedy, rulers and politicians of the US-led

western countries, particularly of Europe, including their media have started misguiding their

general public by creating chauvinism against the Muslims. They started propagating the so-

called threat of Islamophobia. In one way or the other, Muslims are being persecuted in the US

and other Western countries, especially in Europe which has been put on high alert, as these

subversive acts were being taken as attacks on the whole continent.

President-elect Donald Trump won the presidential race of the Republican Party, as he had

started exaggerating the threat of Islamophobia by manipulating various terror attacks in the US

and Europe.

Donald Trump used each terror assault in fueling anti-Muslim racialism in America and to get

the sympathies of a majority of the ordinary Americans who did not have much time to go into

depth-analysis and have been instigated by his emotional speeches, statements and false hopes.

The more he exploited the threat of Islamic militants, the more popularity he got among general

masses of America, who have been impressed by his stereotypes. After the incident at San

Bernardino, which resulted in the deaths of 14 persons by a Muslim couple, Trump had called for

a ban on Muslims, entering the United States.

After the shooting at the night club in Orlando, he also criticized the US President Barack

Obama to resign, slamming him for having “disgracefully refused to even say the words

“Radical Islam.” Calling on his opponent-candidate Clinton to get out of the general election

race for the same reason, Trump remarked, “Because our leaders are weak, I said this was going to happen…we cannot afford.” Trump again stated that he would decrease immigration from the

Middle East because “since 9/11, hundreds of migrants and their children have been implicated

in terrorism in the United States.” He, once again, asked for the ban of any Muslims, entering the

US. On June 19, 2016, during his interview with the CBC News, he called for racial “profiling of

Muslims inside the United States to combat terrorism.”He reiterated his call for more

surveillance of mosques and warned that radical Muslims were trying to take over our children.

Trump continued move against Muslims. In this connection, toughening immigration checks for

the French and Germans in the US, questioning NATO obligations—stated that under his

leadership “America would not necessarily come to the aid of NATO ally under attack, he would

first consider how much they have contributed to the alliance,” and hinted at an exit from the

World Trade Organization, Donald Trump said on July 24, 2016, “We have problems in

Germany and we have problems in France…they have totally been compromised by deadly

Islamist attacks in Nice and last year in Paris…you know why? It’s their own fault…because

they allowed people to come into their countries.”

Nevertheless, owing to the irresponsible approach of western leaders, far right-wing parties and

“Stop Islam” movement in the West, especially in Europe are becoming popular by largely

attracting their people. Amid a migrant crisis, sluggish economic growth and growing

disillusionment with the European Union, right-wing parties in a growing number of European

countries have made electoral gains. The right-wing parties range across a wide policy spectrum,

from populist and nationalist to far-right neofascist.

In September 2016, German Chancellor Angela Merkel accepted responsibility for her Christian

Democratic party's “bitter defeat” in Berlin state elections, voicing regret over mistakes that

contributed to migrant crisis in Germany. More than a million migrants reached Germany. She

has been widely criticized in Germany for the policy, which was a humanitarian gesture faced

with the desperate plight of migrants, many of them refugees from the war in Syria. The right-

wing, anti-migrant party Alternative for Germany (AfD) entered the Berlin state parliament for

the first time with 14% of the vote.

With political norms and expectations shattered, attention is turning to the heart of western

Europe—to France, Germany and Italy, each of which holds national polls in the coming


Recently, France voted to choose the rightwing candidate likely to face the far-right Marine Le

Pen, head of the far-right Front National in next spring’s presidential election—just as Donald

Trump’s US win has thrown the spotlight on France as the scene of the next possible shakeup of

the political system.

What really draws down the darkening for Europe’s leaders, however, is the realization that there

are plenty of other European politicians ready to remake their own image in that of Trump.

Besides revival of the fake global war on terror, Israeli-led America also got the support of its

western allies (NATO) against Russia in relation to Syrian civil war, and as part of the double

game and secret strategy, American jet fighters and those of its western coalition began targeting

the ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

Meanwhile, despite criticism of the Democrats and other circles in wake of widespread protests,

with 304 votes, Electoral College seals Donald Trump’s election as president on December 19,


It is notable that Russian-led Syrian forces retook the Aleppo on December 13, 2016 by

defeating the rebel groups and the ISIS militants. Retaking Aleppo is biggest victory of the

Syrian President Assad in the civil war. Aleppo is strategically important and is industrial capital

of Syria; therefore, analysts were already opining that the city will decide the Syrian war, being

waged between Russian-backed forces and the US-led insurgents. America and Israel had

thought that before Syrian forces-backed by Russia occupy more territories and cities; especially

Aleppo, rebel groups and the ISIS should be given a free hand to continue fighting and to violate

the ceasefire-agreements in relation to Syrian war, particularly Aleppo.

Victory of Aleppo disapponted the Israelis and the Zionist Jews, including failure of the partition

of Syria in accordance with the US Plan-B. Hence, so as to seek revenge, Mossad conducted

several terrorism-related attacks in Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Egypt and elsewhere in the world through

ISIS. In this connection, medical treatment of the ISIS terrorists in Israeli hospital, arrests of

Mossad-CIA agents and those of American and NATO military personnel in Syria and Iraq

might be cited as example.

However, because of Trump’s other intentions like erection of boundary wall between the US-

Mexico border in wake of criticism of the controversial Turkish-EU refugee deal by a number of

human rights groups, his appreciation of Britain’s decision to leave the European Union EU,

after the referendum (Brexit) on June 24, 2016 in wake of the divide between the elite class

which run multinational companies with the direct or indirect control of the Jews—the general

masses who are suffering from multiple problems, differences on the refugee crisis, Syrian war,

Greece’s weak economy, recent violent protests against the labour laws in France etc.—the

chances of European Union’s disintegration which will give a greater blow to the US-Europe

alliance against Russia, while, a rift between the NATO countries, as noted in the recent past by

the “Stop NATO protests” in Europe are quite opposite to the Israeli and American interests.

During the previous Cold war, alliances and counter alliances were made by the former Soviet

Union and America to balance each other in various parts of the world.

As regards the new Cold War, owing to his successful and skilful diplomacy Russian President

Putin who has restored balance of power in the uni-polar world, concluded alliances with a

number of countries. In this regard, reports suggest that both Russia and China have agreed to

have the same stand in relation to Syria’s civil war, and to fight the rebel groups and terrorist

outfits like ISIS.

While, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s rebuke of European nations, accusing them of

dictatorship and cruelty for keeping their frontiers closed to the refugees, fleeing the Syrian

conflict created a rift between the West and Turkey, the close ally of NATO. On February 10,

last year, President Erdogan lashed out at the US over its support for Syria’s main Kurdish

group, saying, “The failure to recognize the Democratic Union Party (PYD) as a terrorist group

is creating a “sea of blood.” He explained, “The PYD, on which the US relies to battle so-called Islamic State in Syria, is an offshoot of the banned Kurdistan Workers’ Party.”

As regards the failed rebellion-attempt of July 15, 2016, Turkey’s president Erdogan and top

officials of his government have held the US and CIA for the failed coup to topple his regime by

backing and replacing Erdogan with the CIA’s “designated figurehead”, cleric Fethullah Gülen,

currently living in Pennsylvania in the US.

By neglecting American pressure, President Erdogan who has taken steps in the end of June,

2016 to improve relations with Russia to strengthen its hand in fighting against militants, stated

that the attack at the Istanbul airport should serve as a turning point in the global battle against

terrorism. Reports suggest that Ankara is also considering a military agreement with Moscow.

On December 28, last year, Ankara and Moscow have reportedly agreed on a draft nationwide

ceasefire in Syria, and unspecified “terrorist organizations” would be excluded from the deal. In

past agreements, “terrorist organizations” have included ISIS and the Al-Qaeda- linked Jabhat al-


Earlier, Russia, Iran and Turkey met in Moscow on December 21, 2016 to work toward a

political accord to end Syria’s nearly six-year war, leaving the United States on the sidelines.

Secretary of State John Kerry was not invited. Nor was the United Nations consulted.

The US President Obama’s contradictory approach which has resulted into failure of America’s

external policy in the Middle East has been meeting the same fate in South Asia. Like Syria,

Pakistan is also main arena of the new Cold War. Particularly, fast growing economic power of

China coupled with her rising strategic relationship with Russia, the Third World and especially

Pakistan—after signing of agreement, China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) has irked the

eyes of Americans, Indians and Israelis. Owing to jealousy, America desires to make India a

major power to counterbalance China in Asia.

During his first visit to New Delhi, on November 6, 2010, President Obama announced the

measures, America would take regarding removal of Indian space and defence companies from a

restricted “entities list”, and supported Indian demand for a permanent seat in the UN Security

Council including membership of four key global nuclear nonproliferation regimes.

Earlier, on November 2, 2010, the US agreed to sell India the most expensive—the new F-35

fighter jets including US F-16 and F-18 fighters, C-17 and C-130 aircraft, radar systems,

Harpoon weapons etc. Besides, New Delhi is also getting arms and weapons from Israel.

America also pressurized International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the Nuclear

Suppliers Group to grant a waiver to New Delhi for obtaining civil nuclear trade on larger scale.

Washington had signed a pact of nuclear civil technology with New Delhi in 2008. During

American President Barack Obama’s visit to India, on January 25, 2016, the US and India

announced a breakthrough on the pact which would allow American companies to supply New

Delhi with civilian nuclear technology.

Beijing is apprehensive about the emerging threat, as during the last visit of Obama to New

Delhi, the intent of President Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was quite clear,

while mentioning about free sea lanes and air passages in the South China Sea.

Similarly, by pursuing the double standards of America in its worst form, Trump also intends to

favour India, while opposing the nuclear weapons of Pakistan. Because, being the only nuclear

country in the Islamic World, Pakistan annoys the US, Israel and some Western countries.

However, like Obama, Trump has brushed aside the ground realities that Indian Prime Minister

Modi led by the ruling fundamentalist party BJP has been implementing anti-Muslim and anti-

Pakistan agenda, while encouraging Hindutva (Hindu nationalism)..

As part of the double game, based in Afghanistan, operatives of American CIA, Indian RAW and

Israeli Mossad which have well-established their secret network there, and are well-penetrated in

the terrorist outfits like ISIS, Tehreek-e- Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and their affiliated Taliban

groups are using their terrorists to destabilize Tibetan regions of China, Iranian Sistan-

Baluchistan and Pakistan’s Balochistan by arranging the subversive activities. In this context, the

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is their special target. Recent acts of terrorism in

Pakistan’s Balochistan and Afghanistan are part of the same scheme.

Taking note of the US-India alliance, in the trilateral meeting which held in Moscow on

December 27, last year, Russia, China and Pakistan agreed on efforts to remove Afghan

individuals from the UN sanctions lists as part of efforts to foster peaceful dialogue between

Kabul and the Taliban movement in Afghanistan. The Russian inclusion in the CPEC project

was another important agenda of the meeting. Russian close ally, Iran may also join the project.

And in September 2016, a contingent of Russian ground forces arrived in Pakistan and

conducted the first ever joint Pak-Russian exercise at a time when tensions between Pakistan and

India was running high following an attack on the Uri military camp in Indian-held Kashmir,

which was managed by Indian RAW to distort Pakistan’s image and to divert attention from the

new Intifada of Kashmiris. Nevertheless, Pak-Russia exercise was being seen as a demonstration

of closer defence ties between Islamabad and Moscow after they signed a military cooperation

pact in 2014.

It is mentionable that in October, 2016, Dmitry Peskov, a Kremlin spokesman, said that Russia

was considering restoring military bases in Vietnam and Cuba—Cold War flashpoints and

lasting symbols of the enmity between the US and Soviet Union. He added, “It’s quite natural

that all countries assess these changes in line with their national interests and take certain steps in

the way they consider appropriate.”

On the other side, on November 28, 2016, Donald Trump threatened to terminate US relationship

with Cuba—deal signed by Barack Obama to end a diplomatic standoff with Havana.

Nonetheless, a new cold war has already started between the US-led Europe and Russia. After

taking cognizance of the grievances of the international community, Russian President Vladimir

Putin is rapidly restoring the balance of power in the world. Moscow which also has China’s

support is in better position than the US and its western (NATO) allies who are also entangled in

a prolonged war in Afghanistan and the Middle East, while America’s endless war against

terrorism continues. Besides its western partners, this Cold War will further enhance American

expenditures by deepening the US momentary problems, while it is already becoming difficult

for Washington to maintain its military bases abroad. According to a recent report, America is

near military collapse.

It is worth-mentioning that when President Obama hosted the fourth Nuclear Security Summit in

Washington on March 31, 2016 to check the spread of nuclear weapons, showing concerns about

the ambitions of terrorist groups such as the ISIS in acquiring a nuclear weapon or radioactive

material, Donald Trump had taken a different stand in his interview with the CNN by stating,

“More nuclear weapons could make the world safer…US can no longer afford to bankroll the

defense of its allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East…Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia

may need arsenals to confront threats in their region on their own.”

It displays contradictory approach of Donald Trump, as on the one side, he says that US can no

longer afford to bankroll the defense of its allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East, while on

the other; he wants to make America supreme power of the world.

However, coped with multiple internal and external issues and problems, the US has already

weakened its position in relation to the new Cold War.

It is noteworthy that like William II and Hitler, Trump is uncompromising. True to his rigid

approach, he has set aside the facts that one of the major causes of the disintegration of the

former Russian Empire was that its greater defence expenditures exceeded to the maximum,

resulting in economic crises inside the country. In this context, about a protracted war in

Afghanistan, the former Russian President Gorbachev had declared it as the “bleeding wound.”

While learning no lesson, the US has been acting upon the similar policies which led to the

demise of the Soviet Union. Trump who lacks pragmatism would expedite the disintegration of

America and the EU like the former Soviet Union.

As part of the new Cold War, Russia is making alliances, while the President-elect Trump will

break America’s alliances. Trump’s only alliance will be with Israel and India who are

endangering the peace of the Middle East and South Asia, as they wanted to continue atrocities

on the Palestinians and Kashmiris to keep their hold on the occupied territories of Palestine and


Following the conspiracy of Mossad, the rigid and racist policies of Donald Trump are causing

more recruitment in the ISIS outfit, inspiring the extremist Muslims for more terrorism attacks.

This Mossad-Trump cabal could also result into civil war in the US. Israel, who will never accept

the two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian issue, will prefer to seek the final revenge by

bringing about a major war between the Muslim and the Christian worlds or to cause a major war

between Russia and the US, which will convert the entire world into holocaust.


Sajjad Shaukat writes on international affairs and is author of the book: US vs Islamic Militants,
Invisible Balance of Power: Dangerous Shift in International Relations

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on New Cold War: Zio-Nazi Seeks Revenge

Nazi manipulation of UK politics: time for zero-tolerance

Israel’s manipulation of UK politics: time for zero-tolerance

Overlapping Israeli and UK flags

But don’t rely on the foreign secretary… or the prime minister… or the speaker to take action. And especially not the Standards Committee.

By Stuart Littlewood

Both the Foreign Office and Boris Johnson, the UK’s foreign secretary, have declared the Shai Masot affair “closed” after Masot, an employee of the Israeli embassy and probably a Mossad asset, plotted with gullible British MPs and political hangers-on to “take down” senior government figures, including Johnson’s deputy, Alan Duncan. “The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed,” they announced. The Speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, who is Jewish, has also declined to investigate.

Sorry, Boris. It isn’t closed – hell no. It’s just opening and it’ll run and run. You and your fellow stooges can be sure of it.

According to some reports, Masot served in the Israeli navy in Palestinian waters off Gaza. Given the many atrocities committed by Israel’s gunboats against Gaza’s fishermen, and children playing on Gaza’s beach, and even peaceful unarmed humanitarian vessels bringing relief to the sick and starving there, he may well be on a wanted list for questioning about war crimes. Masot’s damning comments were captured and revealed in an undercover investigation by Aljazeera and not, as one might have hoped, by Britain’s own beloved press barons.

Masot’s hostile conniving was going on under the eye of a recently arrived ambassador, the loathsome Mark Regev, ace propagandist, mastermind of the Israeli lie machine and personal spokesman for the Zionist regime’s chief thug, Binyamiin Netanyahu.

Emily Thornberry, the Labour Party’s shadow foreign secretary, called Masot’s activities “extremely disturbing” and has demanded a probe into the potential extent of political “interference” in the United Kingdom. There are calls for Regev to be packed off back to Tel Aviv.

A petition demanding a public inquiry can be found here.

Are British parliamentarians at last waking up? Are those who wave the flag of a nasty, murderous foreign military power about to feel the heat from an increasingly furious public? They should be very afraid.

Watch George Galloway’s devastating summing-up.

Nothing new

The realisation that we are in the grip of great evil has been slow in coming. Nine years ago 20 senior professionals wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life about the undue influence of the Israel lobby at the heart of British government and their deep concern about the appalling conditions forced on the civilian population in the occupied territories, particularly Gaza, by the Israeli blockade and called-for sanctions to be imposed by Britain and the European Union.

A letter had earlier been delivered to the Foreign Office minister then responsible for the Middle East, Kim Howells, suggesting that Britain consider suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The rules provide for this sanction if Israel’s conduct towards its neighbours falls short of what is required under the UN Charter and other obligations.

Howells replied:

We consider that the Association Agreement is a key tool for the EU to both enhance cooperation with Israel but also to raise any concerns. We do not support suspension of that agreement, which would limit how we could put our viewpoint across to the Israeli government.

When the EU demanded an end to the emergency in Gaza and the military occupation of the West Bank, Israel responded with an even tighter lockdown, so another letter was sent to Howells. He replied:

The UK… has strong relationships with Israel on a number of fronts… We do not consider it would be in the best interests of the UK, or the European Union, to end this relationship.

Howells was a former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). His opposition shadow at the time was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI).

The minister was then asked to explain what “viewpoint” Her Majesty’s Government had put to the Israeli government regarding the medieval-style siege of Gaza and the collective punishment inflicted on its already impoverished civilians in flagrant breach of the UN Charter and every conceivable code of conduct. What action had he and his department taken to alleviate the suffering in this former British mandate? What was the status of the coastal waters off Gaza? How could Israel maintain a sea blockade lawfully and deny Gazan fishermen their livelihood?

And how did continuing the association agreement in these cruel circumstances “enhance cooperation” with Israel?

No answers to these questions were ever received.

So the 20 signatories reminded the Standards Committee how the lobby group, Friends of Israel, had embedded itself in the British political establishment with the stated purpose of promoting Israel’s interests in our Parliament and bend British policy.

British MPs eating out of the Israeli government’s hand

It was put to the committee that MPs are surely not at liberty to act for a foreign military power at the expense of our own national interests, or to let foreign influence cloud their judgement. Such conduct breached the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

The various Friends of Israel organisations had gone to great lengths to influence those in power. A good many of them, it seemed, reached their high positions with Friends of Israel help. The network acted as a sort of parliamentary freemasonry. The political director of Conservative Friends of Israel claimed that with over 2,000 members and registered supporters alongside 80 per cent of the Conservative MPs, CFI was the largest affiliated group in the party.

Its website stated that the CFI

strives to support the Conservative Party at all available opportunities. In the run up to the 2005 General Election… CFI supported candidates up and down the country. As candidates are now being continuously selected for target seats, CFI has developed a special programme of weekly briefings, events with speakers and a chance to participate in delegations to Israel. CFI encourages all members to help campaign for parliamentary candidates and also for local council, London and European elections.

It also had a “Fast Track” group for Conservative parliamentary candidates fighting target marginal seats at the next election. The political director himself was seeking election to Parliament. If successful where would his loyalty lie?

Senior Conservatives tried to justify these activities by insisting that Israel was “a force for good in the world” and “in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”.

The danger of inappropriate “friendships” with foreign regimes had become blazingly obvious a few days earlier when Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, was reported to have twice asked David Miliband, our foreign secretary, to scrap the law that authorised magistrates to issue arrest warrants for suspected war criminals who set foot in the UK, she being a particularly blood-soaked example. Avi Dichter, a former director of the Shin Bet spy service and involved in the Shehadeh assassination in which 14 Palestianian civilians, including children, were killed by an Israeli air strike, had to cancel a trip to London for fear of being arrested.

Doron Almog, a former Israeli general, also involved in the Shehadeh affair, narrowly avoided arrest when he landed at Heathrow in 2005. Israel wished the UK to change its laws to protect alleged war criminals. So, we did so just to oblige them, in the name of “enhanced cooperation”, as Howells might have put it.

The Standards Committee was also told bluntly:

It is especially disconcerting to discover that at least two members of your committee, which is pledged to uphold the Principles of Public Life, are Friends of Israel [one the president of Conservative Friends of Israel and the other a member of Labour Friends of Israel]… Given that Israel’s deep penetration of our political system apparently prevents Britain from taking a principled stand on Middle East matters, including the violations of Palestinian human rights, we invite your committee – minus those with an interest – to uphold the Principles of Public Life and consider the activities of the Friends of Israel as a matter for urgent investigation.

But the Standards Committee refused to look into it. The chairman’s reply, sent in a note from a member of his office staff, said: “I regret that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has no remit to help you in this matter.”

So, the public’s watchdog – the Standards Committee – which was formed specifically to uphold those Seven Principles, wasn’t playing ball. Its published remit called on it

to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.

Wasn’t this the kind of plain English even dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats like the committee’s chairman could understand?

Apparently not. He added:

This Committee commented on lobbying in their first report in 1995 and re-addressed the issue, including the changes instigated by their first report, in a review in 2001. The committee has no plans to review this area again in the near future.

The angry 20 pointed out there was nothing in the 1995 report relating to MPs and legislators representing the interests of foreign countries within Parliament or placing themselves under the influence of a foreign country’s political lobby. Nor could they find any mention of it in the 2001 report. They asked for chapter and verse. No reply.

And there the matter has rested for nine years.

Tarnished watchdog

Fast-forward to the present day and we find it’s now the Anglo-Israel Association (AIA) casting a shadow over the Standards Committee. “The Association’s primary purpose is to promote wider and better understanding of Israel in the UK; to encourage exchanges between both countries at every level and generally to support activities which foster good will between British and Israeli citizens,” says the website. But its programme is skewed mainly towards “educating” Britons, including our clergy, about Israel.

The honorary president of the AIA is the ambassador of Israel himself. The chairman of the AIA’s Executive Committee is none other than Lord Bew, also chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. And its council includes the Earl of Balfour – the fifth earl, that is – related of course to the first earl, that nincompoop Arthur Balfour whose infamous Declaration in 1917 paved the way for the shameful handover of the Palestinians’ homeland – and Christianity’s homeland – to Zionist Jews. “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section,” warned Lord Sydenham at the time, “is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

The centenary of Balfour’s Declaration will be joyously celebrated this year by Israel’s many Westminster stooges including Theresa May if her sucking-up speech to the Israel lobby last month is anything to go by.

So there’s a lot of weeding-out to do.

Those disgruntled 20 could easily become 2 million if the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign), the unions and other activist groups got together.

The sinister machinations of Masot and Regev have presented them an open goal. And we have Aljazeera to thank for the brilliant exposé where our own security services failed.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on Nazi manipulation of UK politics: time for zero-tolerance

Turkey’s about-face


President Vladimir Putin has announced that he has concluded a cease-fire agreement for Syria, with Turkey, which until now has been the main operational support for the jihadists. How may we explain this astonishing turn of events? Will President Erdoğan be able to turn his country away from the influence of the United States and towards that of Russia? What are the causes and the consequences of this dramatic reversal?

JPEG - 31.9 kb

Turkey is a member of NATO, an ally of Saudi Arabia, a patron of international jihadism since the hospitalisation of prince Bandar ben Sultan in 2012, and godfather of the Muslim Brotherhood since the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi and the quarrel between Doha and Riyad in 2013-14. Besides this, it attacked Russia in November 2015, destroying a Sukhoi-24 and causing the interruption of diplomatic relations with Moscow.

And yet this is the same Turkey which has just sponsored the cease-fire in Syria, imagined by Russia [1]. Why?

Since 2013, Washington no longer considers Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as a trusted partner. The CIA has therefore launched various operations, not against Turkey, but against Mr. Erdoğan personally. In May-June 2013, it organised and supported the Taksim Gezi Park protest movement. During the general elections in June 2015, it financed and supervised the party of the minorities, the HDP, so as to limit the power of the President. It played the same tactic during the elections of November 2015, which the Power had rigged. The CIA then moved on from political influence to secret action. It organised four assassination attempts, the last of which, in July 2016, turned ugly, forcing the Kemalist officers to attempt a coup d’etat for which they were unprepared.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan therefore finds himself in a position similar to that of the Italian Prime Minister of the 1970’s, Aldo Moro – both men heading a NATO member-state, and both having to face the hostility of the United States. NATO managed to eliminate the Italian by manipulating an extreme left-wing group [2], but has failed to kill the Turk.

Moreover, in order to win the elections in November 2015, Erdoğan flattered the Turko-Mongol supremacists by unilaterally expanding the conflict with the Kurdish minority. By doing so, he added the alleged «nationalists» of the MHP to his Islamist electoral base (AKP). In a few months, he caused the deaths of more than 3,000 ethnically-Kurd Turkish citizens, and destroyed several villages, even certain neighbourhoods of major cities.

Finally, by transmitting arms to al-Qaïda and Daesh which were sent by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and NATO, he wove close relations with the jihadist organisations. He did not hesitate to use the war against Syria to make money for himself. First of all by dismantling and pillaging the factories of Aleppo, then by trafficking the oil and antiques stolen by the jihadists. Progressively, his entire clan became linked with the jihadists. For example, his Prime Minister, mafia gangster Binali Yıldırım, organised factories for the confection of counterfeit goods in the territories administrated by Daesh.

However, the intervention of Hezbollah in the second war against Syria, from July 2012, then that of the Russian Federation, in September 2015, turned the fortunes of war. From this moment on, the gigantic coalition of the «Friends of Syria» lost a lot of the terrain they had occupied, and encountered increasing difficulty in recruiting new mercenaries. Thousands of jihadists deserted the battle-field and fled to Turkey.

But in fact, most of these jihadists are incompatible with Turkish civilisation. Indeed, the jihadists had not been recruited to form a coherent army, but simply to swell the numbers. There were at least 250,000 of them, perhaps even many more. At first, these men were Arab delinquants supervised by the Muslim Brotherhood. Progressively, were added Naqshbandi Sufis from the Caucasus and Iraq, and even young Westerners in a quest for Revolution. This implausible mixture can not hold together if it is displaced to Turkey. First of all because now, what the jihadists want is a state of their own, and it seems impossible to proclaim another Caliphate in Turkey. And then for all sorts of cultural reasons. For example – the Arab jihadists have adopted the Wahhabism of their Saudi benefactors. According to this desert ideology, History does not exist. They have therefore destroyed many antique vestiges, allegedly because the Qu’ran forbids idolatry. While this has not caused problems in Ankara, there is no question of allowing them to touch the Turko-Mongol patrimony.

Thus, today Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has to face three simultaneous enemies – not counting Syria ;
- The United States and their Turkish allies, the FETÖ (Fethullah Terrorist Movement) of the Islamist bourgeois Fethullah Gülen;
- The independentist Kurds, and more particularly, the PKK;
- The Sunni state ambitions of the jihadists, particularly Daesh.

While the main interest of Turkey would be, as a priority, to dial down the interior conflicts with the PKK and the FETÖ, Erdoğan’s personal interest would be to find a new ally. He was the ally of the United States when their influence was at its height, and presently hopes to become the ally of Russia, now the leading conventional military power in the world.

This about-face would seem all the more difficult to navigate since his country is a member of the Atlantic Alliance, an organisation that no-one has ever been able to leave. Perhaps at first he could leave the integrated military command, as France did in 1966. At that time, President Charles De Gaulle had to weather an attempted coup d’etat and numerous assassination attempts by the OAS, an organisation which was financed by the CIA [3].

Even supposing that Turkey might manage to handle this evolution, it would still have to deal with two other major problems.

First of all, although we do not know precisely the number of jihadists in Syria and Iraq, we may estimate that they are are now no more than between 50,000 and 200,000. Given that these mercenaries are massively irrecuperable, what is to be done with them? The cease-fire agreement, the text of which is deliberately imprecise, leaves open the possibility of an attack against them in Idleb. This governorate is occupied by a bevy of armed groups who have no links with one another, but are coordinated by NATO from LandCom in Izmir, via certain «humanitarian» NGO’s. Contrary to Daesh, these jihadists have never learned how to organise themselves correctly, and remain dependent on aid from the Atlantic Alliance. This aid comes to them across the Turkish border, which may soon be closed. However, while it is easy to check trucks which travel on well-defined routes, it is not possible to control the passage of men crossing the fields. Thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands of jihadists could soon flood into Turkey and destabilise it.

Turkey has already begun changing its rhetoric. President Erdoğan accused the United States of continuing to support the jihadists in general and Daesh in particular, suggesting that if he had done the same in the past, it was under the evil influence of Washington. Ankara hopes to make money by handing over the reconstruction of Homs and Aleppo to his construction and public works company. However, it is difficult to imagine how Turkey can escape from its responsibilities, after having paid hundreds of thousands of Syrians to leave their country, after having pillaged the North of Syria, and after having supported the jihadists who have destroyed this country and killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians.

Turkey’s about-face, if it is to be confirmed in the months to come, will provoke a chain-reaction of consequences. Beginning with the fact that President Erdoğan now presents himself not only as the ally of Russia, but also as the partner of Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic of Iran, in other words, the hero of the Chiite world. The end, therefore, of the mirage of Turkey as leader of the Sunni world, fighting the «heretics» with Saudi money. But the artificial inter-Muslim conflict launched by Washington will not end until Saudi Arabia also lets it go.

The extraordinary shift by Turkey is probably difficult to understand for Westerners, according to whom politics are always public affairs. Leaving to one side the arrest of Turkish officers in a NATO bunker in East Aleppo, two weeks ago, it is easier to understand for those who remember the personal rôle of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan during the first Chechen war, when he was director of Millî Görüş; a rôle which Moscow has never mentioned, but concerning which the Russian Intelligence services have conserved a quantity of archives. Vladimir Putin has preferred to transform an enemy into an ally, rather than taking him down and having to keep fighting his country. President Bachar el-Assad, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei have gladly followed his lead.

Keep in mind:
- After having hoped to conquer Syria, President Erdoğan now finds himself – due only to his own policies – opposed on three fronts – by the United States and Fethullah Gülen’s FETÖ; by the independentist Kurds of the PKK; and by Daesh.
- These three adveraries might once again be joined by Russia, which has in its possession a wealth of information concerning Erdoğan’s personal record. So President Erdoğan has chosen on the contrary to ally himself with Moscow, and may leave the integrated command of NATO.

Posted in TurkeyComments Off on Turkey’s about-face

Building Totalitarianism in Europe – The Last Coup of Victoria Nuland


Since April 2016, US neoconservatives have been trying to change the status of Cyprus. It is for them both (1) to reunite the island (2) to deprive it of its army (3) but also to deploy the Turkish army under cover of NATO. The inevitable Victoria Nuland, who should have become Secretary of State if Hillary Clinton had been elected president, is maneuvering. This plan is supposed to tie Turkey to NATO and prevent its rapprochement with Russia.

JPEG - 42.6 kb
The President of the Republic of Cyprus, Nicos Anastasiades, receives the US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland.

Victoria Nuland, the US Assistant Secretary of State, did not spend much time and energy with Christmas and New Year celebrations this year. She has another very urgent and pressing problem to solve, before leaving the State Department, and this is the “Cyprus conflict”. The way she wants to solve this conflict is by transforming a second member of the EU, after Greece, into a protectorate. As the proposed solution for Cyprus is higlhy unstable, powers outside the EU will be provided also with a bomb inside it, that is with the possibillity of provoking a Bosnian-type conflict inside, not outside EU borders.

In the same time she wants also to get Turkey admitted immediately to the EU, by the window of the “Cypriot settlement”. By virtue of the provisions of the “Cyprus settlement” under consideration now, Turkey is invested after January 12 with many of the rights and powers (and none of the obligations) of the member-states. It will also legalize in Geneva, its military presence and its right to intervene militarily inside the European Union.

Such an outcome of the Geneva conference will have enormous strategic consequences for Europe and for the Middle East, transforming the whole “Eastern Meditarranean”, a sea lane of vital importance, into a kind of “Mare Nostrum” of the “Naval Forces”, excluding from there any “foreign” strategic influence (German, Russian or Chinese) and laying one more foundation for encircling Russia from the South with a kind of “security belt” and trying to hinder its access to the “warm seas”, a centuries long dream of British imperial planners. It will constitute the deeper change of the Mediterranean strategic landscape, since the eruption of the so-called Eastern Question or, at least, since the Greek national revolution, two centuries ago.

Annan Plan – Creating a Frankestein “state” in Cyprus

The type of settlement Mrs. Nuland wants to impose on Cyprus is a new version of the Annan Plan, rejected by the overwhelming majority of Cypriots during the 2004 referendum, in spite of enormous pressure they had suffered and a real terror campaign against them, warning the day of Doom would come on the aftermath of a No vote. The Annan Plan is violating all essential provisions of European, International and Constitutional Law, including the UN Charter. In the light of its provisions, it represents the most comprehensive effort undertaken, since the defeat of Nazism, in 1945, to impose a totalitarian system in any western country.

The Annan plan is instituting a kind of Frankestein state in Cyprus, where, among other things, the rule of majority (democracy) will be formally abolished, where there will be permanent vetos of the two Cypriot communities in every level of decision making and in all branches of power (executive, legislative, judicial), and, in the very probable case that system would be brought to an impasse, foreign judges will decide everything. In reality, the new “state” will be governed by foreign judges, concentrating upon themselves, three centuries after Montesqieu, all powers.

The solution provides for imposing to the new “state” a complete disarmament status, that is forbid it from the right of self-defense and the means to exercise it (an army). And do it in a permanent terms, not as a temporary measure, as it happened with Germany and Japan after the 2nd World War. In Orwellian terms, this is called “Cyprus demilitarized”. In reality there will be many traffic problems there provoked, because of the military vehicles of Britain, Turkey, other NATO countries and Police cars from various “Christian and Muslim countries” which will be present there. Britain and Turkey will have the legal right to intervene militarily inside a territory of the European Union.

“Fuck” Referendums

Mrs. Nuland does not want to wait for any referendum. She knows that she can hardly win a second referendum in Cyprus (or in any other European country these times) on such terms. She has no time, she leaves the State Department on the 20th of January and she wants to end her career with a triumph, that is succeeding where MacMillan, Johnson, Kissinger, Bush, Annan, before her, failed miserably. There are also more essential reasons she wants to solve (or to create?) now this problem. Both the Greek and the European crises may enter a new and more dramatic phase next year. As for the Middle East, adjacent to Cyprus, it is waiting now for a Big Deal or a Big War.

The only way to do what she wants, in order to circumvent the provision for a referendum, is to have the President of Cyprus Mr. Anastasiades and the leader of Turkish Cypriots Mr. Akinci sign all that, or as much as they can of that. Then, Mr. Tsipras, Mr. Erdogan and Mrs May will endorse them and they will do something else also, legalize the Turkish military presence inside the European Union for some indefinite, as we write period. Mr. Juncker plans also to be there to applaud all that in the name of the European Union. The State Department has already warned the US Congress to be ready to adopt bills on Cyprus and the Commission altered all its programs for January 12. That day, CNN will announce to all the world that the Cyprus conflict has already been solved. When people will realize what happened, and they will begin to tear their hairs, there will be no Obama or Nuland to answer any questions. (And maybe that arranges many more people than one can figure out).

Mr. Anastasiades has already agreed to all that, Mr. Tsipras is under pressure also to agree. Mr. Juncker, Mrs. May and Mr. Erdogan already agreed. There remain some serious differences still on the composition of the Conference which remain to be settled as we write this article.

And the referendum? you will probably ask. Ok, they will promiss to make two referendums, one for the Greeks and one for the Turkish Cypriots. Maybe they will do them, but only if they are sure of the result. Anyway, even if those referendums take place, they will not have much sense, as it will be impossible for the inhabitants to return to the status quo ante. The Republic of Cyprus as we know it will be dead and the Turkish military presence on the island legal. As for the voters they will be in front of the choice to accept after all what is too late to change or risk a chaotic situation, if they refuse it post factum.

Is anything of all that legal?

Is all that legal? No, nothing here is legal. (Look below, for the opinion of the Honorary President of the International Association of Constitutional Law, Professor Kasimatis). On the contrary they represent a coup d’Etat stricto sensu and in two ways. They constitute the most serious possible breach of the constitutional order of the Republic of Cyprus and of the Treaties of the European Union, as Cyprus is a member of this Union.

No international conference and not even the President of Cyprus himself (or, for that matter, the Greek PM) has any right to sign agreements that infringe on the sovereignty of the Cypriot state (like for instance legalizing the Turkish military presence on the island, when numerous UN resolutions ask for the immediate withdrawal of Turkish forces, which invaded the island in 1974). Even more, nobody, including the President of Cyprus, has the right to change the constitutional structure of his state, much more, abolish it altogether! If they do it, it would be a coup d’Etat, in the strict legal sense of the word, that is a serious breach of the constitutional order of the Republic of Cyprus and, as this Republic is also a full member of the European Union, of the Treaties of the EU. Such things would be probably legal, only if we were living still under a medieval regime of absolute monarchies, not in Europe in 2016.

The whole Geneva conference reminds us very much of what happened in Vichy, France, on the 10th of July 1940, when the French National Assembly invested, with an overwhelming majority, Marshal Pétain with constituent powers. In spite of the fact that even it was the National Assembly itself which took this decision, everything Pétain did was considered a coup d’Etat and, inspite of being a hero of the First World War, he was condemned to death after the liberation of France. Charles De Gaulle has become what he became, in the history of France and of the world, because he refused to recognize this, supposedly legal coup, by the French deputies and Pétain and fought against it.

In Cyprus, unlike Pétain, Mr. Anastasiades not only did not get an authorization of his parliament for what he is doing, he even refused a demand of the opposition for an urgent debate.

JPEG - 60.1 kb
Since the Turkish invasion of Cyprus in 1974, Ankara illegally occupies the northeast of the island and has set up a government called the “Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus”. Its president, Mustafa Akıncı, is a friend of Victoria Nuland.

The purpose of Geneva: Destroy Cyprus as a sovereign, democratic and independent state

By the way and until some weeks ago, all Cypriot and Greek governments since 1974 refused the Turkish proposal to convene such a conference, claiming that the only thing they could discuss about Cyprus with Turkey, was the withdrawal of the Turkish troops which invaded the island and remained there in spite of UN resolutions calling for their immediate withdrawal.

But this was until December 1st. That day, Mr. Anastasiades has announced to his citizens that he is accepting the proposal without explaining much why he is doing it, what will be the purpose and the agenda of this strange conference. He did not consult with political parties in the island or the Greek government before announcing his decision. The most absolute confusion was reigning in the island, until December 27, when the leader of the Turkish Cypriots Mr. Akinci, speaking to the Turkish Cypriot media, probably to warn Anastasiades not to deviate from what they had already agreed in secret, explained a little bit what will happen in Geneva.

According to what he said the Republic of Cyprus will not be present in the Geneva conference. All documents there will be signed by the “new Cyprus federation to be constituted”. In that way he revealed the real purpose of the operation, which is no other than to abolish the existing state in Cyprus (we repeat, a member of UN and the EU) and to create a new one, without asking the opinion of the citizens, without electing a Constitutional Assembly and without any authorization from anybody to do that. In that case, we don’t speak even about an operation of regime change. We have to speak about “country change”.

A Greek Cypriot politician who is friend of Mr. Akinci answered to him explaining that he better avoid much public talk.

The citizens of the Republic themselves are now in a state of complete shock, as they cannot believe that they will live in another state by January 12, they know nothing about it! Cyprus has a tradition of invasions and coups, but it is difficult still for the citizens to grasp the new and unbelievable reality that their own President is planning to sign the death of his own state! It is very difficult, psychologically and intellectually, to stop believing that Mr. Anastasiades is not their leader (even if some they may consider his as bad, wrong, corrupted or incompetent), but he is their killer!

If the Cyprus thing succeeds it will in itself represent a colossal advancement of new political technologies. The trick is simple and genious. For a rape to be recognized as a rape, the victim has to resist and denounce the rapist. But here the rapist and the person charged with denouncing the rape is the same, the President of the Republic.

The Greek factor

Anastasiades himself is the most powerful weapon US ever had in Cyprus. But Mrs Nuland has also another very powerful weapon and this is the situation in Greece, the confusion and the dependence of Greek political forces. The cooperation of Greece to this operation is deemed absolutely necessary for political reasons.

Mr. Tsipras in Athens, is now under enormous US pressure to give his consent and in a very difficult condition otherwise. SYRIZA is characterized also by a huge confusion regarding the Cyprus conflict. The Greek economy and society are very much into a death spiral, and the PM seems to be to the absolute mercy of Creditors, including the IMF. The German government nearly declared war against Greece, when his government decided, on the eve of Christmas, to give some financial peanuts to very poor Greek pensioners in a very real danger for their life and respecting the discipline of the program imposed to Greece (against the will of its people). The Finance Minister had to send a humiliating letter, promising more pension cuts in the next year, in order to get an armistice from Scheuble. If all that was not enough, Mr. Erdogan is threatening to fluid Greece with new waves of refugees.

From Pétain to Yeltsin – what is a coup d’Etat

Let us come back at this point to the term coup d’Etat we used. Maybe the readers are associating this with tanks and machine guns. Concerning the use of weapons they have to be a little patient. They will hear most probably their noise (as they heard it from Kiev), but they have first to wait until the Geneva operation succeeds and if it succeeds. But a coup d’Etat has nothing to do with the means used. It has to do with the breach of the constitutional (and European in our case) order of a given state.

Maybe the readers will also question if a head of a given state can make himself or participate in a coup d’ etat against his own state. Not only he can, he is a thousand times more effective if he chooses to do it, as the only thing he has to do is use and abuse the powers he already legally possesses and can use. For example, the legal head of the Greek state, King Constantin, has participated in a US-backed coup d’Etat against the constitutional order of his own state in 1967, by legalizing the government of the Colonels.

The same thing was done by the head of the Russian state Boris Yeltsin in 1991, when he dissolved the USSR and in October 1993, when he bombed his own Parliament, if we examine those events from the point of view of soviet and Russian constitutional order. But nobody in the West has noticed of course this legal aspect of things, as westerners liked very much what Yeltsin did. We refer to this example, because it bears great analogies to what they are trying to do now in Cyprus.

Professor Kasimatis on the legal aspect of the Geneva Conference

JPEG - 26.1 kb

We asked the top Greek specialist on Constitutional Law and Honorary President of the International Association of Constitutional Law, Professor Yiorgos Kasimatis, about what and what is not legal for this Geneva conference to do. This is his opinion:

The Republic of Cyprus is internationally recognized as a full sovereignty state, by its admission to the United Nations and to the European Union. Nobody, including the President of Cyprus, the Greek PM or any international conference are entitled to take any decisions infringing, directly or indirectly, upon the sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus or alter its constitutional structure. If they do it, it will be a very serious violation of both the Cyprus constitution and of the Treaties of the European Union. Only a constitutional assembly or the citizens themselves via a referendum, are entitled to adopt such measures. The only subject an international conference could discuss is how to apply the UN resolutions asking for the immediate withdrawal of Turkish occupation forces and the full restoration of the sovereignty of the Republic. It is not legal to connect or depend those international obligations, directly or indirectly, on any constitutional changes in the country. On the contrary, all third parties have the obligation to abstain from any actions or declarations, much more from signing any documents, which constitute a direct or indirect infringement upon the right of Cypriot citizens to decide by their own free will on the fundamentals of their state structure and on the international status of the Republic. All parties should do everything in their power to assure to the Cypriots the conditions for the free expression of their will, without any threats, blackmails, pressures, faits accmplis etc.

Dimitri Konstantakopoulos
Dimitri Konstantakopoulos

Dimitri KonstantakopoulosJournalist and writer. He worked as an advisor on East-West Relations and Arms Control in the office of Greek PM Andreas Papapndreou (1985-88) and he was the chief correspondent of the Greek news agency ANA in Moscow (1989-99). He collaborated with Michel Pablo in launching the international review for self-management Utopie Critique. He has been a member of the Central Committee and the Secretariat and of the Committee on Foreign Policy of SYRIZA. He stopped having any relations with SYRIZA in July 2015.

How Germany is detroying itself

How Germany is detroying itself
Suicide of Europe: a triumph for the empire of Lloyd Blakfein

Voltaire Network

Voltaire, international edition

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on Building Totalitarianism in Europe – The Last Coup of Victoria Nuland

Could Turkey swing over to the Russian camp?


Even though, historically, Russia has a weighty past with Turkey, and even though it has not forgotten the personal rôle played by current President Erdoğan, to its detriment, during the the first Chechen war, it can not fail to be interested by the possibility of Ankara leaving NATO. On the other hand, the deep US state, which continues to pursue its imperial ambitions despite the election of Donald Trump, is ready to do whatever it takes to keep Turkey in the Atlantic Alliance.

JPEG - 33.9 kb
What John Kerry does in daylight, Victoria Nuland undoes at night.

In order to guarantee his personal survival, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has launched a vast purge of all the pro-US elements in his country — a purge which he must add to the combats in which he is already engaged against Syria, against the PKK, and now also against his ex-mercenaries from Daesh.

The destruction of US influence began with the eradication of Fethullah Gülen’s Hizmet — Gülen is the Islamist preacher who works for the CIA from Pennsylvania. It continues today with the dismissal and often the arrest not only of all the military personnel linked to the United States, but also all secular military personnel in general. You can’t be too careful.

450 of the 600 Turkish senior officers in service at NATO have been called back to Turkey. More than 100 of them, and their families, have requested political asylum in Belgium, headquarters of the Atlantic Alliance.

The first consequence of this anti-secular purge is that the Turkish army will be headless for a long time. In the space of five months, 44% of the generals have been fired, and this, despite the fact that during the Ergenekon scandal, 70% of the senior officers at the time were dismissed, arrested and imprisoned. Deprived of its command structure, operation «Euphrates Shield» is at a standstill.

Erdoğan is therefore obliged to revise his military ambitions downwards for the next few years — in Syria, Iraq and Cyprus — three states he partially occupies. He has therefore let go of East Aleppo (Syria) — but not Idleb — and is preparing to withdraw from Bachiqa (Iraq).

Seen from Washington, a possible exit by Turkey from NATO, or at least from the Integrated Military Command of the Atlantic Alliance, has the imperialist faction of Power in a cold sweat. In terms of numbers, the Turkish army is in fact the second NATO power after the United States. However, a possible exit from the Alliance may be something of a relief for the Donald Trump faction, for whom Turkey is a rudderless country.

This is the source of the neo-conservative «forcing» aimed at bringing Turkey back into the «course of History» (meaning that of the «New American Century»). Thus, the assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, is attempting to offer Cyprus to Recep Tayyip Erdoğan — a project she conceived after the elections of November 2015, when President Barack Obama ordered the elimination of the Turkish President.

By blackmailing Cypriot President Níkos Anastasiádis, Mrs. Nuland pressured him to accept her «peace plan» for Cyprus — the island would be reunified and demilitarised (in other words, deprived of its army) — while NATO (in real terms, Turkish troops) — would be deployed. In this way, the Turkish army could complete its conquest of the island without having to fight. In case he should refuse this fool’s bargain, President Anastasiádis could be tried in New York for his implication as a lawyer in the business dealings for Imperium, the company belonging to his Russian friend Leonid Lebedev – a two billion dollar affair.

Thus, the split with NATO would cost Turkey the North-East part of Cyprus, which it currently occupies, while remaining in the Atlantic Alliance would offer it the whole of the island.

Of course, in a few weeks Victoria Nuland should be replaced by the new Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, but the group she represents will probably not lose all its power. Mrs.Nuland is a member of the founding family of the Project for a New American Century, which played a part in the planning of the events of 11 September 2001. Her father-in-law, Donald Kagan of the Hudson Institute, trained the neo-conservatives and the disciples of Leo Strauss in the military history of Sparta. Her brother-in-law, Frederick Kagan, from the American Entreprise Institute, looked after public relations for Generals David Petraeus and John R. Allen. Her sister-in-law, Kimberly Kagan, created the Institute for the Study of War. Her husband, Robert Kagan, is today salaried by the ex-Emir of Qatar at the Brookings Institution. Four personalities, five think-tanks, but a single ideology.

As for Victoria, she was successively ambassador to NATO, spokeswoman for Hillary Clinton, and organiser of the coup d’etat in Kiev in February2014. She helped Presidents Petro Porochenko and Erdoğan with the official creation of the «Islamic International Brigade», which organised vast sabotage operations in Russia. Her actions will probably be continued by the US deep state against the Trump administration.

It is the group behind the Kagans which is pursuing the war in Syria, with no other motive than remaining in power. Not only was President Barack Obama incapable of expelling them from his administration, but a personality like Victoria Nuland, who was considered to be a figurehead of the Bush administration, had no difficulty in rising through the ranks of the Democratic administration and organising a wave of Russophobia. While she worked in close collboration with Hillary Clinton, she never stopped sabotaging the diplomacy of Secretary of State John Kerry, aided and abetted by her friend Jeffrey Feltman, the real commander of UNO.

Knowing Erdoğan’s capacity for sudden changes of strategy, Moscow will either have to soothe the anxieties of Anastasiádis, or propose something more attractive to Ankara in order to keep it midstream betweeen the United States and Russia.

Posted in Russia, TurkeyComments Off on Could Turkey swing over to the Russian camp?

The System That Made Obama A War President Turns On Trump


Image result for Obama CARTOON

Jan 11, author Mike Whitney states,US  Intel Agencies Try To Strong-Arm Trump Into War With Russia…Powerful elites are using the credibility of the US Intelligence agencies to demonize Russia and prepare the country for war. This is the real meaning of the “Russia hacking” story which, as yet, has not produced any hard evidence of Russian complicity.”

Editor notes: These same sources gave us, ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’,  The manufactured yarn has a cost of about a million human lives in Iraq!

Counterpunch tells us:  “Note: We agree with Donald Trump’s claims during his campaign favoring detente with Russia. The conflict with Russia has been escalated throughout the Obama presidency and in the post-election time period by Obama, war supporters in Congress and intelligence agencies. Those who oppose war should stand in favor of decreasing conflict and finding ways of working with Russia. Conflict between the US and Russia is counterproductive and is coming primarily from the US with false and exaggerated claims about Russia. KZ”…

“Last week’s 25-page report, that was released by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, illustrates to what extent intelligence is being “fixed around the policy”.  Just as the CIA generated false information related to Weapons of Mass Destruction to soften public resistance to war with Iraq, so too, the spurious allegations in the DNI’s politically-motivated report are designed to depict Russia as a growing threat to US national security…”

“The “Russia hacking” flap shows how far the Intel agencies have veered from their original mandate, which is to impartially gather and analyze information that may be vital to US national security…”

“That’s what this whole “hacking” fiasco is about. The big shots who run the country are trying to strong-arm ‘the Donald’ into carrying their water so the depredations can continue and Central Asia can be transformed into a gigantic Washington-dominated corporate free trade zone where the Big Money calls the shots and Capital reigns supreme. That’s their dreamstate, Capitalist Valhalla…They just need Trump to get-with-the-program so the bloodletting can continue apace.”


Posted in USAComments Off on The System That Made Obama A War President Turns On Trump

Why ISIS Never Attacks I$raHell, But All Around It



Five minute audio, features Craig Hanson, Carlson, Compton,on the implications of “Eretz Israel”, meaning its’ future boarder plan. Also reveals collaboration between Israel and Syrian rebels.  Explains why ISIS attacks every state but Israel.

Posted in Middle East, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Why ISIS Never Attacks I$raHell, But All Around It

Of England – without prejudice and without affection


What is “post-industrial society”?

Champions of “civil society” in Russia keep talking that they would love to build a “post-industrial” society in their country. They ordinarily omit to decode just what kind of society they are talking about, but as an example, they often point to countries of “the golden billion.” Curiously enough, in those very countries the expression in question is used extremely rarely, and then usually in some kind of critical context. For example, Stanley Hoffmann, an American scholar of international relations, wrote once: whenever you don’t know what to call some phenomenon, you use the word “post”, for example post-Cold-War World, post-liberalism or “post-industrial society.”

To Russian ideologues, this expression is a find, since it allows them to avoid using the word “capitalism” with all the negative connotations that are tied to it. In actual fact, all countries of “the golden billion” are capitalist states in essence, while in form they are indeed “post-industrial.” The latter means that the structure of the economy is changed: the share of manufacturing and agriculture has declined dramatically in favor of the so-called “tertiary” sector, i.e. the service industry which includes education, science, commerce, office work, banking. 70% to 80% of the working population in Western Europe and North America is employed in this sphere. This proportion is reflected also in the structure of the GDP, where the service sector’s weight is the same 70-80%. The calculation is pretty crude, since it is rather hard to determine the boundary between the production and the service spheres. The essence is clear nonetheless: the indicated states produce more in the way of services than in the way of physical goods. It is these societies that are called “post-industrial.”

Here are the figures for Russia, for the year 2003 (data from the Russian State Committee for Statistics): the sphere of physical goods production employed 48,7% of all labor resources, with the other 52,3% being employed in the services sphere; in the GDP, the goods sector accounted for 35,1%, and services – for 64,9%. The former figure in the first set may be evidence simply of Russia’s lower labor productivity in manufacturing and agriculture compared to Western countries. In the second set, the figures are not cardinally different from those in the West. In other words, the “post-industrial society,” that golden dream of Mr. Yavlinsky and his ilk, already exists in Russia. So what does it change? Suppose the country’s current leadership will succeed some time from now in reducing the share of manufacturing and agriculture even further, while the share of the services sphere grows to its current Western proportions. Will that mean that everything in Russia will be just like in the West? Well, no, of course not. All these “what-if-ists” must understand one simple thing: Russia will never be just like the West, no matter what version the society’s development follows, if only because the West never experiences 40-degree cold or 40-degree heat. Whenever these temperature extremes do occur (extremely rarely) anywhere in the West, the land is paralyzed.

Suppose, however, that through some miracle Russia does manage to build a civilized capitalism in accordance with the principles of civil society and the laws of market economics – like in the United Kingdom, for instance. That country is considered an etalon of sorts among all the states of Western Europe and North America, as its economy functions better than all others, and the democracy is as advanced as it gets. Let us see then what will Russia acquire if it ever manages to create a “post-industrial society” of the British type.

*   *   *

I never researched England in particular. My attitude toward that country was formed by German literature, in particular the articles by Heinrich Heine who described the land and its inhabitants in a sarcastic manner. I never liked the United Kingdom’s foreign policy. Still, only a fool can fail to appreciate the works of Shakespeare – or rather the team who wrote under that name – as well as those of many other poets and writers of the foggy Albion. Neither could I help feeling respect for the constellation of English scientists whose discoveries helped accelerate the pace of mankind’s development. Nonetheless, England remained foreign to me in spirit and in temperament, and I had no desire to visit it.

Yet it so happened that I found myself in England and lived there for exactly four years. This proved to be more than enough for me, and I left the land with no sadness and no regrets.

Here is my home village… or, making acquaintances

Upon arriving in England I settled in one of the affluent “hamlets” of Oxford-shire, a ten-minute drive away from Oxford. To my surprise, I found myself among very pleasant neighbors who volunteered right away to help me become integrated into “the society.” My wife and I were surprised by this, for we had read and heard a lot about the coldness, aloofness, standoffishness of the English people. Subsequently I did meet a lot of Englishmen possessed of these qualities (especially among college instructors), but the people of our village were different from the book stereotypes. At the various local festivals held at the village Club (the Millennium Hall) they comported themselves quite emotionally. The attitude toward us “newcomers” was special: they introduced us personally to every resident of the neighborhood, invited us to house parties, looked after the house in our absence, expressed their willingness to help in every way. Still, friendship (in the Russian sense of the word) did not work out with any of them. The initial mutual visiting petered out eventually, the main reason being that we had no topics in common for conversation. My knowledge of gardening was only good for five minutes of talk at most. Whenever I touched on a topic outside the sphere of everyday life, the reply was the standard «really?» – which means, in the purely English interpretation, “this is of no interest to us.” It is “of no interest” because they practically don’t read anything and don’t know anything about other countries and even about their own country. One neighbor of ours did borrow one of the books I wrote, but later admitted that he couldn’t finish reading it. I want to stress that those locals’ incomes place them in the upper stratum of the “middle class,” which class is nothing other than ordinary average consumers. It is they who constitute the greater part of the “tertiary sector.” For the most part this consumer possesses extremely limited knowledge and devotes his entire life to “home and garden.” However, unlike the Russian counterpart who is ordinarily mean and envious, the English philistine is good-natured due to his rather high standard of living.

I did not become closely acquainted with any workers. However, I do know from newspapers that they live in horrid conditions, especially in the north of England; that they fall ill and die at a dramatically higher rate than the middle and upper classes of the land.

Non-scientific science, ideology and propaganda

In Oxford I got to socialize often with scholars, primarily with Russia specialists. Reading their works and communicating with them enabled me to realize as if physically the expressions “bourgeois scientists” and “bourgeois science” – phrases that were in use during the Soviet times. Within the framework of social disciplines (political science, sociology, international relations, etc.) there is indeed no science to be found there – if one understands this word to mean the search for truth. The matter is, they don’t even give any thought to the question of what is scientific truth. All their research is wound around ideological clichés, primarily two magical words: democracy and markets. Thus, one Oxford professor, an authority in Russia studies, wrote a thick volume on Gorbachev – giving the man high marks, naturally, for introducing democracy to the USSR. However, it did not occur to him to analyze what democracy did to the country. In general, all these professors are usually specialists in some narrow topic: one specializes in the work of the current parliament, another – in Chechnya, a third – in mass media. This applies not only to Russia scholars, but to all country scholars in general. They have practically no works of summarizing nature, which is easy to explain. Firstly, they have no scientists capable of grasping and analyzing the USSR/Russia as an integrity. They don’t operate with criteria for evaluating various events. Neither do they have any scientific method – unless, that is, one counts the occasional use of systemic or structural approaches, which are only good for solving a certain class of problems. Secondly, they are ideologically engaged to an extreme degree, which prevents them from evaluating events and facts objectively. Thirdly, most of them don’t know Russian, therefore for sources they use digests for the most part – that is, extracts from English-language newspapers; they also interview some scholars or others during their trips to Moscow. Those who do know the Russian language only make use of contemporary Russian bourgeois literature by authors who cast in their lots with the current regime. They deliberately avoid the critical left-wing literature. This approach is applied not only to Russia, but to China as well: their writings on China are equally nonsensical.

Against the backdrop of the social-studies books, the natural science works stand out. In this sphere science manifests itself in full measure, albeit there is a lot of waste paper to be found here as well.

In other words, my practice convinced me yet again that Lenin was correct in saying: bourgeois natural scientists can be trusted for as long as they stay on their science ground, while bourgeois social scientists cannot be trusted at all.

Censorship. The ideological engagement of the social-studies literature is also manifested in censorship. Formally it is not there, yet in fact it exists, and it functions very effectively. The matter is, the fact of a book’s publication has no importance whatsoever until it advertised on television or in nation-wide magazines and newspapers. No work – not even a tiny review – will ever be advertised if it attacks the “sacred” values of democracy and markets. For example, the magazines Foreign Affairs (the USA), The Economist (the UK) and several others were unwilling (exactly so!) to publish a review of one of my works, since it appeared to reveal the detrimental effect of “democracy” on Russia. Apparently, “freedom of speech” has long outlived its usefulness. At least it does not exist in the “post-industrial” society.

In general the British press creates the impression that no one works in the country – that there are no workers or farmers there. There are only the Queen with her family, bankers, footballers and musicians. The vast majority of materials is dedicated to scandals, savage murders, and recently to terrorists as well. Naturally, no one uncovers the social causes that disrupt the peaceful life of the British people. Various problems do get raised, of course, in some way or another in the newspaper pages, but they drown in the sea of advertisements, entertainments and scandalous stories. One has to admit that in the business of brainwashing, the British press did indeed achieve “shining heights.” Their ideological propaganda works flawlessly.

Religion and cheese

There is, however, one quality that I do like about the English people: it is their relaxed attitude toward religion. There is a well-known old French joke: “The French have one God and 300 varieties of cheese; the English have just one kind of cheese and 300 gods.” Jeremy Paxman, the author of a popular book about the English, reminds the reader that even in the middle of the 19th century two thirds of Londoners did not attend church. Indifference to religion was one of the main factors in the lead taken by England in its historical development. Religion was successfully replaced by science which reached its peak during the 19th and early 20th centuries. There is a reason why England produced the greatest number of scientists among those who had a revolutionary influence on the development of science and technology in the world.

In the 20th century the importance of religion declined in all advanced countries, but the pace of this process was apparently most intense in Britain, which fact British priests themselves are forced to admit with bitterness. Thus, The UK Christian Handbook: Religious Trends (2004) indicates that in the last 15 years the number of believers declined by more than a million, and by 2005 there will only be 5.6 million left. In that same period the number of church buildings decreased by 1,400, and the number of priests – by 1,000. The numbers of churchgoers are also falling. Only about 19% of English protestants go to church at least once a month.[1] In Catholic countries this percentage is much higher: in Spain and Austria – 35%, in Slovakia, Portugal and Italy – over 50%, in Ireland – 67%, in Poland – a whopping 78%. However, in Catholic France only about 12% of the French show piety, preferring the cafe to the church. One should keep in mind that to many people the church is less a place of worship than a place for socializing with acquaintances.

Many churchmen realize that the Bible can no longer satisfy modern thinking, which is oriented toward science by time itself. Therefore they seek to concentrate the attention of the “servants of God” on the moral aspects of the Biblical teaching, for example the teaching about family and the upbringing of children. This makes some amount of sense, although the English authors of a text on atheism point out that since many students don’t believe in God, they accordingly mistrust the moral values prescribed in the Bible as God’s commandments. Be that as it may, religious topics don’t get serious attention from the English people. Other kinds of problems cause them serious concern.

Problem-plagued Britannia

Education. This is one of the sore topics constantly discussed in the press. First of all, attention is drawn to the cardinal differences between public and private schools. The former graduate a large percentage of illiterate students. By the way, according to UN data, 21.8% of the United Kingdom’s population is considered “functionally illiterate” (The Guardian, January 11, 2005, p. 21).  Fairly recently it was discovered that suicides among students occur at a very high rate in public schools.

In higher schools, during 2003-2004 a wave of closures hit the natural sciences faculties (mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology). Universities are starved for cash. At the same time, tuition is increased annually, and at the same time employment is becoming harder to find for graduates. The press reports this phenomenon: due to lowered admission requirements and the departures of qualified faculty (due to law pay) many graduates emerge totally uneducated.

The example of the current state of education in the United Kingdom (which, by the way, is better in some aspects than that in other European states) convinces one yet again of the superiority of the systemic public mandatory free (!) education in the Soviet Union.

Health care is another sore topic; I experienced the British version of this problem myself. The so-called “general practitioner” (= “family doctor”) accords ten to fifteen minutes at most to each patient, with five minutes of that number spent on filling in forms and other paperwork, and if you did not get the needed treatment in those scant minutes, you have to book another visit for another day. The knowledge level of the public-sector physicians is infamous, as noted with alarm in the British press. There are, of course, different physicians and different hospitals. Moreover, their differ depending on the geographic location: worse in the North, better in the South. For example, Oxford-shire is considered one of the best places as health care is concerned. Nonetheless, I experienced the quality of that health care firsthand.

My osteochondrosis of the shoulder joint flared up. I went to a clinic and told the doctor of my malady. She replied by asking: “What is osteochondrosis?” I was in shock. They told me later, though, that this “physician” had only recently graduated, so she didn’t have experience yet. On the recommendation of a different physician, I went to a professional masseuse to get treatment for my “chondrosis.” A charming lady was indeed receiving patients in a beautifully appointed office, radiating calm with the whole look of her. She traced the causes of all illnesses to the spine, as evidenced by the set-up: spines of all degrees of curvature were on display in the reception room. This pro spent about a half-hour writing down the history of my ailments, starting from the date of birth; after that for about 15 minutes she proceeded to crack her fingers practically without touching me, as if pretending to straighten the spine. After the séance she warned me not to drive for a certain time, on account of possible dizziness (?). Naturally, I was feeling nothing except for the disappearance of ₤80 from my wallet in exchange for some shaking of the air; that fact really did make me somewhat dizzy.

My rounds of physicians continued. Now I needed an X-ray of the knee joint. I had to wait for two months (if my need had been for an ophthalmologist or an otolaryngologist, I would have had to wait three to four months.) Once they made the X-ray, the diagnosis was: bursitis. (By the way, in a elite pay clinic in Moscow the diagnosis was: osteochondrosis of the knee.) In actual fact it was a tear of the meniscus; I learned that later, from different physicians in a different country. That’s British free health care for you.

Private health care is different: the reception takes 20 to 30 minutes and costs about ₤200. I mean the initial reception in a private clinic that involves consultation only – not analyses or operations. Treatment means entirely different kind of money. However, they do offer excellent coffee for free! When you leave, they tell you “come again for sure if anything is unwell” with a sincerest smile from ear to ear. Next time will cost another ₤200.

I also had to deal with their dentistry and actual treatment: a tooth started hurting, and I was in need of fixing it. A dentist in London (a Russian, by the way) told me that in my case the treatment will cost between ₤3,000 and ₤10,000. I did not allow him to touch my tooth and flew to Canada, where I went to my old dentist who did everything much cheaper and faster – in just one visit.

Back to figures. In average life expectancy the United Kingdom ranks 29th in the world. This is not so bad, considering that Russia, for example, ranks 91st. This figure hides a certain twist, however: the average lifespan is very high in the south of the country and much lower in the north (in Scotland, in Ireland). Moreover, within London city limits life expectancy differs between districts – by as much as 10 to15 years.

I am compelled to state yet again: even under “the worst kind of socialism,” health care in the USSR was better than in today’s civilized United Kingdom by an order of magnitude. Suffice it to remind that in the Soviet Union every working person got two free medical checkups per year (the physicians came to people’s workplaces with all their equipment). Just one such checkup in the UK would cost me ₤10,000 at least.

The third sore issue in the UK (judging by the number of publications in four newspapers: The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, and The Daily Mirror) is transportation. Firstly, it is extremely expensive (compared to all other advanced countries); secondly, it is unreliable (arrivals are constantly late, departures are constantly delayed); thirdly, it is torturous (the routes are clogged, and the roads are always under repair – tax monies at work.) The only thing that gives one joy is the culture of driving; they are gentlefolk, after all.

Neither does the British “post-industrial society” manage to control the growth of crime. For example, in 2001-2002 the number of crimes reached 5,525,316; the following year, it was 5,899,450. The gravest crimes are the fastest growing categories – most notably murders. While murder rates are declining in Germany and France, in the UK the rate is going up. Some believe this is due to the fact that in the UK young men and women consume more hard liquor than in any other West European country. At any rate, the newspapers carry many stories of murders committed “for no apparent reason,” simply out of boredom.

Rather less is written on the problem of deformation of the traditional family, though the consequences thereof may prove more perilous than the problems mentioned above. British sources indicate a stable trend toward a lower proportion of marriages (including “cohabiting couples”) with children – from 92% in 1971 to 73% in 2002 – and a growing proportion of single parents – from 8% to 27% respectively. The proportion of single mothers who never married also grew dramatically – from 1% in 1971 to 12% in 2002. The proportion of divorced mothers grew in the same time period from 6% to 12%. (Living in Britain 2002, published 2004).

Another aspect of negative consequences, having to do in this case with the new model of family, i.e. the “co-habiting couple,” is evident in the social-economic sphere. In the United Kingdom, for example, such couples – accounting for almost 21% of all “families” in the land – have very low incomes. (Among traditional families, 7.8% subsist on such low incomes; among single mothers – 76,4%.) (The Sunday Times, April 18, 2005). This results in a phenomenon that is very embarrassing to wealthy Britain: child poverty, which affects over 20% of all children in  the United Kingdom, or 3.2 million children. (This topic is analyzed in detail in my book On Love, Family and the State (Moscow, 2006.)

“Service” in the services-based economy

To me personally, the main problem in the UK was British service.

You see, whenever one buys a more or less major item the product is delivered not at once, but some time later. This is quite understandable in the conditions of “post” societies: keeping products stored in warehouses is much cheaper than having them occupy floor space in stores. Some tiny store-offices make all their sales through catalogues. One salesperson takes orders and requests, another transmits the information to the warehouse, while the deliveries are made by drivers and loaders – people who have nothing to do with the selling. I simply must describe here my experience of purchasing a desk in Oxford town. Having formalized the purchase, made the payment and signed off on the delivery date (5 days later), we received the table… sans one leg. “Embarrassed” by this development, the delivery man promised to deliver the leg in 5 (!) days – for the whole procedure of ordering was to be repeated again. They delivered the leg right on time – only it belonged to a different table. We were told: “pardon us,” the leg will be delivered next week. Next week, nothing at all was delivered. So once again, the iterations were repeated: phone call –  order placed – apologies… To cut the story short, the table purchase took more than three weeks.

The funniest books can be written on the topic of buying, selling and repairing electronics in the UK. It is a topic ever so vital. My encounter with computer service in England was of rather unusual nature: I needed my English-writing apparatus Russified. We could have performed the installation ourselves on an amateurish level; however, we decided to spare our time and brought the computer over to a workshop that advertised precisely this kind of services. The “experts” promised to accomplish the task in a week (?), assuring us that it was no problem at all. “Just wait, we shall call you.” We decided to wait just so that all software is “adjusted” professionally. However, a week later the work was not done – and it still was not done another week later. When I made a wrathful phone call to inquire as to the reasons for the delay, I heard: “sorry, all is ready – do come over.” The invoice was made out, lying beside my computer that was covered with a thick layer of dust. Before paying, we asked them to switch the computer on so that we may check – and what do you know: it still was unable to read Russian script… I was indignant: what was I supposed to pay for? “Sorry, I won’t pay” is what I told them.

Capitalism – not just the British kind, but the universal kind, including its “post” variety – has one obvious specific trait: for as long as you are a potential buyer, you are desirable, and you receive smiles and top-quality coffee for absolutely free. However, as soon as the merchandise is transferred to the buyer’s hands and money has changed hands in the opposite direction, all smiles disappear, and the salespeople form ranks to make an invincible fortress. No kind of guarantee is capable of resolving the emerging problems effectively (that is, quickly and based on the consumer-protection law.) This isn’t because the people working in these “post”- and simply- capitalisms are so bad – on the contrary, they are nice, charming people; it’s just that the system forces them to follow the rules of business cruelty. Money – goods – people – services – connections – all this is merely products, meaning money – such is the sole idea of capitalism. I am not the first to write of this; I merely confirm what is well known, and I want to stress yet again that this is the road to degeneration of people and eventually of society itself. This process is particularly evident in culture and the arts.

Degeneration of culture as a symptom of the nation’s degeneration

Art and culture certainly do exist in the UK – as rare hearths against the backdrop of the so-called pop-culture for the masses. The “orthodox” who stick to the norms of human morals have become critically few. Thanks to the democratic freedom of choice, primitive instincts are ascending at a fearful pace to domination over education and human upbringing, over knowledge and morals. On television, the saturation with sex is off the scale (horny bimbos entice viewers from the screen, inviting to “get together”); fortune tellers and magicians of all stripes compete in the art of doing EVERYTHING (in this respect, Russia is just where a “post-industrial society” should be); crazed musicians, unacquainted with soap and shampoo, work themselves into copious sweat. Television channels invite viewers to join the grand parties of the swinging youth. Loose drunk babes (impossible to believe that this is happening in England) and blokes are happy in their choice to live like that. The freedom of choice also bore its fruit in the “modern” attitude toward same-sex marriage – a phenomenon that has become legalized and quite accepted in society. There is also support (no condemnation, at least) for the “philosophy” of naked old men and women who want to mow their lawns and play in their gardens in the buff. The President of the British Naturism Society claims that “when you go nude, you get the feeling of freedom.” Obviously, no one feels as free as animals, and these will soon be joined by large numbers of Britons.

The example of the British nation confirms the historical phenomenon: as soon as a nation – or the greater part of it – looses the ability to tell good from bad, ceases to understand what is in conformity with the laws of nature and society, and what is in opposition to them – this nation dooms itself to disintegration. One of the signs that the laws of morals and nature are violated is the bacchanalia of sex accompanied by all sorts of perversions. All this leads to the nation’s degeneration. Degeneration, however, is also underway in the literal sense.

Britons are now dying out physically. The white population is decreasing due to the disintegration of the traditional family and, as a consequence, a sharp drop in the birth rate. The surrogate same-sex families are simply a dead-end option of society. The total population figure is unchanged for many years now at about 61 million people; however, this is entirely due to the inflow of immigrants and their reproduction rates. White-skinned Anglo-Saxons will soon become a minority; the threat is very real. Whenever anyone complains about the immigrant Muslims’ desires to establish their ways of life on British soil, the palefaces protest loudly; yet it is precisely the laws of the democratic post-industrial state that are bringing the state down.

Democracy without borders

In the opinion of proponents of capitalism, one of the noteworthy qualities of the “post-industrial society” is advanced democracy. Democracy is one of the forms of political organization, one that emerged already in the slaver society. Democracy has many forms; bourgeois democracy is one of them. The latter, in turn, comes in many varieties. British democracy is considered to be the most perfect kind among all advanced capitalist countries. This may well be true, though some believe that democracy is even more advanced in the socialist countries of Scandinavia. That is beside the point, however; the point is that today’s version of democracy has become a mechanism that advances the destruction of the state. This is manifested in different spheres of social life.

On first glance, the practice of political correctness in language is its single most harmless manifestation. It is common knowledge that feminists have succeeded long ago in replacing “masculine” words such as “businessman” and “chairman” with the gender-neutral “businessperson” and “chairperson”; “postman” was replaced with “postal worker.” Now feminists are at a loss whether to write “he or she” or “she or he.” Frightened by the linguistic assault, the employees of the English National Opera expelled from their lexicon the word “darling,” since it may be construed by someone as sexual harassment. This for you is rights equality between men and women in an advanced democracy.

Now for the social sphere. In the 1980-ies the word “underprivileged” was introduced to designate the recipients of “benefits,” since the word “unemployed” supposedly affected negatively the mental state of the “underprivileged” persons. Another euphemism for unemployment became popular: “a person between jobs.”

In those same years, verbal changes were introduced to the sphere of international relations: the word “backward” was replaced with “under-developed,” then “under-developed” was replaced with “developing,” and then “developing” was replaced with “Third World.”

At present, the main thrust of attacks is directed against those words and idioms that may suggest negative connotations to ethnic minorities. For example, the use of the expression «good egg» (meaning: good lad) is discouraged, since it supposedly originated from the expression «egg and spoon», which rhymes with a derogatory word used to designate African-Americans (God forbid using the word “Negroes”.)

In actual fact, all these euphemisms are not harmless at all. So-called politically correct language conceals elementary lies intended to change reality. Back in his time, the well-known English commentator Bernard Levin wrote: “We change the names of things we dislike. Thus we attempt to convince ourselves that through this we changed the phenomena themselves. However, no man can change reality just by manipulating words. So why do we do this? It is because reality is often unhealthy.” (The Times, August 10, 2004, p. 16).

Levin underestimates the power of such manipulations. In actual fact this is a form of ideological treatment of mass consciousness in order to soften or iron out the contradictions of capitalism, to neutralize its most negative aspects with words. This is precisely why Russian liberals favor the expression “post-industrial society” in place of “capitalism” or “imperialism” – words that provoke the most negative emotions in many people. These word games are even more significant when used against socialism. For example, it is for a reason what the foes of socialism call the Great October Socialist Revolution a “coup.” They thus attempt to belittle a historical event that changed the course of world history in the 20th century and became the hope not only to the population of the newborn country, but also to many downtrodden in the West and in the East.

In the USA, where “political correctness of language” goes to absurd lengths, the Department of Education had the names of many of America’s great men banished from history texts. The “proscribed” list includes, for example, Samuel Adams, Thomas Edison, Alexander Graham Bell, the brothers Wright, and many others. The reason offered is that some of these men were slave owners, while others fought against Indians, and still others made unfavorable pronouncements about Negroes. Thus language is capable of distorting history – at least it can do that in the heads of the philistines who comprise the majority of the population in any country.

Now for some more serious matters. It is common knowledge that immigration is growing in advanced countries, including the UK, and most of the immigrants are Muslims. Their numbers are growing inexorably. They practically don’t assimilate at all, retaining their old customs, culture and religion. The problem is, they are not content with just reproducing their way of life; they are now attempting to impose it on the aboriginals, for example the Britons in the UK. Of course, the two cultures are incompatible in principle. However, instead of forcefully putting the immigrants in their place (they are guests, after all, and uninvited ones at that), the Britons started debating the forms of their actions in Parliament, trying not to violate any democratic principles. Since the Muslim immigrants absolutely fail to grasp the meaning of Western democratic values, they see the Britons’ mild response as a weakness, and that only serves to stimulate the newcomers to even more aggressive behavior. In view of the white population’s rapid decrease, one may surmise that soon enough the immigrants will outnumber the locals (today their share of the population is 5-6%, whereas in other countries of Western Europe the figure is 10-12%). Then all forms of democracy will come to an end, and it will be replaced with a Muslim regime based on the will of Allah and on other feudal norms.

Finally, today’s boundless democracy legitimized and accorded equal civil rights to gay and lesbian marriages. This anti-natural phenomenon – an appendix, a dead-end, ruinous branch of development in the history of biological life – serves the afore-mentioned trend, i.e. the decrease of the white population.

Thus, contemporary democracy turned into a political regime that can no longer contain the disintegration of the state. It has outlived its historic usefulness. A different form of political structure of power is needed, one that conforms to the new phenomena of the 21st century. Should the United Kingdom fail to develop a new type of regime, the “post-industrial society” is in danger of turning into a feudal society of the Middle Eastern type.

I did not touch in this article on social and economic problems; for the analysis thereof would have resulted in a substantially increased volume. I want only to make two points here in thesis form.

Today’s Britons owe their economic prosperity to their ancestors who managed to conquer nearly half the world in their time. Although the British colonial empire fell apart, the former colonies stayed in the orbit of the British economy, continuing to feed and clothe their master. The methods of pillaging changed, but the essence did not. The Third World continues to supply everything necessary (agricultural products, raw materials, metals, etc.) for the survival and relative prosperity of the “post-industrial society” in the UK. The flip side of this prosperity, however, is that the Britons themselves are no longer capable of reproducing themselves as a nation. The average Briton has lost the habit of working. When he needs to drive a nail into the wall or plug into the power supply, he calls for tradesmen (who are immigrants for the most part.) The “post-industrial society” resembles a man with a huge head but no arms or legs – and soon he will be without a trunk.

Moreover, potentially explosive hotbeds are now emerging within this society in the form of “Third World” enclaves. The proportion of the population existing below the absolute poverty line ($11 per day in advanced countries) is 15.7%. The wealthiest 10% “earn” 14 times the amount earned by the bottom 10% of the population. And so on, and so forth.

*   *   *

So, we are now facing the “post-industrial society” with all its minuses and pluses. We may consider that the main plus is the rather vast middle class enjoying a rather high average standard of living. This plus is overlaid, however, with a lot of minuses in the spheres of education, health care, transportation, crime, terrible service, etc. The most important minus is the moral degradation and the political impotency in the face of new challenges. This whole set of problems is also characteristic of all other “post-industrial societies” of Western Europe, to greater or lesser degree. Evidently these societies have passed their peak of development and started tumbling downhill. This downfall usually starts with the crisis of morals and ends either with the destruction of the state – or its qualitative renewal through revolution. Since Britons are not fond of revolutions, they appear to be doomed to the former outcome.

Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer – the number two man in the Labour government – said at his party’s convention (in late September 2005): «Reflect for a moment: on the talent wasted…the great music never composed, the great art never created, the great science never invented, the great books never written.» (The Economist, October 1st, 2005, p.11). Reflect for even just a second: everything said above relates to the “post-industrial society” that is the dream of the liberal democrats in Russia. Does Russia need this kind of society? I doubt that; however, it is for Russians to decide.

Alex Battler

Paris, France

Posted in UKComments Off on Of England – without prejudice and without affection

China through Russian Eyes


Image result for Chinese LEADER MAO PHOTO

I have been to China several times before, but this trip, my fifth, differed from the previous ones in that I came with my wife. My schedule  was fairly loose, which enabled me to see and feel China for real, not  just look at facades and showpieces. Moreover, this time I was able to see China through the eyes of my wife who is no expert on China, and  through socializing with people “from the street”. Two months before our  trip we “swallowed” a Russian-Chinese phrase book. And because, I haven’t yet completely forgotten my Japanese, we were at least able to  not lose our way in the mazes of Beijing and Shanghai.

In theory, I had a fairly good knowledge of China even before the trip.  Macroeconomics and politics, both domestic and foreign, is something that I study and analyse all the time. However, this latest trip enabled  me to get a feel of the spirit of the Chinese, or rather, the factors  that make the Chinese nation unique and enable it to make progress on  the road of their reforms. Let me note right away that the leadership of  the Chinese People’s Republic (CPR) and the Communist Party of China  (CPC) manage the implementation of reforms very skillfully. These energetics are a good place to start.

The initial sensation of a “world-wise” man arriving in a Socialist country is that of a certain condescension or even Western cynicism about the poor Chinese who have no notion of the world outside of China. When we were leaving, our parting feeling was the certainty that they don’t really need to know. The mass enthusiasm of the country’s entire population is initially amusing to our snobbish sensitivities. The Westerner is used to people’s false smiles over their deeply hidden internal depression. God forbid that you let your true feelings show – you must always flash the “cheese” smile, or else you won’t find employment, won’t have money.

Backyard poverty is your lot. In China the joyous, energetic faces, the  boldness of body and spirit at first are touching, and eventually earn  your admiration. This thrust to a better future existed in Soviet Russia  in the 1930s, when the people built giant factories, power stations, railroads, etc.

The streets of Beijing and Shanghai merit special attention, for they are the blood arteries of the country. The traffic there is practically impossible to comprehend, it’s only possible to sense the general flow of the entire city. The streets remind one of the whole country’s progress toward her goal: everything here moves together, maintaining the sense of the neighbor’s shoulder, never bumping or colliding with others. In a whole month we saw no traffic accidents. This is all the  more amazing since the people and cars often move opposite to the indicated traffic direction. This tableau needs to be visualized: the multitude of cars, the even greater multitude of bicycles and rickshaws, the millions of pedestrians scuttling across the road in every direction, ignoring the traffic lights. All these moving objects need only half a hint to understand each other. The secret became clearer when one journalist quoted a Chinese cabbie: “We are all bicyclists here, getting around on two wheels since childhood”. Indeed, once you take this for granted, it becomes clear why the bicyclists pass each other without bumping, brake lightly or halt instantly. (But you’ll never figure out just how they manage it).

“The enthusiasm of labor” in the streets is not just a quote from Andrei Platonov – it is a fact of life here. You see no junkies, invalids or ragamuffin beggars here. Hard work is the natural way of life for the Chinese. Perhaps that’s why the normal facial expression of concern here is healthy, and the people are human through the constant exercise of labor (to borrow a phrase from Friedrich Engels). One can’t help thinking every once-in-a-while about all the panhandlers, invalids and disturbed people on the streets of Western cities, while in China there is so much normal joy and healthy emotion in people’s faces. Okay, one may ask how do you define normal? My answer: normal is what gives hope for the better and the strength to hope, what makes the good and healthy things last, instead of crippling body and soul. Humankind would have  perished a long time ago if not for those who carry this burden of “normalcy”. May Vancouverites forgive me, but my wife and I always used to shudder when we passed the intersection of Main and Hastings, beholding the shabby multitude of freaks in a compassionate wealthy country like Canada. And the difference between the sexes may not have disappeared entirely in Canada, but it is barely noticeable. And may Russians in general and Muscovites in particular forgive me, but I never encountered anywhere as monstrous a transformation of people as the one in Russia, where the “new Russians” are almost inevitably ignorant, rude and thieving, and the “old Russians” are the miserable intelligentsia, shabby and devoid of hope.

Understandably, the Communist Party of China gives the people no opportunity to get stoned on narcotics or soused with alcohol, still less to eradicate visible indicators of gender – however sarcastic you want to be about it. For the kind of people who do these things they have special living quarters in special locations, so to say. And the thought occurred to us that perhaps the Chinese authorities have the right idea. The millions upon millions of Chinese have no time to cloud their brains with dope or booze, or invent exotic kinds of entertainment for themselves. They all have a lot of work to do in their short lives. The Chinese don’t count on an afterlife, they are in general not religious at all. Their only evident religion is work and physical (energetic) health in this earthly life. That’s why they are always in such a hurry, those multitudes, as they extract China from squalor and poverty. Let me phrase my thought this way: the Chinese, for all the filth of their streets and the squalor of their dwellings, are possessed of a certain cleanliness, joy, and a drive toward better things, while in the “civilized world”, where the streets are scrubbed with soap and well-lit, and the people all flash “cheese” smiles, the sensation of humanity coming to an end is palpable.

You can tell much about a country from its television programming. Beijing has some 30 channels (only one of them Westernized), Shanghai has equally as many. In the early days of our visit we poked fun at the propaganda-style display of cheerfulness on Chinese television: cheerful artists performing very cheerful songs to the accompaniment of cheerful musicians. Women singers and readers – all in military uniform for some reason – glorify their happy lives with such enthusiasm that one may get the impression that China has no problems. The endless concerts  celebrating something or other, with performers all looking like princesses, create the impression of a medium dumbed-down to the max. But the moment you switch to the Western TV channel, you are swarmed with images of monsters and endless rain. The musicians torture their instruments, what passes for thought is drenched in narcotics, the performers look like they never bathe and never cut their hair. So I had the urge to switch back to the Chinese Thumbelinas in their pretty dresses. Sound funny? Perhaps it does, but such were my feelings.

Naturally, the choice of programming for the Western TV channel was made by experts from the Communist party of China. But we have seen the world, my wife and I. We know that fine cinema and excellent musicians do exist in the West, but so does “pop culture”. Even the better movies in the West have contrived plots, design to jolt the jaded Western viewers. The violence, the monsters, the gore are needed in order to sell this madness to the viewers; selling is what it’s all about.

Chinese dwellings don’t impress a visitor, to put it mildly; the standard of living is very modest. In the older streets they still use collective outhouses. The accommodations resemble those of my native Astrakhan in the 1950s. The Chinese don’t mind the inconveniences at all, they are used to outdoor life. The Chinaman is always busy producing something and then selling it. He catches a beetle, a sparrow, a frog, a snake – anything that flies, crawls or swims – fries it and sells it. The Chinese peasant sells or trades everything he grows. People sell the products of their own labours, rather than being intermediaries. They spend no more time at home than a night’s sleep.

Many Chinese now have the opportunity to save enough money for a decent apartment with modern conveniences, but they are not really concerned with the size and furnishings of their homes. Home is just a place to sleep, and they don’t sleep long; at five in the morning the Chinese is already up, and after some Tai-chi exercises he or she is off to work – to the fields, or the factory, or the marketplace. Very little of Chinese life is spent at home.

In Beijing many streets have been turned into bazaars, where any kind of food, clothing or household items can be found. Barbers don’t rent premises – they, too, set up shop in the streets. The spectacle is amusing (to us visitors): long rows of barbers and their chairs under canopies. They use no water or soap, and there are no waiting lines for a haircut – it’s the barbers who are waiting for customers. All the cut hair piles up on the pavement; in the evening some of it is swept away, but enough is left to determine what trade was plied here in the daytime. For the elite, of course, there are magnificent salons with plumbing, catering and whatnot. In the streets you see “massage parlors” that consist of a couch with a dirty sheet thrown over it. This is where the Chinese practice their energy-enhancing massage – an interesting spectacle; the cost of the procedure is about one dollar.

The Chinese marketplace is a world in itself, with its own unwritten rules. It comes alive twice daily, with a break between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. when it’s too hot. One day my wife went out to buy groceries and returned in some excitement, with big eyes. “What happened?” “I’m not telling, take a look for yourself tomorrow; be on the spot at 3:45 p.m.” I did so, and the spectacle was indeed unique: at 3:55 p.m. there appeared in the street out of nowhere hundreds of bicycles, strollers, wheelbarrows, bags, portable stands, carrying fruit, vegetables, meats, fish and poultry, cans, tins, slippers, caps, trinkets – a page won’t suffice to list all the items that emerge and are put on display or on the grill. In some five minutes a huge, noisy creature comes into being that hollers and steams for at least three hours. One feels as if caught in a maelstrom, from which there is no escape. The shoppers who have made their purchases mount their “sacks on wheels” and proceed calmly against or across the flow of traffic, chatting all the while.

The Chinese sense of space is different. A European person always keeps a certain distance from others, protecting his/her “personal space”. The Chinese have nothing like that – in public transit and elsewhere they can be packed so tightly that to Western eyes it looks improper. The Chinese aren’t troubled by thoughts of strangers’ bodies rubbing against them; transit is just transit. Their sense of distance is also peculiar.

I asked a passerby once: “How far is it to Tiananmen Square?” – “Not far”. “Can I walk there?” “Sure”. I walked for an hour and a half to get there; evidently that’s not far by Chinese standards.

Another case to illustrate the difference of perspectives. There was this discussion about co-operation between the Far East of Russia and the Northern provinces of China, and I said that one of the problems of the Russian Far East is the small size of its population (about 8 million), which makes people fearful of Chinese immigration. I was told then that the Northern provinces are also not too populous. Meaning their population is how big? “Only about 100 million people”, I was told. 

Also notoriously different is the Chinese sense of time. In Shanghai I was supposed to read two lectures daily at Fudang University. I figured one hour per lecture, which would leave me plenty of spare time. Imagine my surprise when the organizers told me they had allotted an hour and a half for each of my “monologues”, which would be followed by question periods. The question periods lasted between 2 and 2 and a half hours, meaning that each lecture lasted up to four hours, and two lectures took up an entire workday. The curiosity of the Chinese is phenomenal.

Truly stunning is the urban might of Shanghai. It is the biggest city in the Orient (14 million people, not counting the suburbs), with a special export-oriented industrial zone. The old seawall dates from the days of British domination, but there is also the new business district with   skyscrapers, one of which is the third tallest in the world at 420 meters (the Chinese maintain that it is the tallest). The high-rise towers are spaced apart, so the district is not depressing the way the stone canyons of Manhattan are. There are still some patches of traditional Chinese buildings, with ancient pagodas and gardens. Shanghai is on its way to becoming one of the major finance centers of Eastern Asia, and clearly it has the potential of becoming a center of global importance.

Beijing is more traditional; it also experiences urban transformation that manifests itself in high-rises, but it preserves much more of old China (the Imperial Palace, the Temple of Heaven, Tsing-Shang Park, etc.) Our visit was in May, at the time when Beijing was restoring old buildings and building some new ones in preparation for the 50th anniversary of the People’s Republic. We knew full well that everything was supposed to be ready by October 1 – the date of the grand celebration, but still my wife decided to put the question to one passerby, testing the man’s faith in the builders (meaning the Party): “Will they finish in time?” He failed to comprehend the question at first, but after some clarifications he responded with certainty that the answer is yes, since the decision had been made by the Communist Party. Thank god that such a country still exists, we thought.

The Chinese share the unique trait of helpfulness. In the subway I got the impression that everyone is waiting for you to voice your issue, so that everyone can start discussing the ways to resolve it. The discussion would not necessarily produce a solution, but it is involvement that matters.

The children react with astonishment to the sight of fair-haired, “tall-eyed” strangers. One tiny tot simply froze when he caught sight of us and clutched his mother. My facial features and gray hair are “something entirely different” to his eyes.

We quite enjoyed the Chinese reaction to the American bombing of the PRC embassy in Belgrade. The entire country became agitated, workers and students went to anti-American protest rallies in every city. The events of those few days appear to have set right the minds of those people in China who had been sympathetic toward Americans and harbored illusions about the possibility of long-term co-operation with USA. They became convinced that America can’t be a friend, it can only be a business partner, one deal at a time. In private conversations they kept asking me to clarify just exactly how weak had Russia become, and when she would recover sufficiently from her “reforms” so that a powerful alliance could be made with China against USA.

In those days certain tensions were felt in the Chinese people’s relations to all foreigners. Americans huddled together and kept strictly to themselves, venturing out of their buses only in bunches. My wife and I weren’t openly abused, but we did suffer many awkward experiences, like casual elbows to the ribs or backs turned suddenly to our faces. We rather liked the way the Chinese “rallied to defense”.

There was one peculiar incident with my wife, who went to buy some dumplings: the noisy vendor refused to sell anything to the white woman who had to be an American. His partner hissed at him to stop scaring away customers, but the vendor steadfastly refused to serve the damn Yankee. But as soon as my wife managed to explain that she’s Russian, the vendor became friendly. The Chinese in general like Russians much better than Europeans, Americans or Japanese (I know this from public opinion polls.)

The day before we left China, I gave an interview to foreign correspondents in Beijing. Several of them were Americans who had previously worked in Moscow. They recalled their stay in Russia without any fondness, while talking with admiration about Beijing and China in general. I wanted to know why they were in love with China all of a sudden, and they all expressed the opinion that world history is currently made in China, which makes it interesting. The American teachers that I met were also trying to extend their stay in the CPR. I was surprised to discover that they enjoy their lives there. I tried to provoke them, saying: “But there are none of the comforts here that Americans are used to” “True, but they have something here that we don’t have in the West. Everything is more humane here in China”. “But surely your reason for being here is money?” – my wife asked. “Nope, we were much better paid in America, but somehow it feels good here. The Chinese don’t need our “human rights”; they have their own rights, more humane”.

So there you have it – “Socialism with a human face”, Chinese style.

From  Oleg Arin and Valentina Arina. Between Titi and Kaka. The Impressions of a Tourist…but not only (Moscow: Alliance, 2001).

Posted in ChinaComments Off on China through Russian Eyes

Shoah’s pages


January 2017
« Dec   Feb »