Archive | Europe

US-NATO is Using Saudi Arabia, The West is the True Perpetrator of Genocide in Yemen Genocide


An American political commentator said the West is using the Riyadh regime as a tool to advance its political agenda, stressing that certain Western countries, which claim to be champions of human rights, are in actual fact the perpetrators of the ongoing genocide in Yemen.

“What is undeniable is the fact that those who ‘promote human rights’ are the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes, including the Genocide in Yemen. To deny their complicity is to deny humanity,” Soraya Sepahpour Ulrich, an independent researcher and author from Irvine, California, told the Tasnim News Agency ahead of the March 26 anniversary of the start of Saudi Arabia’s aggression against Yemen.

She added,

“Today, while Saudi Arabia is being armed and directed to massacre fellow Moslems, it remains deaf to the chant ‘death to Saudis’ coming from the four corners of the ‘international community’. In spite of killing and dying for the political agenda of the US and its allies, the Saudis continue to be despised, hated – set apart. They will not be protected. They are dispensable”..

Following is the full text of the interview.

سپه پور

Tasnim: The Saudi-led coalition has been launching deadly airstrikes against the Houthi Ansarullah movement for two years. According to the UN, the Saudi military campaign has claimed the lives of more than 11,000 Yemenis and left 40,000 others wounded. Local Yemeni sources have already put the death toll from the Saudi war at over 12,000, including many women and children. As you know the international community has remained passive in the face of the ongoing Saudi crimes. What is your take on this? Why do you think this issue, the war on Yemen, has been less received by Western media?

Ulrich: I tend to think of the “international community’ as the US and its allies and differentiate between the term ‘international community’ and global community. The indifference toward the plight of the Yemenis is owed to several factors one of which is the media.

There are 6 corporations that own and dominate the media.  It is important to note that what was once known as the military-industrial complex has become the ‘military-industrial-media complex’. Media magnates and people on the boards of large media-related corporations have close links with the military industry and Washington’s foreign policy. This industry not only informs the public but frames issues.

This complex fails to inform the public of the plight of the Yemenis. Since the internet has managed to curb the monopoly of the media industry (alternate news sites and social networking), from time to time, the media industry is forced to acknowledge the horrors of Yemen, but it frames it in such a way so as to change the narrative. For example, it falsely presents the conflict as a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Through repeated lies, the ‘international community’ has been indoctrinated to see Iran as an aggressive country and the Yemenis resisting the invasion of the Saudi-led war as the assailants, putting the blame on the victims.

In addition to the blame game, the international community is being distracted with news on its domestic front. The best example of this are the refugees in Europe and the pending elections there, and in the United States, it is the Donald Trump presidency that occupies the airwaves and censors all other news.

But censorship, framing, and propaganda do not mean that the governments in these countries (international community) are not aware. They are fully complicit either through their actions or inaction.

Tasnim: Certain Western countries are continuously claiming that they are champions of human rights. However, it seems that they are pursuing double standard policies on Saudi Arabia’s atrocities. On March 10, 2017, the administration of US President Donald Trump approved the resumption of weapons sales to Saudi Arabia which critics have linked to Riyadh’s killing of civilians in Yemen. What is your take on this?

Ulrich: Human rights is simply another tool in the arsenal of these nations used to justify their policies. (War on terror being another useful tool of theirs). Consider this and dwell on the irony of it: When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948 (UN General Assembly), there were less than 60 UN members while dozens of countries were colonies. How could this be considered ‘rights’? Certainly, it is not universal or ideal else there would not have been a need for subsequent declarations such The American Declaration of Rights and Duties of Man (Bogota, 1948), the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (known as the European Convention for Human Rights – Strasbourg,1950), African Charter on Human Rights (Nairobi, 1981), the Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights (Paris, 1981) , the Arab Charter on Human Rights (1994), the European Center on Fundamental Rights (2000), and so on.

What is undeniable is the fact that those who ‘promote human rights’ are the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes, including the Genocide in Yemen. To deny their complicity is to deny humanity.

Tasnim: Since the start of its war on Yemen, the Saudi regime and its regional allies have failed to reach their objectives. Why are they continuing their heinous attacks on the Arab country despite their failures? How do you see the role of other regional Arab states in the ongoing war against the Arab country?

Ulrich: It is important to recognize that Saudi Arabia is not solely responsible nor is it the country that is independently fueling and promoting this conflict. One country often ignored is the UAE. As the world turns its anger and hatred towards the Saudis (with help from Western media which points their fingers at the Saudis for their actions in Yemen), UAE is kept above the fray. Whereas in fact, the UAE is home to Erik Prince, the founder of notorious Blackwater. It is training a UAE-led militia force and UAE’s complicity in the crimes deserve to be discussed separately. Suffice it to say that as the Saudis fall from grace, the UAE continues to climb (in America’s plots and those of her allies).

The Saudis, on the other hand, are being used by the West and sadly for them (and their victims), they continue to play the role of gladiators. As Cicero acknowledged of the Roman gladiatoria muner thattheir sponsorship was a political imperative. Even though the Roman gladiators were adulated, they were segregated and despised. The Saudis share the same fate. It is worthwhile remembering that in 2012 it was revealed that a course for US military officers had been suggesting that Mecca and Medina be obliterated without regard for civilian deaths, and it even suggested “Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation … Islam reduced to cult status”.

As President Donald Trump wrote in his book Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again.:  ”Then look at Saudi Arabia. It is the world’s biggest funder of terrorism. Saudi Arabia funnels our petro dollars—our very own money—to fund the terrorists that seek to destroy our people, while the Saudis rely on us to protect them!”

Today, while Saudi Arabia is being armed and directed to massacre fellow Moslems, it remains deaf to the chant ‘death to Saudis’ coming from the four corners of the ‘international community’. In spite of killing and dying for the political agenda of the US and its allies, the Saudis continue to be despised, hated – set apart. They will not be protected.   They are dispensable.

Posted in Middle East, USA, Europe, Saudi Arabia, Yemen0 Comments

Brexit – An Agent For Hope?

Scotland and the UK, Brexit

This is the transcript of an interview with Alex Knyazev from Russia TV24.

The occasion is the recent UK Parliament’s go-ahead for BREXIT – despite the massive pressure to reserve the people’s democratic choice. Today’s terror act on London’s Westminster bridge that left so far four people dead and many injured, may be another false flag to show the Brits that terror is everywhere and that they are better off staying within the confines of the protective EU. – My god! The protective EU. The destructive and genocidal EU! – Just look what they are doing to Greece.

Russia TV24: What does Brexit mean in terms of globalization?

Peter Koenig: Brexit is a clear sign that globalization doesn’t work. The common people have not only NOT benefited from ‘globalization’ – as they were purported to have done – but, to the contrary, they have suffered, some people tremendously – famine, more corporate monopolies that destroyed local farming and businesses – especially those in poor developing countries – and they continue to suffer throughout the world.

The Brits have had the courage to voice their discontent in a referendum last June which run against their government’s policy – as the UK – as a perfect vassal of Washington’s, as well as a mole for the US within the European Union – has always been a staunch supporter of globalization. The people have felt differently. And the government so distant of the people, hasn’t noticed it. This is the case in many other European countries.

The people of the UK who voted BREXIT – against the EU – are representative for the majority of people in the rest of Europe. If a similar referendum would be held today in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Hungary – and many more EU countries – the outcome would be similar. According to different polls, between 60% and 80% of the European people – not their puppet governments, but the people – would vote to get out of the EU and out of the Euro.

Russia TV24: What challenges might face the British economy after Brexit?

Peter Koenig: I think the hype, that the British economy will suffer from BREXIT, is just pure anti-BREXIT propaganda, largely driven by Washington and Brussels. Of course, BREXIT might inspire other countries to do likewise. Such lie-propaganda that the British economy will suffer, should intimidate other potential independence seekers. As we have seen, since the BREXIT vote, after an initial slump, the stock market recovered rapidly and today is as strong as always. And the anti-EU movements within Europe, Eurext, have rapidly proliferated.

At the very most, but not for sure at all, there might be some initial setbacks for the UK economy, when the actual separation takes place. But that only because Brussels wants to show its rubber teeth, indicating to other countries not to do likewise. But in the medium and definitely long run BREXIT is a clear winner for the British economy and the British people. The Brits will be free to enter into trade agreements with whomever they want and at whatever terms they sovereignly negotiate – without interference from Brussels.

In fact, the UK will be able to negotiate separately with each EU country trade and other bilateral or international business or intellectual exchange agreements. Switzerland, not a member of the EU, is the best example for this. Switzerland has currently more than 120 bilateral agreements with the EU and members of the EU – which makes her a de facto EU member, though de jure shenis not, and maintains her full sovereignty.

None of the EU members have kept their sovereignty, not politically, nor in terms of monetary policy. The latter is a tremendous drawback, as we see today – the Euro is obviously not sustainable; which for most serious economists was clear from the get-go. You cannot have a common currency for a group of countries that are not even united with a common constitution, let alone with common political goals and a common foreign policy agenda. There is no solidarity among EU countries – Greece is a case in point.

Russia TV24: How might it influence the relations with China who was thought to be interested in Britain being in the EU? Some English experts say industry might be damaged because of trade tariffs.

Peter Koenig: As far as I can see, not being a EU member will not interfere in any way with the UK’s relation with China. Quite to the contrary. Once BREXIT is completed, the Brits are free to make their own deals with China. First moves in this direction, I understand, have already been initiated through China’s President Xi. Let’s not forget, China represents not only the People’s Republic of China, but the entire Shanghai Cooperation Organization, or SCO, which includes also Russia, Iran, most of Eurasia, the Central Asian countries (former Soviet Republics), as well as soon also India and Pakistan. This represents half the world’s population, and more than one third of the world’s GDP.

In addition, there is OBOR – the huge One Belt – One Road project – also called the New Silk Road initiative by China’s President Xi Jinping. This is one gigantic economic development belt for at least the next century – covering infrastructure for transport by land and sea, telecommunication, energy, agricultural and industrial development – as well as cutting edge research projects and emerging, interconnected university-type education schemes. OBOR aims at linking Vladivostok with Lisbon and Shanghai with Hamburg – and everything in between. The East is where the future lays, at least for the coming 100 years or more. The west is passé. Self-destroyed by wars for greed and power. Not recoverable. Not in the foreseeable, nor in the distant future.

The UK is now at least in theory free to join President’s Xi’s invitation to Europe – actually presented to Madame Merkel some three years ago – to join the New Silk Road initiative. Washington vassals Germany and the EU don’t dare to orient themselves East – yet. But the time will come when there is no alternative, because the west with its corrupt economy, fraudulent dollar based monetary system has no future. A constant drive for wars and conflicts – an economy built on death and destruction – has clearly and fortunately no future.

Britain will now be free to join OBOR, if they so decide – and if they dare to pull loose from the fangs of Washington. Maybe by doing that, they could also inspire the rest of Europe to follow. – So – I can see only positive consequences for Britain’s exit from the European Union, Of course, they still need perseverance, a lot of it, because from now to then, there are many hurdles, many opposing forces, who still want to reverse the BREXIT vote. But the major decisions even within the British Parliament, have already been taken. So, it’s merely a matter of time.

Russia TV24: How would the [UK] living standards be changed?

Peter Koenig: Considering the above – not at all. In fact, we have seen since BREXIT, as mentioned before, a quick recovery of the stock market, after an initial free fall. Let’s face it, these security moves are all speculative, carried out by banksters to make extra profit. So, they are no indication actually on how well or how badly an economy functions. In the case of the UK its clear – Britain is doing very well.

As far as living standards are concerned, they will most likely improve, simply because the Brits will no longer have to deal with Brussels’ rules and regulations. They will follow their own, thereby saving a lot of unnecessary costs. Such savings plus a less bureaucratic life for everybody, would certainly tend to increase living standards.

Russia TV24: How will the EU experience Brexit? Some experts say that financial centers as Frankfurt, Paris or even Madrid might strengthen their positions, whereas London might lose. What do you think?

Peter Koenig: First, I believe the EU will not survive much longer, with or without BREXIT.

Second, as long as she, the EU, teeters along, the financial centers, Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid will remain what they are – or maybe even lose out to a free London. Remember, the financial center London has existed long before the EU, and it is run by the Rothschild et al clan – always has. They will not let go. To the contrary, as a free – as in free from Brussels’ dictate, financial center – London may pick up steam and get closer to Asia – the Asian up-and coming market of economic growth, as discussed before through OBOR and related investment requirements.

As long as the UK seizes the opportunity breaking free of the corrupt and incompetent apparatus in Brussels, London will remain an important financial hub for the world. Possibly even THE financial hub of the west, of those in the west who want to get closer to the EAST – and her axis of economic development potential.

Russia TV24: What is your view on the Scottish referendum, what are the chances that it will happen?

Peter Koenig: There is no doubt in my mind that the Scottish referendum will happen. In fact, a few days ago, the Scottish PM, Nicola Sturgeon, announced that she will seek through the Scottish Parliament the procedures for the referendum to break loose from the UK; a referendum to take place in late 2018, or early 2019.

On the occasion of the BREXIT vote in June 2016, Scotland voted with 62% to remain in the EU, while as a whole 54% of Brits decided for BREXIT. This, possibly a majority of Scots believe will destabilize Scotland, therefore it would be better to seek independence from the UK, and possibly independent adherence to the EU.

Will the Scottish people vote yes in such a repeat-referendum this time? In 2014, the Scots voted 55% against 45% to stay with the UK. The situation has now changed. So, it’s entirely possible that the vote of a future referendum may also change.

In these turbulent times, between now and the fall of 2018 or Spring of 2019, earliest dates foreseen for such a referendum – a lot can happen. There will be crucial elections this year in France and Germany – and possibly even Italy. – Will these upcoming elections change the face and fate of the EU? – And if so, how? – All of that may affect a Scottish referendum. If there is no longer a EU to apply to – what then? Might it then be politically and economically more advantageous to continue as a part of the UK, help the UK to become stronger in her new role as an independent and fully sovereign country – possibly orienting herself gradually towards east?

Russia TV24: What would be the consequences for Britain, Scotland and the EU in case Scotland votes to stay with the EU?

Peter Koenig: Not so fast. First the referendum would not be to stay or not to stay in the EU, but to stay or not to stay with the UK. Only once this issue has been resolved, and the Scotts would indeed choose to become independent from the UK, only then could they seek membership with the EU. Such terms would then have to be separately negotiated with Brussels.

It’s way too early to say what would happen if —-. The dynamics can go in many directions. Even in case the Scots would decide to split form the UK, the terms of the EU – in case it then still exists – may not be at all favorable to Scotland. So even then, Scotland could easily decide to also stay independent and carry on with sovereign bilateral trade deals with her partners of choice.

The bottom line of BREXIT and the consequences is that a clear sign is being sent to the world that a large majority of people are tired of what is called Globalization and for which a New World Order is being prepared, i.e. a One World Order – or One Government, gradually but firmly doing away with all the cultural riches and differences between countries, seeking a boring uniformity à la Anglo-Saxon non-culture.

This should definitely not happen. And the signals are clear that it won’t.

Posted in Europe0 Comments

Yuan Clearing Bank Opens in Moscow as Russia, China Dump Dollar in Bilateral Trade


Russia and China accelerate local currency cooperation

Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping

Moscow and Beijing took another step towards de-dollarization with the announcement of the opening of a renminbi clearing bank in Russia on Wednesday. 

Local currency transactions were first used in both countries’ border regions. Today, more and more Chinese and Russian financial institutes and enterprises are using local currencies to invest and settle accounts, as the yuan-ruble trade platform is becoming more established and the transaction network is expanding amid deepening China-Russia economic and financial cooperation.

goodbye dollar, hello renminbi

The yuan clearing bank in Moscow will greatly accelerate trade in local currencies:

Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) officially started operating as a Chinese renminbi (CNY) clearing bank in Russia Wednesday, a move set to facilitate the use of the currency and cooperation in various fields between the two countries.

“Under the guidance of the governments and central banks of both countries, ICBC’s Moscow branch will effectively fulfill its responsibility and obligation as a renminbi clearing bank by taking further advantage of its leading edge in renminbi businesses, providing customers with safe, high quality and convenient clearing services,” said Hu Hao, ICBC’s deputy governor, at the opening ceremony.

“Financial regulatory authorities of China and Russia have signed a series of major agreements, which marks a new level of financial cooperation,” said Dmitry Skobelkin, deputy governor of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation.

“The launching of renminbi clearing services in Russia will further expand local settlement business and promote financial cooperation between the two countries,” the official added.

With the continuous deepening of the Russia-China comprehensive strategic partnership of coordination in recent years, the two countries are now starting to enhance local currency cooperation.

At the end of 2015, the Russian central bank announced the inclusion of the renminbi in its national foreign exchange reserves, making it Russia’s officially recognized reserve currency.

During Russian President Vladimir Putin‘s visit to China in June last year, the central banks of the two countries signed a memorandum of cooperation in starting renminbi clearing services in Russia, just three months before ICBC’s Moscow branch was appointed by China’s central bank as the clearing house for settling renminbi transactions there.

It’s no secret that Russia and China have employed a number of methods to slowly wean themselves off dollar dependency.

Russia became China’s largest energy exporter in February of last year after it agreed to accept payment in yuan.

The dollar is slowly losing its privileged place in international transactions.

We’re sure Washington is less than thrilled.

Posted in China, Russia0 Comments

What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did

Armée Ukraine USA

On March 23rd, Gallup headlined “South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering”, and the Ukrainian part of that can unquestionably be laid at the feet of U.S. President Barack Obama, who in February 2014 imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see it here), which he and his press misrepresented (and still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a ‘democratic revolution’, but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such misery, it’s now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire world.

America’s criminal ‘news’ media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine, and that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there, and that they hired members of Ukraine’s two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or “Svoboda” instead), and that in February 2014 they did it (and here’s the 4 February 2014 phone call instructing the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. ‘news’ media misrepresented as ‘democracy demonstrations,’ though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today’s U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine’s corruption — which instead actually soared after his coup there).

The head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor said it was “the most blatant coup in history” but he couldn’t say that to Americans, because he knows that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to George W. Bush’s equally unprovoked invasion of Iraq — for which America’s ‘news’ media suffered likewise no penalties).

When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was “I told the business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the most blatant coup in history,” As I pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view “the most blatant coup in history,” no conditionals on that.

Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton, and Sarkozy, did to Libya — in their zeal to eliminate yet another nation’s leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar al-Assad, another ally of Russia) — but the ‘news’ media have continued to hide what Obama (assisted by America’s European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by America’s apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.

I voted for Obama, partly because the insane McCain (“bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”) and the creepy Romney (“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe”) were denounced by the (duplicitous) Obama for saying such evil things, their aggressive international positions, which continued old Cold-War-era hostilities into the present, even after the Cold War had ended long ago (in 1991) (but only on the Russian side). I since have learned that in today’s American political system, the same aristocracy controls both of our rotten political Parties, and American democracy no longer exists. (And the only scientific study of whether America between the years 1981 and 2002 was democratic found that it was not, and it already confirmed what Jimmy Carter later said on 28 July 2015: “Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members.” But yet our Presidents continue the line, now demonstrably become a myth, of ‘American democracy’, and use it as a sledgehammer against other governments, to ‘justify’ invading (or, in Ukraine’s case, overthrowing via a ‘democratic revolution’) their lands (allies of Russia) such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and maybe even soon, Iran.

Here are some of the events and important historical details along the way to Ukraine’s plunge into a worse condition than most African nations:

“Yanukovych’s Removal Was Unconstitutional”

“Obama Definitely Caused The Malaysian Airliner To Be Downed”

“War on Donbass was planned to ignite a major war in Europe.”

“Our ‘Enemies’ In Ukraine Speak”

“Meet Ukraine’s Master Mass-Murderer: Dmitriy Yarosh”

“Ukrainian Soldier Explains Why He Enjoys Killing Russians”

“Russia’s Leader Putin Rejects Ukrainian Separatists’ Aim To Become Part Of Russia”

“Gallup: Ukrainians Loathe the Kiev Government Imposed by Obama”

Please send this article to every friend who is part of the majority that, as a Quinnipiac University poll published on March 22nd reported, “A total of 51 percent of voters say they can trust U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right ‘almost all of the time’ or ‘most of the time’” (and that level of trust was far higher than for the rotten press and for the rotten politicians), even after the CIA’s rubber-stamping Bush’s lies to invade Iraq, and after the FBI’s shameless performance on Hillary Clinton’s privatized State Department emails even after her smashing their cell-phones with hammers, etc., and all the other official cover-ups, with no American officials even so much as being charged for their rampant crimes against the American public.

Besides: ever since the CIA’s founding, it has had an “Operation Gladio” that specializes in organizing terrorist acts so as for them to be blamed on, first, communist countries when they existed; and, then, after the end of communism, on allies of Russia. Did the American dictatorship begin right after FDR died in 1945? How much longer will these lies succeed?

For the people of Iraq, and of Syria, and of Ukraine, and many such countries, this dictatorship has destroyed their lives. Trusting the ‘intelligence’ services of a dictatorship doesn’t make any sense at all. They’re all working for the aristocracy, the billionaires — not for any public, anywhere; not here, not there, just nowhere. Should the cattle trust the feedlot-operator? Only ignorance can produce trust, under the conditions that actually exist.

So, unless the idea is that ignorance is bliss, pass along the truth, when you find it, because it is very rare — and the system operates to keep it that way.

Posted in USA, Ukraine0 Comments

London Terrorist Attack: Westminster’s “Jihadis Come Home”

london attack

One year to the day after the Brussels terrorist attacks, a terrorist drove a car into Westminster parliament buildings killing four people and wounding several others. The British public are in shock.

Westminster is considered to be a monument to British ‘democracy’. The date 3/22 will be remembered among those who mourn over the skulls and bones of loved ones lost to terrorism.

Today, many of those mourners are in Syria. Just a few hours earlier, 50 destitute families staying at the al Badiya Dakhilya school in the village of Mansoura on the outskirts of Raqqa, were blown to pieces after an air strike by the ‘international coalition’. The Pentagon said it would “investigate” the atrocity.

The British Government and its Western partners were silent. Thirty-three people were murdered.

The United Nations – the international arm of US imperialism- was mute. The Syrian government asked them why. No answer was given.

On the same day, Al Nusra terrorists entered the village of Majdal, Northwest of Hama. Several women and children were reportedly killed. There are not enough reporters in Syria to cover all the atrocities committed almost every day by psychopathic killers the Western media calls ‘moderate rebels’.

Britain’s ‘jihad’ in Syria

In 2009, former French Foreign Minister, Roland Dumas attended a meeting in London with British government officials. They told him they were planning to send Jihadi terrorists into Syria to take over the country. It was part of Britain’s contribution to the Greater Israel project.

Israel’s quest for Middle East supremacy was outlined in a policy paper written by Israeli official Oded Yinon in 1982. The Yinon Plan involved fomenting civil war in Arab and Muslim countries in order to establish Israeli suzerainty over all its hostile neighbours. Like its partners in France and the United States, the British government is a whore of Israel.

Westminster was finalising a grand strategy for the Middle East which would combine people-power uprisings and covert snipers, followed by Takfiri terrorism. The US grand strategy for the Middle East was announced by former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005 in her speech before the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), where she proudly proclaimed that President George W. Bush had a “new policy” for the Middle East and North Africa.

The US launched an “unprecedented international venue for reform”, by training activists in social media and regime change tactics. The Centre for Non-Violent Actions and Strategies (CANVAS), Albert Einstein Institute, National Endowment for Democracy, International Republican Institute, Freedom House, Facebook, and many other CIA-affiliated US agencies brought about what came to be known as the “Arab Spring”. The American/Israeli plan for a New Middle East was fully backed by most soi-disant ‘anti-imperialists’, who couldn’t resist the romance and fantasy of revolution and “Marxists” waxed lyrical with “the masses make history”.

The consensus among the anti-war left that the Arab Spring was “spontaneous” and “popular” meant that NATO was able to carpet bomb Libya for 8 months, making the bombing look like a humanitarian intervention. Hundreds of thousands of civilians would perish. When Libya was destroyed, Syria was next on NATO’s target list. For 6 years this month, the Syrian Arab Republic has been fighting a war of national liberation from the international horde of Takfiri terrorists that British government officials were training in 2009 for deployment to the country.

The attacks on Westminster come at a time when Britain is set to “get tough” on immigration. Though Brexit holds out the possibility of economic and democratic progress in Britain – and immigration needs to be controlled and planned – reactionary forces and news outlets are increasingly pointing the finger at Muslims and Islam as the root of Britain’s problems. A similar process is taking hold in the United States and throughout the European Union.

Zionist terrorism

Since the Zionist false flag bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on the 22nd of July 1946, the Lavon Affair of 1954, the 911 attacks, the Brevik Massacre, and many others, Zionism has boldly carried out terrorist attacks and blamed them on Muslims or far right groups. The war on terror is a Zionist construct which is designed to goad the Western public into supporting foreign wars on behalf of Israeli interests, where recruits from Israel’s Gulf State partners are used as pawns and patsies in the infernal narrative of the “clash of civilisations”.

Today the terrorism or its simulacrum has struck Westminster. The script is typed on a well-worn palimpsest with exotic Arab names parroted in the non-stop media hysteria. Not until the public realises that the terrorists are, and always have been, inside the corridors of Westminster – an edifice that attests to the dictatorship of a decadent oligarchy over the toiling masses – will the reign of terror come to an end.

Posted in UK0 Comments

EU Is Trying To Restart the European Integration of the Western Balkans

Adelina Marini, Zagreb

There is some good news and some bad news for the Western Balkans in the past few weeks. The good news is that the European Union has finally come to realise that there is something rotten in the Balkans and has matured to a change in the narrative. The bad news is this is too late and too little. For months the region has been shaking in instability and so far just verbal conflicts, which are raising the tension to the levels of prior to the bloody disintegration of former Yugoslavia. Macedonia is imploding into a severe political crisis, which has the potential of becoming an inter-ethnic conflict, the tension between Croats, Serbs, and Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina has risen dangerously together with inflammatory rhetoric, unilateral provocative actions, and claims that Dayton is dead; Serbia is in a constant election campaign with the price constantly on the rise, thus emitting signals that inflame old wounds across the region. In addition, the campaign has a heavy geopolitical twist as well.

Montenegro is desperately trying to reach the NATO shores, but the long arm of Russia is trying to pull it back into the Russian sphere of influence through brutal interference in its domestic policy. Kosovo is a victim of its relationship with Serbia and the inability of its politicians to work in their nation’s best interest. Albanian politicians have finally realised what they need to do in order to walk out of the blockade that they themselves pushed the country in, but they got carried downstream by the geopolitical current. So, for the first time in the newest history of EU enlargement the European Council closed the year with no conclusions about candidate states. The overall global sense of insecurity is being felt much sharper in a region, which bears the label “powder keg” by no coincidence.

The Balkans can easily turn into a chess board

Tension in the region has first been noticed by the European Parliament, where Slovenian MEP Ivo Vajgl (ALDE) requested that a special debate were held in the foreign affairs committee, but it was conducted without the participation of key players. The wind of change came with the tour of the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini (Italy, Socialists and Democrats) through the six Balkan states in the beginning of March. Federica Mogherini’s goal was sending a few otherwise very important messages to the six countries, but her trip turned out to be a clash with reality and sobering up to the true problems these countries face. In Montenegro, her invitation to a debate was disregarded by the opposition, led by the Democratic Front, which has Russia’s support.

In Macedonia, her conversation with President Georgi Ivanov was long and hard, for she had to explain simple facts about what is democracy and convey a message by NATO boss Jens Stoltenberg in a similar spirit; in Serbia, on the other hand, her speech in the Skupština was accompanied by incessant shouts by Šešelj’s radicals in support of Russia and against the EU. The shouts did not cease for a full twenty minutes. The former Italian foreign minister dealt with it well undermining the performance by reminding that having been a member of the Italian parliament she is quite used to such scenes. Moreover, she said, such things are normal in other EU member states as well. “Maybe some of my interlocutors today in parliament were not ready to face the fact that I was ready to manage political relations in a complicated environment”, she said later at a joint press conference with Prime Minister Aleksandar Vučić, who was apologising profusely on behalf of Serbia.

Following her return from the Balkans tour Federica Mogherini admitted that for the first time she had realised the extent to which this region is exposed to various challenges and tension. “The Balkans can easily become one of the chess boards where big power game can be played”, she said following her report on the trip’s outcome to the EU foreign ministers. She also said that she is concerned about developments there, but at the same time expressed hope that a favourable outcome is still possible. “Yes, I came back from the Balkans worried in some cases but also full of optimism and hope because whenever you meet students, the citizens, civil society but also so many political and social forces in all the region you see the enormous support and trust in the EU”.

A sizable count of ministers also expressed concern about developments in the Balkans and even admitted that over the last few years the EU had practically pulled out of the region and the vacuum is being filled by other powers. Croatian Foreign Minister Davor Ivo Stier stated that the EU needs to get more committed to the Western Balkans. He was fully concentrated on explaining to his colleagues how serious the situation in BiH is and how important it is that leaders in the country be encouraged to commit to amendments to the election code by June. “The situation in the Western Balkans is such that it requires a much more pronounced commitment by the EU. There was also talk about having states outside the EU increase their presence over the last few years. It is important that the South-Eastern Europe region is not a territory of conflict, but of cooperation”, were the words of the Croatian minister, who avoided naming Russia, despite a journalist’s concrete question.

His French colleague Jean-Marc Ayrault expressed his concern about developments in the region, especially after last year’s regular meeting with the six countries in Paris in the framework of the Berlin process, which, in his words, was very constructive. He believes there is a possible risk of escalation, keeping in mind, however, that the region is in an election period. He urged for being moderate and constructive. The most critical was Slovakian Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajčák, who is a former EU representative for BiH. “Everyone pointed out the fact that recently the EU has abandoned the region and the result we see is a weakening of pro-European forces in those states and opening up space for other players, which is not normal”, he said following the foreign ministers’ meeting in Brussels on March 6.

Lajčák  added that the ministers agreed it is necessary to bring back trust in the enlargement process. “I do believe that this will have a clear effect on the region through our political presence, through having the process be less technical and more political, through us ceasing to pretend we are offering a European perspective and the states pretending they are seriously committed to reforms. And we start being serious with each other”, urged Slovakia’s top diplomat.

Ministers hailed the change in rhetoric which Federica Mogherini suggested. In the capital cities of the six Balkan states she explained that she does not like the term “enlargement”, but prefers the term “reuniting”. Another message she sent out was that the EU is what it is now because member states have chosen cooperation after World War Two, instead of confrontation. Her third and very important message was that her visit right after the presentation of the White paper on Europe’s future by Jean-Claude Juncker (Luxembourg, EPP) represents a wish for including the Western Balkans in this debate. Something euinside has called for in many articles.

A conclusion can be drawn from her visit that in a way she has given up on Balkan politicians, so she was focused on getting her messages through to the young people and civil society. In her speeches in front of university students she sent out an appeal to the young generation and the civil society to cease being patient and tell leaders what they want. “No, I am not calling for demonstrations, not at all”, she said, but reminded during her lecture in the University of Tirana that young people are not only the future, but the present as well.

She sent out similar messages in the rest of the countries. Federica Mogherini reminded that often the feeling is created that the process of European integration is being driven from the outside, by Brussels, by the institutions, but in fact it is a mutual choice. Brussels does have things to change, but countries of the Western Balkans too have a lot to do in order to become a society, to build institutions, independent judiciaries, to introduce the rule of law. “And it is a path that we walk together. It is about shared decision and a shared journey we do together”, she said.

The EU foreign ministers have approved the change in approach and narrative. In its conclusions, the Foreign Affairs Council placed an accent on the need for a more serious approach to the region’s population through public diplomacy, a better clarification of the benefits of the European way, namely the rule of law and transforming societies in an economic and social sense.

Juncker’s message was a mistake

The Western Balkans subject made it on the agenda of the EU spring summit, held on March 9. Leaders of the 28 member states discussed the issue over dinner. This is news by itself, only showing how deeply involved the EU is with developments in the Western Balkans region. In a way it also explains why the leaders’ message was a lot softer and more general. As weird as it may sound, the most engaged leader with this subject was British PM Theresa May, who stated prior to the dinner that she intended to share with her colleagues the extent of the danger of increasing instability in the region, which represents a risk to “our collective security”.

She also stated that she will call upon the international community to do more about fighting organised crime in the region. Theresa May paid special attention on Montenegro in the context of the failed coup d’etat attempt in October. “I will call for us to do more to counter the destabilising Russian disinformation campaigns and raise the visibility of the Western commitment to this region”, was the adamant stance of the prime minister of a country, which is expected any day now (March 29) to commence negotiations for leaving the Union. In this sense, there is one more message Federica Mogherini conveyed in the six states that needs noting. She assured that although Great Britain is about to leave, the EU will not stop at 27.

Theresa May backed her words with concrete actions by stating that the next summit, dedicated on the Western Balkans, will be held in Great Britain in 2018. This year the host will be Italy. According to European Council President Donald Tusk, the situation in the region is out of control, partly due to “unhealthy external influences, which have been destabilising several countries for some time”, he said prior to the start of the Western Balkans debate. Following their conversations, defined by many as being of high quality and constructive, leaders came up with a declaration, which is considerably below expectations. In a few sentences it says that the region is unstable, that it is important to continue on the road of reforms and good neighbourly relations and regional cooperation. At the end, it reaffirms the European perspective of the countries of the region.

European Parliament President Antonio Tajani (EPP, Italy) stated that the region needs more Europe and a stronger commitment to political and Economic cooperation. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker in turn had to answer the uncomfortable journalist question about his 2014 statement that there will be no further enlargement within the duration of his term in office. “I don’t think this was a mistake, when I announced back in July 2014 that there will be no enlargement during the mandate of this Commission, because, as a matter of fact, no candidate country is ready to join. We didn’t stop enlargement negotiations. I have appointed a commissioner for enlargement negotiations, Mr Hahn, and he’s doing a good job”, was his reply.

Several days later during a debate in the European Parliament Mr Juncker did however admit that his 2014 statement did in fact cause confusion in the Balkans and that the region is the most complicated in Europe. He appealed for a restart of the European integration process. Most leaders, however, concentrated on the external influence on countries of the region. According to Angela Merkel, the European perspective of the Western Balkans is there, but it is not unconditional. Currently, Russia and Turkey are trying to take advantage of the situation in the region, but the EU needs to continue with its projects. “I think it is very important that we make it clear that we as member states of EU not only take an interest in this particular region but want to draw it ever closer into the European fold”, was the message of the German chancellor.

Italian Prime Minister Paolo Gentiloni also pointed out that there is no way to overlook the “fundamental interests of geopolitical factors” in the region. He believes the geopolitical risk and increase of other risks is absolutely plausible. “The problem is not when which country will join the EU. The problem is sending a clear message that the road to accession is open”, he said following the end of the summit on March 10.

What does European perspective mean?

Actually, despite statements, the European Council again is somewhat distanced in a situation that requires much more than a confirmation of the European perspective – a vocabulary, which had some meaning back in the distant year 2003, when it was used at the Thessalonнki summit. A lot has changed since then and the bets have risen considerably. It is a fact that most countries in the region are walking along the European path, but it is also true that instability has come back and with it the destabilising external factors. Geopolitical shifts in turn have reminded the European elite how strategically important they are for the continent.

The EU blueprint for European integration does not work well in a region with so many inherited and unsolved problems, the main one being the constant pushing off of democracy and fallbacks to the past. It is also difficult to implement under such geopolitical pressure. Ten years after the Thessalonнki summit, when a full support was stated for the European perspective of Balkan states, there already was a need for restarting the process. The European enlargement commissioner at the time, Štefan Füle (Czech Republic, Socialists and Democrats), attempted to breathe new life into enlargement, for the process was practically completely stopped. His attempt turned out not to be too successful, because it was not supported loud and clear at the highest level – by the European Council, where Greece’s veto on negotiations with Macedonia brought the former Yugoslav republic to a failed state condition.

During her visit to Skopje Federica Mogherini established that the political crisis in the country could grow into an inter-ethnic conflict. A thing we all thought was avoided during the disintegration of former Yugoslavia. And now, instead of Macedonia being on the threshold of membership, or even a member already (it was supposed to begin negotiations in 2005 together with Croatia), the country is in a precarious situation. This is a lesson that could cost the EU itself dearly as well, not just Macedonian people. The EU slept through developments in Serbia as well, believing its mediation in the dialogue between Belgrade and Priština is a totally sufficient condition for dealing with the situation. However, this is a dialogue that could go on endlessly if the final goal is not talked through – recognition of Kosovo or something else? If it is something else – what would it be? Such procrastination of making a decision on an issue that is constantly fuelling the fire and being used by irresponsible politicians for gaining electoral dividends will later be paid with interest on top.

In Montenegro, the EU found itself in the uncomfortable position of choosing between a democrature with a pro-European facade and Russia. And having Kosovo be the sole problem for the EU in Serbia, the Union slept through the ticking bomb in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In this sense, closest to a real assessment of the situation was the Slovak Foreign Minister Miroslav Lajčák, who stuck a finger in the wound – we are pretending to be integrating them and they are pretending of being integrated. As this website has reported on numerous occasions, the current accession blueprint just does not work in such a complicated and geopolitically loaded environment. The EU will have to do much more than agreeing on a declaration, reaffirming the European perspective of these countries, whose leaders are using this perspective only for electoral purposes.

First off, an end must be put once and for all to the power of veto of a single member being used as a tool for resolution of bilateral issues. A second step should be the increased presence of high-ranking European officials, who are to talk in detail about what the EU is already doing for citizens. Such an attempt was made by Federica Mogherini, when she explained in the Serbian parliament what the size of European investments in the country is. Later, the Serbian PM added to her statement by saying that Germany alone is providing jobs to 33 thousand people in Serbia, Italy – 23 thousand, and Austria – 20 thousand. The EU is the most secure market, further stated Mr Vučić. The decision of Mrs Mogherini to address predominantly the young and the civil society is a good idea, which needs to be continued, but this does not discard looking for an approach towards the political elite as well.

The EU also needs to consider investing in a medium, which would have its own profile and which would be working in the local languages, similar to already existing Al Jazeera Balkans and N1. The function of this medium needs to be fighting the disinformation and Russian propaganda by providing correct information about the EU, the enlargement process in detail, European investments in these countries, the movement of local citizens towards the EU, their educational opportunities in the EU etc. This is the best way of ensuring more visibility of the EU in this region.

The EU is about to enter a new phase of discussing its future. This debate has to be carried through at the highest level in the six Balkan states as well, so that opposition forces and the civil society can be drawn into it. Lastly, European parties and political leaders need to quit supporting failed politicians and parties. This never ends well. Last but not least, the situation in the Balkans needs to be monitored on a much more regular basis than it currently is and reports are to be made to foreign ministers and leaders in the European Council at each of their meetings.

The EP foreign affairs committee is inviting high-ranking representatives of some countries more and more often, but much more can and needs to be done – plenary hearings of these countries’ leaders, the opposition, and members of the civil society following what is being done regularly for Hungary or Poland. This would allow for hearing points of view, which are being silenced by the controlled media environment in these states.

Translated by Stanimir Stoev

Posted in Europe, Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia0 Comments

Keeping The “Counter-terrorism” Myth And The Islamic State Alive

Mideast Islamic State Syrian Stronghold

Joint Syrian-Russian-Iranian operations against foreign-funded and armed militant groups across Syrian territory have incrementally dismantled and frustrated the fighting capacity of groups including the so-called Islamic State, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and a myriad of other fronts coordinated and arrayed from abroad against Damascus.

With the Russian intervention in late 2015, considerable air power was applied to these militant fronts’ logistical lines extending beyond Syria’s borders. As the supplies were cut, Syrian forces and their allies were able to isolate and eliminate one stronghold after another.

Now, many of these groups face defeat within Syria, prompting their foreign sponsors into two courses of action – posing as the forces responsible for their defeat as the US and Turkey are attempting to do amid their respective, illegal incursions into Syrian territory, and creating a narrative to serve as cover for the evacuation and harboring of these militant groups elsewhere for future use.

Terrorist Organizations are Empire’s Modern Mercenaries 

Just before and since the fall of the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century, Anglo-American interests have cultivated militant groups across its territory to divide and conquer the entire region – contributing toward Washington and London’s greater global hegemonic ambitions.

The terrorist organization known as Al Qaeda, created in part from the shattered remains of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood defeated by Hafez Al Assad in the 1980’s, would be deployed next to Afghanistan after their foreign-backed bid to overthrow the Syrian government failed.

Since then, Al Qaeda has participated in NATO operations in the Balkans, across the Middle East and North Africa, and even as far as Asia. The group operates as both a casus belli for Western intervention globally, and as a proxy force able to wage war against governments Western military forces are unable to confront directly as was the case in Libya and currently in Syria.


Al Qaeda and its various subsidiaries and affiliates – including the Islamic State – also serve in an auxiliary capacity such as in Yemen where they hold territory taken by mechanized forces from Persian Gulf invaders.

While Western narratives attempt to portray these militant fronts as independent terrorist organizations operating beyond both international law and the reach of superior Western military and intelligence capabilities, in reality, this narrative is cover for what is obvious state sponsored proxy terrorism and militancy.

The United States has all but admitted its role in the creation of these organizations as well as their ongoing role in their perpetuation. The use of US allies including Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to launder money, weapons, training, and other forms of political and material support through has also been extensively documented.

Keeping the Myth and the Islamic State Alive

RAND Corporation representatives recently penned an editorial in Fortune titled, Why A Dying Islamic State Could Be An Even Bigger Threat To America,” in which they attempt to explain how, despite the Islamic State losing its territorial holdings in Syria and Iraq, the organization will continue to operate and pose as a menace to global security.

In reality, the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, and other fronts will continue to persist for one sole reason – the immense multinational state sponsorship they receive from the United States, NATO, and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC).

The Fortune editorial claims:

The liberation of Mosul and Raqqa are important initial steps in diminishing the threat from the Islamic State. Without an actual state, the Islamic State will likely lose a substantial amount of its appeal. Without a secure territorial base to operate from, it may have a harder time organizing external attacks. Yet the Islamic State, like al Qaeda before it, will continue to metastasize and seek to spread its influence once it loses its home base.

The RAND authors also claim:

If the Islamic State is to be defeated and stay defeated, military measures will need to be combined with economic, technical, and political assistance designed to improve state and local capacity. Popular grievances that have given rise to extremist movements need to be better addressed. These are not steps the United States should take alone, but Washington should lead in assembling and guiding donor coalitions working with each of the affected countries. 

However, it is difficult to believe that self-proclaimed professional policymakers and experts failed to consider the source of the Islamic State’s fighting capacity – its extensive state sponsorship. No mention is made of this in the editorial, nor is any mention of this made by US, NATO, or GCC politicians, military planners, analysts, or other policymakers. It is an open secret guarded carefully with repetitive editorials and news pieces like the aforementioned RAND piece in Fortune.

With US-NATO-GCC plans frustrated in Syria by a formidable military coalition, the special interests driving this axis will inevitably seek to deploy their proxy forces where such coalitions cannot reach. Current efforts to divide and disrupt socioeconomic and political stability across all of Asia would be served well by the inclusion of veteran terrorists and militants escaping from Syrian-Russian-Iranian forces in the Middle East.

Defiant nations in Southeast Asia in particular, may find local political brush fires turned into infernos with the inclusion of the Islamic State’s shifting ranks. In Myanmar, US-Saudi backed militants are already attempting to expand violence surrounding the Rohingya crisis, likely in an attempt to create a pretext for a permanent US military presence in the country aimed at further driving a wedge between Myanmar and neighboring China.

In Thailand, inflaming its lengthy southern insurgency by transforming it from a political struggle into the same sort of intentionally sectarian and destructive conflict that has consumed Libya and Syria could help Washington rein in Bangkok. A similar strategy is likely already under way in the Philippines.

Seeing through the myth, and exposing the true nature of the Islamic State and other terrorist organizations as proxy forces serving multinational special interests, is the most important, and perhaps only way of protecting against the use of such groups to geopolitically coerce, divide, and destroy nations.

Building formidable coalitions both on the battlefield and in information space is also essential in confronting and overcoming such tactics. Attempting to capitulate to Western narratives in fear of alienating public opinion does not eliminate the treat of militant fronts entering into and destroying a nation – in fact – it only further emboldens such efforts. Nations like Libya which attempted to appease Western interests by joining the so-called “War on Terror” no longer exist as functioning states.

In the coming months, as pressure grows on Western proxies operating in Syria and Iraq, editorials like that featured in Fortune will multiply. It is important to expose what the West attempts to portray as inevitable retreat conducted solely by terrorist organizations as the Western-enabled evacuation and redeployment it truly is.

Posted in USA, Europe0 Comments

Far-Right Brighton Labour Councillor resigns from Labour Party

Far-Right Brighton Labour Councillor resigns from Labour Party citing ‘anti-Semitism’ as his excuse
Cllr. Inkpin-Leissner refuses to stand for re-election as Brighton councillor
Inkpin deserts the sinking ship that is the current Labour Administration of Brighton & Hove Council

I was first alerted to the resignation of Councillor Michael Inkpin-Leissner when I was visiting the site of the McCarthyite Zionist Campaign for Anti-Semitism.  There is, as many of you will be aware a petition calling on the Charity Commission to deregister this political organisation which is almost certainly funded by the Israeli state.

Inkpin-Leissner is a councillor for the ward where the unemployed centre, which I founded, used to be based.  It is a very deprived ward of Brighton and the New Labour politics of Inkpin have done nothing to help regenerate it, quite the contrary.  Inkpin is and remains a supporter of the New Labour Brighton and Hove Council which is led by Progress supporter Warren Morgan, who was behind the suspension of the District Labour Party in July last year.

I have posted a response on Inkpin’s facebook page though I doubt it will stay up too long!  Inkpin describes himself as an ‘armed forces champion’ – in other words a militarist who will support any amount of imperialist wars using his fake concern for individual soldiers as his prop to lean upon.  As I make clear below, anyone seriously concerned with members of the armed forces would be campaigning against imperialist wars abroad, but that would go against his New Labour politics.

As is to be expected of such a person, Inkpin won’t be resigning citing ‘a lot of local residents with diverse political opinions’ who voted for him.  Of course he forgets to say that they voted for him as a Labour candidate and if he is so confident of their support then why not see at a by-election?

Statement in Response to that of Cllr. Michael Inkpin-Leissner

Your statement says nothing at all. There is no content worthy of the name. This is shallowness beyond measure and an indication of the vacuity of what is left of New Labour.
It might be quite strange to you but New Labour’s continental equivalents have not been a shining success. In the Netherlands last week a massive defeat for the Blairite Labour Party. In France the Socialist Party under Hollande is in melt down. In Germany, as you say, it is Die Linke, which is the flame for the Left. You offer nothing but the continuation of a system, yes capitalism, which plunders and despoils.
Your concern about ‘anti-Semitism’ is touching and entirely misplaced. Anti-semitism is a marginal prejudice in this society. Unlike you I am Jewish and having lived my childhood in non-Jewish working class areas of Britain I can testify that I never experienced it. Nor have I ever experienced it on the Left or in the Labour Party.
How the far-Right Zionist Campaign for Anti-Semitism sees Inkpin’s resignation
Please do not use Jewish people as an excuse for your own far-Right political leanings. The lesson of the holocaust is that all forms of racism are wrong and should be fought. Your New Labour friends pioneered Islamaphobia in this country and demonised Muslims.
With your war in Iraq and Afghanistan you brought terrorism, which we have seen today, onto the streets of Britain. What you called ‘monsters’ were summoned into being by the monstrous wars that you and your ilk supported.
What you and others mean by ‘anti-Semitism’ is opposition to Zionism and the Israeli state. A state which only recently demolished an Arab/Bedouin village Umm al Hiran, in Israel proper, in order to make way for a Jewish town. It would be futile to describe the system of military oppression on the West Bank, the shackliing and torture of children, the house demolitions etc. because you after all supported the continuing war crime that began with the invasion of Iraq.
It is incidentally no accident that in the USA, with the advent of Trump and his white supremacist friends in Breitbart and the alt-RIght, that anti-Semitism has indeed increased exponentially. That was why my anti-Zionist friends in Jewish Voices for Peace and other Jewish leftists picketed the meeting in November last year where Steve Bannon, Trump’s new Strategic Advisor and former CEO of Breitbart was due to speak. In the end hundreds of anti-racist Jews prevented him speaking. Whose was the meeting he had been invited to? The Zionist Organisation of America! It is no accident that whereas the Israeli government is happy to condemn ‘anti-Semitism’ in Britain it has failed to say a word about the very real anti-Semitism of Trump’s administration. Zionism and anti-Semitism are and always were merely different sides of the same coin.
It is a pity that you, being German, should use your guilt complex as a way of expiating Israel’s racist crimes. Some of see in what Israel does a continuation of the Nazi regime. In Israel, as under the 1935 Nuremburg Laws, a Jew cannot marry a non-Jew. Or perhaps demolishing a non-Jewish house to make way for a Jewish home is your idea of penance?
You speak of your ‘never ending support for members of the British Armed Forces’. It is no surprise that cheap jingoism and militarism is your political refuge. Patriotism always was the refuge of the political scoundrel. If your support was at all sincere you would have opposed Blair’s wars of imperialism and the war that we are currently supporting against the people of Yemen.
The British army does not have a proud record – be it in Ireland, India Kenya or indeed Iraq, where it carried out the world’s first ever bombing of civilians in 1920. When members of the armed forces have done their duty they are left, in many cases, to live in poverty, in prison or to die on the streets. That is what your ‘support’ for the armed forces really amounts to. The resources used for war could, of course be used to peaceful activities but that would defeat your whole political purpose.
I suspect that neither the Labour Party nor your own electors will regret your resignation but if you had the courage of your convictions then you would restand in your ward and give all those ‘ local residents with diverse political opinions’ a chance to decide whether to support you now that you have dispensed with the political party that enabled you to be elected in the first place!
I shall put this on other sites in case this doesn’t stay up too long.
Please find here my personal statement regarding my resignation from the Labour Party:
When I joint the Labour Party it was a natural choice for me as a Social Democrat from Germany. Labour was a proud pro European Movement.
The current Leadership of the Labour Party seems to have forgotten that. The lukewarm stance to defend the European Nationals by the Parliamentary Labour Group ( I applaud the Lords on this occasion) made me feel more and more uncomfortable to be a part of the Labour Party.
When I joined the Labour Party it was a centre-left Party like the German SPD.
Now it has been taken over by left-wingers and the Momentum extremists, who are working to build an axis with former German Communists “Die Linke”.

As a German, and you will understand, I can never support this and never will compromise my stance against any form of antisemitism. Unfortunately the position of the Labour Party, though there are strong personalities standing up against antisemitism, seems to be not really sincere anymore, proven by the lackluster investigation of Baroness Chakrabarti. I have lost my faith in Labour fighting Antisemitism and for Europe.

I know, fellow councillors made it clear that I should ignore these temporary issues and focus on local politics. But I have to strongly disagree. As a Labour Member in the public eye I was connected to what the current leadership says and stands for. This is why I have to walk away from this party. In my two remaining years as independent councillor I shall focus on my local support and activities in my ward. Some of you will state that I should resign as a Councillor. I disagree on this as not only Labour supporters voted for me but a lot of local residents with diverse political opinions. I shall honour my obligations to them. I was elected to support a Labour Administration.

Where agreed I shall support the current administration under Warren Morgan’s leadership. As we know from the Budget debate the Greens are politically reliable unreliable and the Tories are… well the Tories.

Of course there was already the usual political procedure. GMB, Unite and Corbyn supporters as well as Tories and Greens demanded my complete resignation. Sorry to disappoint you. This city has a stable and reliable administration. I will not support any change to that. Brighton and Hove deserves better than blind ideology from the very Corbynite/Green left or the Bombastic Boris Mayhem right.

I can’t express my gratitude for so many messages of support: members of the Jewish community and other faith groups, members of different political parties, fellow councillors from all over the country.

Now what’s next: I finally can speak free on what annoyed me most as resident in my ward and elsewhere: The abuse of the HMO system, the chaos on Lewes road,my neighbourhood, a lot of other local issues and my never ending support for members of the British Armed Forces, Veterans, their families and carers.

Posted in UK0 Comments

‘Unlike any city we’ve ever seen’: New images of Stalin-era


‘Unlike any city we’ve ever seen’: New images of Stalin-era Moscow released from US ‘spy’ archive

‘Unlike any city we’ve ever seen’: New images of Stalin-era Moscow released from US ‘spy’ archive
More uncensored photos and videos from the archive of Major Martin Manhoff, a US embassy official in the USSR who was expelled for spying, have been released, providing a look at Moscow from an era when the Iron Curtain was at its most impenetrable.

For the first time, the released artifacts, which were discovered in a Seattle attic by historian Douglas Smith decades after Manhoff’s death, include not just images, but the forthright first-hand observations of the diplomat’s wife, Jan.

© Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Unique, uncensored color footage of Stalin’s funeral shot by US diplomat unearthed (VIDEO)

“The whole culture and physical picture is so foreign to anything upon which we can build comparison that it becomes almost impossible. It is like an initiation into a life that is too unique to make sense anywhere else,” Jan wrote in a letter home in September 1952, months after arriving in the Soviet capital.

Manhoff’s posting coincided with the tumultuous ambassadorship of George F. Kennan, the author of the famed Long Telegram and de-factor architect of Washington’s containment policy towards the USSR. Kennan was booted out in September of 1952, just six months into his role, for comparing living in the Soviet city with his imprisonment by the Nazis.

Jan’s letters testify to the frustrations of being a foreigner and representative of an arch-nemesis in a totalitarian state.

“We can drive nowhere except around Moscow proper. And even in Moscow we are not allowed to drive our own car, but must use a Russian chauffeur at all times. We have never been inside a Russian home nor can ever expect to be,” she complains in one letter, which, like the rest of the archive, is being published by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

“One very seldom hears in this country what one can do. It is always what you are not allowed to do,” she writes in another.

Yet despite these apparent restrictions, her husband was determined enough to capture plenty of footage, both from the balcony of the US embassy – where he filmed the funeral of Joseph Stalin in 1953 – and various other vantage points around the city.

Many of his photographs show uncensored candid street scenes, but the recently-released video also gives insight into a country that was still changing rapidly.

Temporary barracks and crumbling houses with blown-out windows, likely not replaced since World War II, and washing lines hanging outside are shot next to the construction sites of the Seven Sisters, the iconic Soviet-style high-rises that were built in just six years, between 1947 and 1953, and continue to define Moscow’s skyline today.

Photograph from Martin Manhoff archive, used with the permission of Douglas Smith / Facebook

“Moscow is unlike any city we have ever seen. It is neither Western, Eastern, or European. Most of the architecture is eighteenth and nineteenth century eclectic, while practically all the new buildings, the ‘Moscow skyscrapers’ are like New York’s,” writes Jan.

“But amongst all this are great numbers of two and three, and one story log buildings. Most are covered with a facing of plaster on lath so that the log construction is not apparent except where the plaster has fallen off. As confusing as this sounds is as confusing as it is to attempt to describe Moscow,” she wrote.

With his talent for producing photos and steady footage with his high-quality cameras, it can be speculated that Manhoff was recruited for his ability to take more than just tourist snaps, which may have attracted unwanted attention from his security handlers.

In any case, it was a trove of documents allegedly discovered abandoned on a train that led to his expulsion along with three other diplomats in 1954. Douglas Smith has promised to shed more light on this still-mysterious incident in a future release from the archive, scheduled for April.

Posted in Russia0 Comments

Stephen Pollard, David Duke and Victor Ostrovsky

Image result for Jewish press LOGO
By Gilad Atzmon 

From the Jewish press we learn that Britain’s House of Commons Home Affairs Committee has summoned executives from Google, Twitter and Facebook for a hearing in order to slam the social media giants for failing to block ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-Semitic’ content from their platforms. It seems that Labour MP Yvette Cooper took issue with the refusal of YouTube to remove a video in which David Duke accused Jewish people of “organizing white genocide” and Zionists of conducting ethnic cleansing.

I’m left wondering, what it is that motivates British MPs to launch a war against freedom of speech?

Can MP Yvette Cooper or any other British MP for that matter, tell us, once and for all, what exactly are the boundaries of our freedom of expression? Is calling Israel an ethnic cleanser a crime in the UK? But what if Israel is an ethnic cleanser? Is truth not a valid legal defence in modern Britain?

Astonishingly, it was, of all people, Stephen Pollard, Britain’s arch-Zionist and editor of the Jewish Chronicle who stood up for Duke’s elementary freedoms. In The Telegraph Pollard wrote. It’s clear that the video is indeed antisemitic. In it, Mr Duke says: ‘The Zionists have already ethnically cleansed the Palestinians, why not do the same thing to Europeans and Americans as well? No group on earth fights harder for its interests than do the Jews. By dividing a society they can weaken it and control it.’ So there’s no debate that this is Jew hate in all its traditional poison.”

Is it really hateful to admit that Zionists ethnically cleansed Palestine? By now, this is an established historical fact that is sustained by current Israeli Law of Return, designed to prevent ethnically cleansed Palestinians from coming back to their land. Is it really hateful to suggest, as does David Duke that “no group on earth fights harder for its interests than do the Jews.” In fact, Yvette Cooper’s grilling of the Google CEO on behalf of the Labour Friends of Israel only confirms Duke’s observation.

I’m left wondering whether George Orwell was, in fact,  the last of the prophets. After all, he did foresee British Labour transitioning into a tyrannical institution.

Yet, later on in his piece, Pollard, takes an unexpected turn. He clearly accepts that interfering with elementary freedom is a dangerous development:  “Had the video told viewers that their duty was to seek out Jews and attack them – as many posts on social media do – then clearly it should be banned. Incitement to violence is an obvious breach of any coherent set of standards.” Pollard then concludes that banning views simply because many, or even most, people find them abhorrent is a form of mob rule dressed up in civilised clothes.”

I find myself in complete agreement with this ultra-Zionist: “mob rule dressed up in civilised clothes” is a poetic, yet still truthful, description of current progressive populism. Incitement to violence should obviously be strictly banned, but if we wish to maintain Western ‘values’ then surely open debate in our system must be sustained. If Yvette Cooper doesn’t agree with Duke, she should invite him to the House of Commons and challenge him to debate rather than using her political power to silence him, or anyone else.

But one question remains. What led Yvette Cooper to operate so openly in the service of one particular Lobby group.  I guess that veteran Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky may have an answer to offer…

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UK0 Comments

Shoah’s pages


March 2017
« Feb