Archive | January 31st, 2018

The Trump Administration Just Shut Off All Food and Water Aid to Puerto Rico

When Hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico last September no one could anticipate that four months later the island would still be needing food and water aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), but with a quarter of the island still without reliable access to electricity and with clean running water still unavailable in many rural areas, some island residents are still reliant on FEMA to stay alive.

Their lifeline will be disappearing shortly, however, as NPR reports that FEMA will be ceasing humanitarian aid in just two days at the end of January. FEMA has announced that it will “officially shut off” its mission after providing more than 30 million gallons of drinking water and nearly 60 million meals across the island since the disaster began. Any remaining food and water supplies will be given to the Puerto Rican government for distribution.

The agency reached its decision after its internal analyses concluded that only about one percent of Puerto Rican residents still need its help, but that still leaves about 34 thousand people in desperate circumstances primarily in isolated rural areas.

FEMA claims that between the island government-run Puerto Rico Emergency Management Agency (PREMA) and non-profits such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army those people will still receive aid, but local residents place little trust in PREMA to deliver the aid as reliably and efficiently as the federal agency.

Another reason that FEMA has given for the cessation of humanitarian aid is the fact that people getting free food and water are not going to supermarkets to buy groceries, preventing the local economy from returning to normal. The agency will be continuing to provide financial assistance with the aim of boosting the troubled island’s economy.

The question remains, if this was Texas, Louisiana, or Florida rather than Puerto Rico, would FEMA be withdrawing food aid with so many people still affected? With a President who has repeatedly demonstrated his contempt for anyone but English speaking white people, it hard not to harbor suspicions that this is just another racist decision by Trump.

Posted in USA, Puerto RicoComments Off on The Trump Administration Just Shut Off All Food and Water Aid to Puerto Rico

US-Turkey, Allies or “Former Allies”? Ankara Orders Washington to ‘Immediately Withdraw’ from Manbij


Turkey has urged the US to “immediately withdraw” from Manbij in northern Syria, Saturday, sparking expectations that Turkish forces will imminently attack the town as part of its “Olive Branch” offensive against Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) militia. 

Hours earlier, Ankara claimed the US pledged to stop arming the YPG, amid strained ties between the two allies during Turkey’s offensive in Kurdish northern Syria.

“It’s necessary for them [US] to immediately withdraw from Manbij,” Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said.

The Turkish presidency announced earlier on Saturday that Washington would “not give weapons to the YPG” militia, relaying a phonecall on Friday evening between US National Security Advisor HR McMaster told Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin. Turkey launched “Operation Olive Branch” on 20 January against the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Units militia, supporting Syrian opposition fighters – including the Free Syrian Army – with ground troops, armour, artillery and air strikes.

Erdogan declared on Friday his intention to expand the offensive first to the town on Manbij, and subsequently all the way to the Iraqi border.

He said this was in order to annihilate “terrorists” in the region, referring to the YPG. Relations between NATO allies Ankara and Washington have been hugely strained by the offensive, with Washington urging restraint as civilian and military casualties mount.

Washington also fears Turkey’s offensive will impact the US-led coalition’s fight against the Islamic State group in the region.One of the major issues marring relations between the two countries was the US supplying the YPG with weapons for its fight against IS, which the US has done since May 2017.

The 50,000-strong YPG has been a key ally of the US in eradicating the jihadi group from northern Syria, as part of the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).

With the support of the US-led coalition’s air power and special forces, the SDF led the battle last year against IS during which the militants lost their de facto capital of Raqqa.

During Friday’s phone call between McMaster and Kalin, officials cited Turkey’s “legitimate security concerns” over Kurdish control of northern Syria, and the pair agreed to coordinate closely in order to prevent misunderstandings, the presidency said in a statement.

The call came just days after Washington and Ankara bitterly contested each other’s accounts of a telephone conversation between Erdogan and US President Donald Trump.

A White House statement said Trump urged Turkey to “limit its military actions” in Afrin.

However, this was contested by a Turkish official who said that Erdogan had told his US counterpart of his intention to target Manbij.

Furthermore, Turkish officials said in November that Trump had promised to stop supplying arms to the YPG but said such action was never taken.

Ankara designates the YPG is a “terrorist” offshoot of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), which is proscribed as a terror group by Ankara and its Western allies.

The PKK has waged an over three-decade insurgency against the Turkish state in order to obtain autonomy, which was met with brutal and bloody crackdowns, resulting in about 40,000 people being killed since the 1980s.

Although many admire Turkey’s ardent support of the Syrian opposition and their rights in the face of the tyrannical Assad regime, many have called in to question Turkey’s ruthless treatment of the Kurds.

Posted in USA, TurkeyComments Off on US-Turkey, Allies or “Former Allies”? Ankara Orders Washington to ‘Immediately Withdraw’ from Manbij

Turkish Troops Seen Wearing Patch of Terrorist Free Syrian Army


Turkish soldiers have been seen wearing a patch of the Terrorist Free Syrian Army (FSA) on their uniforms while operating in Syria’s northwest canton of Afrin where they leading a coalition of militants against the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). 

This comes as a Syrian MP has claimed that their are very few Turkish soldiers actually involved in operations against the YPG. Details can be read here.

It must be remembered that this means Turkish soldiers are wearing a patch of a flag that has on innumerable occasions been displayed needs to the like of ISIS and Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra.


Challenging the “Establishment”. The West Supports Terrorism

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Turkish Troops Seen Wearing Patch of Terrorist Free Syrian Army

Humanity Teeters on the Brink of World War


According to The Economist


The Economist magazine, the influential London weekly described by Karl Marx over 150 years ago as the “European organ” of the “aristocracy of finance,” has devoted its latest issue to discussing “The Next War” and “The Growing Threat of Great Power Conflict.” Its lead editorial opens with a chilling warning:

In the past 25 years war has claimed too many lives. Yet even as civil and religious strife have raged in Syria, central Africa, Afghanistan and Iraq, a devastating clash between the world’s great powers has remained almost unimaginable.

No longer … powerful, long-term shifts in geopolitics and the proliferation of new technologies are eroding the extraordinary military dominance that America and its allies have enjoyed. Conflict on a scale and intensity not seen since the second world war is once again plausible. The world is not prepared.

The Economist envisages a dystopian, violent future, with the American military deploying to intimidate or destroy purported challenges to its dominance everywhere.

The Economist predicts that in the next 20 years “climate change, population growth and sectarian or ethnic conflict” are likely to ensure that much of the world descends into “intrastate or civil wars.” Such conflicts will increasingly be fought at “close quarters, block by block” in cities ringed by “slums” and populated by millions of people. The future for large sections of humanity is the carnage that was witnessed during last year’s murderous battles over the Iraqi city of Mosul and the Syrian city of Aleppo.

But more chilling are the series of scenarios it outlines for a major escalation in tensions between the United States and Russia and China, presented as Washington’s strategic adversaries, which at any moment threaten to spiral into a nuclear holocaust.

In July of 2016, Mehring Books published David North’s A Quarter Century of War, which noted:

Beginning with the first Persian Gulf conflict of 1990-91, the United States has been at war continuously for a quarter century. While using propaganda catchphrases, such as defense of human rights and War on Terror, to conceal the real aims of its interventions in the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa, as well as its confrontation with Russia and China, the United States has been engaged in a struggle for global hegemony. As the US seeks to counteract its economic weakness and worsening domestic social tensions, its relentless escalation of military operations threatens to erupt into a full-scale world war, between nuclear-armed states.

Less than two years later, much of this assessment has been echoed by one of the most significant political organs of Anglo-American capitalism. But the conclusions drawn by the Economist, speaking as the unalloyed representative of financial and corporate oligarchs whose wealth is bound up with American imperialist global dominance, are the exact opposite of North’s stated aim of helping build a “new antiwar movement.”

Rather, the Economist urges the United States to develop the “hard power” to defend itself against “determined and able challengers,” presenting the sociopathic argument that peace is best safeguarded by America’s ability to utterly destroy its adversaries.

The premise of the special report is that urgent action must be taken by the United States to stem the decline of its hegemony. It asserts that if the Chinese and Russian ruling classes are permitted to realise their ambition of dominant influence in their own regions, the “plausible” consequence will be a “devastating clash between the world’s great powers”—a world war fought with nuclear weapons.

China and Russia, its editorial in the January 27 edition declares, “are now revisionist states that want to challenge the status quo and look at their regions as spheres of influence to be dominated. For China, that means East Asia; for Russia, eastern Europe and Central Asia.”

The conclusion advanced by the Economist is that America must end “20 years of strategic drift” under successive administrations, which has allegedly “played into the hands of Russia and China.” In a series of articles, its special report advocates that the US spend staggering sums on new nuclear weapons and conventional weapons systems, including robotic and artificial intelligence (AI) technology, to ensure that it retains the military superiority that has, until now, inspired “fear in its foes.”

It warns: “The pressing danger is of war on the Korean peninsula, perhaps this year … Tens of thousands of people would perish, many more if nukes were used.”

The US military is ready to launch such a war. It has B-2 and B-52 nuclear-capable bombers forward deployed at Guam, and hundreds of jet fighters and an armada of warships in other Pacific bases. There is ample reason to believe that the confrontation Washington has provoked with North Korea, through its demand that Pyongyang give up its nuclear weapons program, is a massive rehearsal for a future nuclear stand-off with China.

The Economist opines that “a war to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons seems a more speculative prospect for now, but could become more likely a few years hence.”

It asserts that the US is threatened by the so-called “grey zone” in which China, Russia, Iran and other countries are seeking to “exploit” American “vulnerabilities” in parts of the world without provoking an open conflict. It gives as examples Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and Iran’s political influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.

US imperialist meddling, however, is considered entirely legitimate by the Economist. In Syria, the US has overseen seven years of civil war for regime-change to overthrow the Russian- and Iranian-backed government. Washington’s announcement this month that it intends to effectively occupy one third of the country and assemble a 30,000-strong proxy army from Kurdish and Islamist militias has created conditions for direct clashes not only with Iran and Russia, but also with its nominal NATO ally Turkey.

Predictably, amid the frenzied moves in the US and internationally to impose state control and censorship over the Internet, the journal accuses Russia of seeking to “undermine faith in Western institutions and encourage populist movements by meddling in elections and using bots and trolls on social media to fan grievances and prejudice.”

Technology companies, it insists, must be even more integrated with the military, while Internet corporations must work with the state apparatus to suppress access to oppositional views, on the fraudulent pretext of combatting “influence operations” and the “mass manipulation of public opinion.”

It notes in passing that for the American government, which already runs annual budget deficits approaching $700 billion, “finding the money will be another problem.”

The truth is that the subordination of every aspect of society to war preparations will be paid for by the ongoing destruction of the living standards and conditions of the American working class, combined with the elimination of its democratic rights and repression of opposition.

In an unintended echo of George Orwell’s “Newspeak,” the Economist concludes that “a strong America”—armed to the teeth and permanently threatening its rivals with obliteration—is the “best guarantor of world peace.”

The most chilling aspect of the report, however, is that it is pessimistic about its own prognosis for US imperialism succeeding in intimidating its rivals into submission. The very development of an ever more aggressive military stance toward China and Russia raises, not lessens, the likelihood of war.

“The greatest danger,” it states, “lies in miscalculation through a failure to understand an adversary’s intentions, leading to an unplanned escalation that runs out of control.”

What is being referred to is escalation to a nuclear holocaust. The article quotes Tom Plant, an analyst at the RUSI think tank:

“For both Russia and the US, nukes have retained their primacy. You only have to look at how they are spending their money.”

The US is upgrading its entire nuclear arsenal over the coming decades at a cost of $1.2 trillion. Russia is upgrading its nuclear-capable missiles, bombers and submarines. China is rapidly expanding the size and capability of its far smaller nuclear forces, as are Britain and France. Discussions are underway in ruling circles in Germany, Japan and even Australia on acquiring nuclear weapons so they can resist the nuclear-armed states.

The madness of a nuclear arms race in the 21st century arises inexorably from the contradictions of the capitalist system. The struggle among rival nation-states for global geostrategic and economic dominance is the inevitable outcome of capitalism’s intractable crisis and the ferocious conflict for control over markets and resources.

The epoch of world war, wrote the Marxist revolutionary Vladimir Lenin, is the epoch of world socialist revolution. The overthrow of the capitalist system, which gives rise to the war danger, is an urgent necessity for the survival of human civilization.

The International Committee of the Fourth International and its sections are working to build an international anti-war workers’ movement fighting for socialism. The open discussion on the prospect of nuclear war in the pages of journals like the Economist should motivate all serious workers and young people to join our struggle.

Posted in WorldComments Off on Humanity Teeters on the Brink of World War

Predicted Free Speech Killer – Britain to Set Up Intelligence Unit to Combat ‘Fake News’ by Foreign States


Britain’s war on free speech continues and it continues to get darker with every step of classic playbook style mission creep. Having legislated against protests (without police permission) or protests in many public areas and legislated to spy and surveil the entire population is some grand Stasi style wet dream, the next jack boot to come crashing down on the face of civil society is the crushing of free speech.

It started with using tax incentives to ensure left-leaning, anti-war and free speech, civil liberty, human rights websites and blogs were censored by the global tech giants. Then, more legislation arrives, usually in the guise of ‘national security.’ Of course, a bogey man is required to blame and as the governments own track record on curtailing home grown terrorists is not so good, we’ve gone back to that good old reliable foe from the Cold War, you know, that country that has not once attacked Britain – Red Russia.

The entire mainstream media – bar none has gone with the story that a new intelligence unit tasked with preventing the spread of so-called “fake news” by foreign states is to be created. Not one has questioned the limitations of this this so-called National Security Communications Unit.

The Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson, is expected to provide further details about the National Security Communications Unit soon. Williamson himself has been relentlessly mocked all around the world for suggesting Russia could cause “thousands and thousands and thousands” of deaths by crippling British infrastructure in some sort of infantile rant, or as we would call it – FAKE NEWS. Many have accused Williamson of losing his grip on reality. Russian Defence Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov said Mr Williamson’s comments were worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

Williamson told The Telegraph, who actually went ahead and printed it:

“The plan for the Russians won’t be for landing craft to appear in the South Bay in Scarborough, and off Brighton Beach. They are going to be thinking: ‘How can we just cause so much pain to Britain?’ Damage its economy, rip its infrastructure apart, actually cause thousands and thousands and thousands of deaths, but actually have an element of creating total chaos within the country. It is a “real threat”, he added.

In the meantime, Williamson is accused of using national security and the press as some sort of diversionary tactic to move the gaze away from his own dodgy behaviour.

“Sources close to a company that employed Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, as a managing director say he attended a meeting to discuss his future after office colleagues became aware of his relationship with a junior colleague” – reported The Guardian.

Apparently, Williamson said he decided to leave the company to save his marriage. That isn’t the issue. The issue is that we have a Defence Secretary prepared to deceive the general public using the national press as a shield for his own unethical antics.

Of course, there is no greater a conceivable threat from Russia than from any other country. Russia has not threatened the United Kingdom.

Britain, like America is turning its back on the global disaster it is responsible for in the Middle East and now needs to refocus on another adversary and Russia is it. This is why you have not seen so much in the press about the continued atrocities of ISIS, the ongoing destruction of Libya, the fall of Kabul and much more.

Apparently, the new unit will be staffed with professionals from Britain’s intelligence and security agencies, but will also rely on contributions from external experts in cybersecurity, communications and public relations, no doubt the same organisations that are robbing a largely unaware population of their private data – with impunity. The unit will also include a “rapid response unit” that will be tasked with countering “fake news” in real time, according to The Times.

The move follows a similar development in the United States. In December of 2016, the then President Barack Obama very quietly signed a new law that designated $160 million to set up a government centre for “countering foreign propaganda and disinformation”. reported at the time that:

“This bill will “criminalise ‘fake news and propaganda’ on the web,” a key piece of legislation meant to crack down on free speech and independent media. In Layman’s terms, the act will allow the government to crack down with impunity against any media outlet it deems “propaganda.” The next piece of the legislation will provide substantial amounts of money to fund “counter propaganda,” to make sure the government’s approved stories drown out alternative media and journalists who question the status quo.”

Snopes, one of the so-called fact-checkers in the U.S. went to some lengths to explain why this wearechange report was itself both false and therefore fake news in its opinion. And then Snopes was proved wrong.

That law was then used as cover to immediately attack websites that went against the so-called national narrative of U.S. government policy – both domestic and foreign. Huge numbers of websites have complained of censorship. Many well known independent left-leaning outlets immediately reported massive falls in visitor numbers as their websites were deliberately hidden from search engines results and censored by social media.

TruePublica warned in December 2016 that:

“Fake news and propaganda driven by government’s and corporations is of course, nothing new. Brexit and the American election have brought the subject into sharp focus more recently as the political class have been unexpectedly losing important desired outcomes. Consequently, in Britain, controversial laws will be introduced to stem free speech, which, over the passage of time will be used to halt any individual, website or news outlet from reporting against the government narrative, with so-called ‘fake news’ eventually being outlawed.”

On Wednesday it was announced in London that the British Secretary of Defence, Gavin Williamson, will be providing further details about the National Security Communications Unit in a speech to the House of Commons “within the next few days”.

This announcement will mark yet another piece of serious censorship in the UK. And as we reported just a few months back – the UK has fallen two places to 40th out of 180 countries, down 12 places in the past five years alone for freedom of the press. We lag well behind countries such as Ghana (26th), Namibia (24th) and Surinam (20th). At this rate, Tonga and even Botswana will be ahead of Britain in just two years time!

OpenRightsGroup accused the government last year that “Government Gives Itself Power To Block Websites Leading To ‘Massive Censorship’ through the Digital Rights Act 2017. They were on the mark and said at the time that:

“That’s the point we are making. The power in the Digital Economy Bill (now Act) will create a mechanism to block literally millions of websites; the only real restraint is the amount of cash that MPs are willing to pour into the organisation.”

The National Security Communications Unit is in fact that cash they were referring to. Not only has your privacy, personal security and freedoms been sacrificed on the alter of a false narrative via ‘national security’ – so has your right to free speech.

Posted in Media, UKComments Off on Predicted Free Speech Killer – Britain to Set Up Intelligence Unit to Combat ‘Fake News’ by Foreign States

Welcome Back to the Map, South Yemen!


The “Southern Resistance Forces” made impressive progress in their quest to restore South Yemen’s independence after they ousted Hadi’s government from its interim headquarters in Aden, which was formerly the capital of the Cold War-era state, and of the many historical precedents that speak to its favor, perhaps the one most closely aligned with the cause of “al-Hirak” is actually Crimea’s.

Strategic Context

The Second Exile:

The news just broke that the “Southern Resistance Forces” (SRF), the armed wing of the “Southern Transitional Council” (STC), the political branch of the “Southern Movement” that’s colloquially referred to as “al-Hirak”), just liberated the former South Yemeni capital of Aden from Hadi’s government following three days of intense clashes in the internationally recognized authorities’ interim headquarters. The latest reports indicate that a few dozen representatives are trapped in the presidential palace and that the Prime Minister is getting ready to flee just like President Hadi did back in 2015 when the North Yemeni-originating Houthi militants attacked the Southern city in the days before the Saudi-led intervention.

South vs South:

There’s practically no way that Hadi’s Administration will ever regain legitimacy in any part of the nominally unified country after being forcibly removed from its Northern and now Southern halves, with the latest events made all the more symbolic because the twice-ousted government is ironically led by a native Southerner. That doesn’t mean that he was beloved by his native people, however, since he turned against their separatist cause during the 1994 civil war and was consequently rewarded by recently slain former President Saleh as Yemen’s Vice-President. Following the theater-wide “Arab Spring” Color Revolution, Saleh was pressured into stepping down and was replaced by Hadi, who failed to solve the state’s endemic corruption and actually exacerbated the African-like tribal conflicts in this peninsular country.

Northern Coup:


The end result was that the North Yemeni-originating Houthi militants rose up to overthrow his government in partnership with Saleh’s forces, thereby nullifying the constitutional order in the state and sending the President fleeing to the former South Yemeni capital of Aden, from whence he ran to Saudi Arabia in urgently seeking the GCC leader’s military help as the Houthis threatened to seize control of the entire country.  The subsequent multisided civil-international war has killed thousands and over a million people have since contracted cholera, and many more are on the verge of starvation due to the coalition’s constant bombardment of Houthi positions in what was once the independent country of North Yemen.

Simmering Stalemate:

The resultant stalemate over the past couple of years, however, showed the Southerners that the coalition wasn’t powerful enough to reinstate Hadi’s rule throughout the country, thus opening up the opportunity for them to more assertively push the weakened government into concessions in an attempt to reassert their regional rights in the face of what they have long alleged is Northern oppression and even occupation. Fed up with the worsening situation in Aden as Hadi’s authorities began to turn the remaining “state” apparatus against them, especially following the removal of pro-Hirak former Aden governor Aidarus al-Zoubaidi in April 2017 and his establishment soon thereafter of the “Southern Transitional Council” (STC), Southerners demanded that the Saudi-based President replace his entire government or risk an imminent uprising.

The Southern Revolution:

Last Sunday, the day that the ultimatum was set to expire, Hadi banned all public demonstrations and ordered his troops to fire on STC supporters who traveled to Aden from all across South Yemen to join the planned protests. Considering that Yemen is the world’s second most heavily-armed country behind the US, people had their guns nearby just in case something went wrong, which it clearly did when the military started killing the protesters who violated Hadi’s decree, thus prompting them to take up their weapons out of self-defense and strategically go on the offensive in an ambitious attempt to liberate their capital. Reportedly armed and trained by the UAE, the SRF made easy work out of Hadi’s ragtag Saudi-supported fighters and instantly brought the Southern cause back to the world’s attention.

The Crimean Comparison

At this moment in time, the Southerners are seeking international support for the restoration of their independence since they want to return to the community of nations like they previously were for decades and not remain de-facto recognized solely by their UAE ally. Although many arguments and historical precedents can be referenced in their favor, one of the most intriguing is the comparison that South Yemen has to Crimea.


Both identity-separate territories were merged with a neighboring one to which they had no serious affiliation with beforehand apart being located in the same geographic region. “Yemen” is actually the name of a region that extends beyond its eponymous country to parts of southern Saudi Arabia and a sliver of western Oman, just as “Ukraine” literally translates to “frontier” and refers to the historical Polish-Russian borderland. Each of their respective people came to acquire a regional identity over the years, with Yemenis having achieved this many centuries before the Ukrainians did, but local differences still persisted. Just as people in the western Ukrainian region of Galicia are different than those in the country’s former autonomous republic of Crimea, so too are North Yemen’s distinct from South Yemen’s, with each subsection of this larger region having its own internal variations as well.

Decades-Long Discontent:

Crimea was joined to Ukraine by order of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev in 1954, while South Yemen agreed to unite with North Yemen in 1990 and their combined populations overwhelmingly supported the new state’s constitution. The problem, however, was that Yemeni President Saleh allegedly took advantage of the Southerners’ post-communist naiveté to plunder the comparatively wealthier country and carry out a “deep state” coup in forcibly replacing all of its local leaders with Northerners. This prompted the brief 1994 civil war that the separatists ended up losing and which subsequently led to native Southerner Hadi being made Saleh’s Vice-President after decisively turning against his former countrymen during that conflict. Altogether, it can be argued that the Crimeans didn’t want to be part of a post-Cold War Ukraine just as much as the South Yemeni people didn’t want to be part of a unified Yemen that had gone dangerously wrong and whose Northern-led government had run seriously amuck.

Anti-Constitutional Triggers:

The trigger for Crimea’s secession from Ukraine was the 2014 pro-American coup that destroyed the constitutional legitimacy of this unnaturally created “region-state”, after which its Russian-majority population opted to implement democratic measures to vote for independence and then reunification with their historic Russian homeland in response to the fascist violence that they feared they’d be subjected to by the coup authorities. Although having unfolded over the course of three years and not three weeks like the Crimeans’ cause did, the South Yemenis have followed a similar path. Already dissatisfied with what they largely viewed as Northern occupation and collective punishment following their failed 1994 secessionist attempt, they saw a chance to revive their fortunes after the 2015 success of the Houthi coup in Sanaa and consequent dissolution of the state’s constitutional authority.

Pragmatic Patience:

Nevertheless, Hadi still remained the internationally recognized President of Yemen and his return to power was militarily supported by most of the GCC countries and Egypt, thus forcing al-Hirak to tactically align itself with these forces as they proved their loyalty to the anti-Houthi cause and bided their time while waiting for the right moment to rise up again. The reason why Southerners are so strongly against the Houthis is because they view them as the complete antithesis of all that they themselves stand for. Whereas the Houthis are North Yemeni Shiite-Zaidi tribesmen aligned with Iran and fighting to impose what some fear would be a shadow form of right-wing Islamic governance over the entirety of unified Yemen, al-Hirak and its supporters are mostly South Yemeni secular or Sunni city folk aligned with the UAE and fighting to restore their left-wing Cold War-era government in South Yemen only.

The Sudden Strike:

Realizing that Hadi would never reassert his power over North Yemen in spite of the substantial Saudi-backed militant assistance that he’s received over the years, the Southerners sought to exploit this weakness in agitating for more rights, though the internationally recognized leader stepped up his suppression of them and ultimately ordered his troops to fire on unarmed protesters who assembled to protest him over the weekend in violation of the government’s anti-democratic decree. That moment can be seen in hindsight as the second and ultimately fatal blow to the legitimacy of the united Yemeni state, with the 2015 Houthi takeover of Sanaa being the first. Having gone on the offensive out of self-defense just like the Crimeans did, the South Yemenis have already de-facto restored their sovereignty and only need to carry out the referendum that they tentatively planned for later this year in order to give their resurrected state international legitimacy.

Prospective Solutions

Recognition Struggle:

It appears extremely unlikely that Saudi Arabia will break with its UAE ally and unilaterally dispatch its forces to fight the Southern secessionists, especially considering that Riyadh can’t even defeat the Houthis in North Yemen, to say nothing of Abu Dhabi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Zayed’s mentorship over his much younger Saudi counterpart and the “father”-like influence that he wields over the coalition’s official leader. This means that South Yemen will for all intents and purposes be de-facto independent the moment that Hadi’s Prime Minister evacuates the region and his remaining officials in the presidential palace surrender to the SRF or are also flown out of the country, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into international recognition no matter how legitimate its cause may be. The fact of the matter is that most of the world is reluctant to change established state borders out of fear that it could bring about “Balkanization”, with Kosovo and South Sudan being the main exceptions this century primarily because their secessions were US-backed.

Multipolar Node On The New Silk Road:

That’s not necessarily the case with South Yemen’s, however, no matter how closely allied the UAE is with the US, but that also doesn’t automatically translate into al-Hirak’s cause being detrimental to America’s grand strategic interests either. Even so, this potential overlap shouldn’t be assumed to be exclusively to the UAE and/or the US’ advantage, since it’s very possible that it could play out to the benefit of the Multipolar World Order as well, not least because of South Yemen’s ultra-strategic location at the transcontinental crossroads of West Asia & East Africa as well as connecting Europe with South Asia via the Gulf of Aden, Bab el Mandeb, and Red Sea. These geographic credentials endow South Yemen with the possibility of becoming a crucial node on China’s One Belt One Road global vision of New Silk Road connectivity, as was described by the author more in depth in his December 2017 analysis about how “South Yemen Will Regain Independence If It Follows These Six Steps”.

Independence Referendum:

To concisely summarize the most relevant points from that policy proposal, South Yemen should carry out its planned independence referendum as soon as possible and then seek the neutral mediation of a third-party such as Russia in order to generate international support for its secessionism from unified Yemen. Moscow is being mentioned not just because the author previously forecast that the Eurasian Great Power could extend its “balancing” influence to the furthest corner of the Arabian Peninsula and therefore the southwestern extremity of the supercontinent, but that Foreign Minister Lavrov himself announced his country’s willingness to do so between the Houthis and Hadi during a meeting with his Yemeni counterpart just a week before South Yemen’s liberation occurred, and the Russian Foreign Ministry later added earlier this week that its offer applies to the situation in South Yemen as well.

Russian Mediation:

Russia’s suggestion to broker talks between al-Hirak and Hadi also comes after Summer Ahmed, a US-based representative of the Southern Transitional Counciltold the author in the course of an interview on his Trendstorm radio program hosted by Russia’s publicly financed international media outlet Sputnik that the STC would welcome the country’s mediating efforts in the event that the situation deteriorated, which it eventually did. Moscow’s possible diplomatic intervention would be entirely neutral because it has interests in both North and South Yemen. For example, Russian doctors operated on former President Saleh two months before his assassination and his son just met with the Russian Deputy Foreign Minister. Although Ahmed Abdullah Saleh might never forgive the Houthis for killing his father, the late President’s General People’s Congress (GPC) is still allied with the mountainous militants, potentially providing an avenue of indirect Russian influence into North Yemen. On the other side of the country, South Yemen was the Soviet Union’s closet Arab ally and the only Muslim country to ever formally have a communist government.

Win-Win Deal-Making:

Russia is therefore best equipped to handle the delicate negotiations over what appears to be unified Yemen’s impending re-division into its two constituent but historically and culturally separate halves, with a period of “Identity Federalism” potentially preceding the final “divorce”. In addition, Russia’s fast-moving rapprochement with Saudi Arabia and its excellent ties with both the UAE and Iran make it so that Moscow could help “balance” the “loss of face” that Riyadh is destined to experience after the political loss of its Hadi ally with the geostrategic benefits that Abu Dhabi and Tehran are poised to receive by the re-independence of South Yemen and North Yemen respectively. In addition, this solution could naturally lead to the end of the War on Yemen and both of its peoples’ suffering, returning these two formerly sovereign states back to the pre-1990 status quo and allowing them the chance that they need to redevelop their economies and rebuild their national institutions.

Concluding Thoughts

Hadi is no longer a symbolically relevant factor in the national equation, the Houthis have no hope whatsoever of conquering all of Yemen, and the Southerners have just de-facto restored their Cold War-era country’s independence, meaning that the entire reason for the Saudi-led military intervention has collapsed and the superficially unified country is now ruled by two distinct governments in its constituent halves that are once again at irreconcilable odds with one another. The only logical path forward for all actors under these conditions is to accept this state of affairs and formalize them in terms of international law, which might require a transitional period that sees North and South Yemen each holding their own UN-supervised independence referenda and going through the formal procedures of their institutional disengagement with one another, hence the option of implementing a broad system of “Identity Federalism” between the two parts during this time.

Russia is the only Great Power capable of acting as a neutral mediator between all parties and ensuring a fair solution for everyone, which is why efforts should be made by both the North Yemeni GPC and the South Yemeni STC to actively invite Moscow to participate in and potentially even lead this process. Russia can help the Saudis’ “save face” while simultaneously “balancing” the UAE’s interests in South Yemen with Iran’s own in North Yemen, the latter of which could require a second deeper level of “balancing” by elevating the GPC to the level of an internationally recognized political force in this part of the country in order to get around the coalition’s unwillingness to deal with the group’s Houthi allies. There’s no perfect way to handle this seemingly intractable diplomatic situation, but Russia is nevertheless best suited for confronting this challenge, which is why it must get involved to some capacity or another.

The end result of Moscow’s mediating efforts should be North and South Yemen’s agreement to a UN-backed plan for re-dividing the nominally unified country into its two historical parts, after which Russia can work to expand its influence throughout both of them, though with much higher odds of success with its former Soviet-era South Yemeni ally. North Yemen could possibly become the “New Eritrea” in that it’s treated as a “rogue state” and “isolated” by its neighbors, with the scenario arising that some “mild” form of the coalition’s blockade could still be illegally imposed upon it out of its members’ fear that the newly independent country could become a bastion of Iranian influence. While undesirable from a humanitarian perspective, it might still be “better” than what its people are presently suffering under prior to the UN’s Russian-encouraged prospective involvement.

While North Yemen will probably continue to languish in externally enforced poverty and famine, South Yemen contrarily stands the chance to become a vital part of the New Silk Road with all of the prosperity that it promises.


South Yemen Will Regain Independence If It Follows These Six Steps
Yemen: End Blockade, Avert Famine
Yemen – Having Lost the War Saudis Try Genocide – Media Complicit
World Watches as Yemen Descends into Total Collapse
Yemen: The New Graveyard Where Empires Come to Die
Russia to Establish A Naval Base in Yemen? Implications for US Military Involvement in Syria?



Posted in YemenComments Off on Welcome Back to the Map, South Yemen!

U.S. ‘Plan B’ for the Middle East. The Occupation of One Third of Syria’s Territory


The television network RT asked me for a comment around the recent visit to Raqqa done by the USAID program chief together with the CENTCOM Commander. [1]

Before addressing the humanitarian situation in Raqqa associated with the reconstruction issue (80 percent of Raqqa dwellings remain “inhabitable”, according to the UN), I will focus on the current U.S. geopolitics in the area, against the backdrop of the U.S. emerging ‘Plan B’ on Syria. So far, the implementation of this new design has signified the virtual occupation of nearly a third of Syria’s territory. A hallmark of the situation consisting in the illegal occupation of Syrian territory by U.S. troops.

The first project of the US on Syria aimed to obtain a regime change. It was pretty much a “default” policy applied by the US in the Middle East at the times of the Obama / Hillary Clinton administration. Partly of its mechanism has been described by Senator Dick Clark (an excerpt of Senator Clark’s declarations is found in the video here below. Click on the image for the excerpt-footage).

The strategy of “regime change”, which can we call “U.S. Plan A on Syria”, failed.

The Syrian government –with help of its allies Russia, Iran and Hezbollah- instead continues victorious and unabated in its pursuit to retake the full sovereignty of its nation’s territory.

From a humanitarian angle, the failure of the said Plan A conveyed disastrous consequences. The number of fatalities due to the war in Syria have reached 400,000. To that, a massive displacement of refugees has to be added.

Furthermore, viewed in geopolitical and military terms, the strategy of establishing, funding, arming and training a miscellaneous jihadist opposition was also a setback, or even backfiring – as it ended fostering the combat capability of ISIS forces, through US armament which made its way to ISIS hands. (See The Hill report in the box below).

The optimism which emerged when Donald Trump became the U.S. president was of brief duration. The hope about a possible stop of US interference in Syria, based on Trump’s declarations while he was still a candidate, vanished when President Trump announced that he had delegated to the Pentagon and his Defense Minister Mattis, the tasks of profiling and give expression to U.S. military actions abroad. [2]

Unlike the situation during the Obama administration, it is now up to the Pentagon to decide specific targets and scope of military operations.

However, from a human rights perspective, the new Pentagon’s ‘free hands’ status has conveyed a high toll of civilian casualties as result of the extensive bombing by the US in Syria.

Anticipating the humanitarian catastrophe in the Syrian areas subjected by the US-led coalition’s bombardment, The New York Times reported in April 2017 that the US military had already increased the civilian casualties in Somalia and Yemen as the result of Pentagon’s new “free” doctrine. [3]

80% of Raqqa was left “uninhabitable” – UN

As a result of this new “rules of engagement” in the US bombing, the civilian population of Raqqa and areas around in northern Syria have suffered huge casualties.

New data processed by Airwars regarding non-combatant deaths caused by the US-led coalition during 2017, result in figures up to “6,102 civilians estimated killed”. [4] The organization remarks that the civilian fatalities of 2017 represent 65% of all civilian deaths caused by the Coalition, that have been recorded by Airwars since 2014.

This statistically significant increasing in the epidemiology of fatalities among civilians in areas bombarded by the US-led coalition, shows the impact of the new Trump doctrine of giving “free hand” to the military (which now assess by themselves the risk of civilian casualties resulting from their operations).

In Raqqa alone, during the lasted Coalition campaign to recapture the city from ISIS, the balance was an estimate of 1,800 civilian casualties. [5] And according to a UN report, 80% of Raqqa was left “uninhabitable” ensuing the battle. [6]

The priorities in “reconstructing” the battered city and territory around are instead militarily

The recent visit to Raqqa by the head of the USAID program, Mr Mark Green, accompanied by the chief of the U.S. Central Command, General Joseph Votel, was interpreted in some media as an on-site assessment for a future reconstruction plan of Raqqa –to be done by the U.S. government. It was otherwise noted that the visit constituted “the most senior U.S. civilian official of the Trump administration” in Raqqa, after the defeat of ISIS. [1]

In fact, the media reports on the visit focused mainly on declarations by the General Joseph Votel, who emerged as the central gestalt of the delegation.

What the western media failed to mention, is that three days before the visit of Votel and Green it was known that the US military had initiated the reconstruction of the formerly Syrian Air-force base at al-Tabqa, located near Raqqa. So, the exploration-visit in Raqqa and surrounding areas may have mainly been relevant to construction/reconstruction assessments of the said usurped military airbase in al-Tanf, which is legal property of Syria.

The Al-Tabqah Military Airbase (photo below) is not the only military compound that the US has unilaterally decided to establish. The other military base is situated in al-Tanf, near the border with Iraq. [7]

Regarding the kind of projects that USAID would be prone to support in the area, those will be definitely tied to the current US geopolitical project. That is what USAID is all about.

Propaganda-wise, the ‘Plan B’ geopolitical project rests on two premises which are under construction. One is the collapse of the peace talks in Geneva (and the corresponding boycott of the Sochi meeting) – see down below. The other premise is an expected international support for a direct military intervention in Syria (nearly, a deepening of the operations that have already started) motivated in staged “chemical attacks” massacres. [8]

One pivotal element in the staging of those “chemical-attack” false flags is the presence of “White Helmets” in those territories. The White Helmets and other “humanitarian” organizations financed by the U.S. have been the channels for delivering the “testimonies” from the staged scenarios.

The point being that USAID is one main financing source of the White Helmets and similar ‘humanitarian’ organizations operating in the propaganda campaign against Syria. [9] Naturally, a similar initiative implemented by USAID in the Syrian zones now under direct US military control or influence, can be expected.

One other classical role of USAID in that kind of ‘reconstruction’ endeavours has been the fostering and/or coordination of U.S. corporate investments profiting in such war-related areas –wars in which the US has had the initiative in bolstering. [10] And of course, the boost in exports of US products, even if this have resulted in detriment of the economic development of the ‘helped’ regions. [11]

Meanwhile in Washington. The US ‘Plan B’ on Syria is officially announced

Map from Anadolu Agency, published in Orient Net [18]

David M. Satterfield, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, is a representative voice of the Trump administration. Among other tasks, he was entrusted to lead the US delegation to the peace talks on Syria in Kazakhstan, September 2017. [12] So, when he is now declaring at the US Congress that the US has already an “alternative plan” in case the peace talks on Syria would not prosper, we have to attribute hos message a great relevance. Satterfield’s declarations are to be held as the tip of the iceberg regarding the US Plan B on Syria.

The Moon of Alabama reports: [13]

“Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday, David Satterfield, the acting assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern affairs, outlined US goals in Syria as finishing off IS, stabilizing northeastern Syria and countering Iranian influence.”

And The Siver Times [14], as well as Kurdistan 24, report: [7]

“On Thursday, Acting Assistant Secretary of State for Near East Affairs, David Satterfield, revealed to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the USA had an alternate plan for Syria, in the event that the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva failed to produce an agreement. “
Mr Satterfield (photo at left) could have instead very well said, “when the UN-sponsored talks in Geneva fail…”

I was in Geneva on the 28 of November, when the peace talks recommenced. From what I could gather, the US administration seemed rather to support the “dialogue-not-possible” stance of their political proxy forces.

And with regard to the Sochi talks, which really are an opportunity for a final Peace Settlement on Syria, Mr Satterfield has been prominent in the campaign opposing the event, nevertheless his arguments have been fact-based rebutted and demolished by Ms Maria Zakharova (photo below, at right). [15]

And, precisely as Ms Zakharova could anticipate already on January 12, today the “Syrian opposition” announced that they will not attend the Sochi talks.

In my interpretation, the US need the collapse of the peace talks as a pretext to advance and consolidate its occupation of Syria. And the ultimate geopolitical goal is not only the fragmentation of Syria.  By means of giving the the Kurdish administration the notion of sovereignty on the occupied territory, and have their proxies to “invite” the US forces in, the Pentagon plans to solve the gross legal problem of their unauthorized military staying in Syria.

The ultimate geopolitical aim is, however, the further utilization of the fragmented area (which constitutes about the third of Syria’s territory). Once that the ‘legal’ status in northern Syria has been achieved, the U.S. will stay to implement its goals to destabilize not only Syria, but also Iran, and converting the Middle East in its new backyard.

The U.S. and allied EU financial interests –for the occasion colluded with Saudi Arabia– will not end its warmongering pursuing until their long-time conceived oil-pipe project crystallizes.

And if that strategy in northern territories of Syria would fail –for instance due to developments in the Turkish offensive– the U.S. will try to enter in Syria from the South, most likely with help of “chemical-attack” false flags in the area. That is my interpretation after Tillerson’s announcing that US will not tolerate “more chemical attacks” by Syria. [16]

That the Trump administration, or to put it more appropriate, that the Pentagon has decided to aggressively confront Iran is not a speculation. The U.S. government has unequivocally declared that its troops will remain in Syria, regardless if ISIS would be completely defeated. [17]

The military occupation covering a third of Syria’s territory

The yellow part is about an area comprising estimated 11,583 square miles, which is the equivalent of a third of the territory of Syria.

Raghida Dergman, founder and Executive Chairman of Beirut Institute, recently wrote in Huffington post: [19]

“US presence in Syria is massive and involves thousands of troops in several strategic bases…The richest one-third of Syria’s territory is effectively under US control.”

A closer demographic look indicates that in the area lives nearly a quarter of the population of Syria.

How many U-S- troops are already in Syria is not possible to ascertain. When the U.s. government officially reported that there were 500 troops, the figure was instead 2,000 –as later acknowledged. Now that the official figure become 2,000 one could just wonder how many thousands that figure could mean in reality.

According to Orient News Net, which sourced its information in the Turkish Anadolu Agency, the above map would show the ten sites were U.S. troops were stationed by July 2017: “Two airbases, eight military points in PKK/PYD-controlled areas. US Special Forces located in military points in Hasakah, Raqqa and Manbij.” [18]

Another map published by Anadoluy Agency, dated 12 October 2017.

The RT questions

1. The Coalition said it will focus on restoring the basic needs in Raqqa (demining, clearing the roads, getting electricity, sewage and water). Do you think it’s enough for the refugees and former resident to return and come back to normal life in the city?

To clear out landmines and reestablish water and electricity is of course good, but way far from enough. The UN estimates that 80% of the houses were Raqqa inhabitants lived is now, I quote, “uninhabitable”. [6]

People cannot sleep over an electric wire or cover themselves with water. What the people need is the reconstruction of their houses, they need a roof, walls, etc. And it is not only about private dwellings. Services have to be restored, hospitals, schools, etc., which imply a profound reconstruction effort.

Michele Kelemen, NPR correspondent who traveled in Raqqa with the USAID program head, Mr Mark Green, and CENTCOM Commander, General Joseph Votel, declared in an interview, “They don’t call it nation building anymore. That’s for sure. They say that it’s stabilization.” [20]

My comment is that “Stabilization” is a geopolitical notion implying the ending of hostilities or at least the obtaining of a status quo. But what the US is doing in northern Syria is clearly the opposite, it is destabilization, and even implementing the territorial fragmentation of the country.

2. How the international community should approach the reconstruction of Raqqa?

The issue should be taken at UN different bodies, not only at the Security Council. Secondly, foreign-aid institutions at different richer countries, in Europe for instance, should be channel aid to a reconstruction fund established and administered by the EU.

3. Up to 80% of the city had been destroyed during the liberation from ISIL. In your opinion, who should bear the burden and lead the effort of rebuilding it?

A direct responsibility should be placed on those countries participating in the military coalition that bombed Raqqa and contributed to the destruction of 80% of the city dwellings.

To argue that is was ISIS the primarily responsible for the destruction of Raqqa, because the fight aimed to recapture the city from ISIS hands, it can hardly take away the responsibility of those who ordered the bombing. An aerial bombing and artillery that – viewing the destruction results– targeted residence houses and community institutions in a massive, seemingly indiscriminate fashion.

Another relevant issue here is to assess what responsibility the powers that decimated Raqqa had directly or indirectly in the establishment of ISIS and even in its weaponry.


This article was originally published by The Indicter.

Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli is professor emeritus of epidemiology (research focus on Injury epidemiology), medicine doktor i psykiatri (PhD, Karolinska Institute), and formerly Research Fellow  at Harvard Medical School. He is the founder and chairman of Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rightsand editor-in-chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of “Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues.”


[1] Lesley Wroughton, “U.S. aid chief visits Raqqa amid stabilization push“. Reuters, 22 January 2018.

[2] Simon Tisdall, “Donald Trump’s hands-off approach gives US military free rein“. The Guardian, 14 June 12017.

[3] Helene Cooper, “Trump Gives Military New Freedom. But With That Comes Danger“. The New York Times, 5 April 2017.

[4] Alex Hopkins, “Airwars annual assessment 2017: civilians paid a high price for major Coalition gains“., 18 January 2018.

[5] Samuel Oakford, “More than 1,800 civilians killed overall in defeat of ISIS at Raqqa, say monitors.”, 19 Octobre 2017.

[6] Andrew Illingworth, “US-backed forces succeed in making Raqqa 80 percent “uninhabitable”.  AMN,  20 Octobre 2017.

[7] Lurie Mylroie, “US to establish two military bases in eastern Syria as tensions with Turkey rise.” Kurdistan 24, 17 January 2018.

[8] M Ferrada de Noli, “From Timisoara to Khan Shaykhun. Part I: The Staged-Massacre Routine for Regime Change“. The Indicter Magazine, 24 October 2017.

[9] “A closer look: Delivering critical supplies to Syrians“. Devex, 8 September 2015.

[10] Andrey Panevin, “Corporations Are The New Conquistadors : Ukraine“. MintPress News, 19 February 2015.

[11] Julie Lévesque, “Haiti, Five Years After the Earthquake: Fraudulent Reconstruction Under Military Occupation“. Global Research, 15 January 2015.

[12] U.S. Dept of State, Office of the Spokesperson, “Acting Assistant Secretary of State David M. Satterfield Travel to Astana, Kazakhstan for Talks on Syria“. 12 September 2017.

[13] “Syria – U.S. Traps Itself , Commits To Occupation, Helps To Sustain The Astana Agreement“. Moon of Alabama, 15 January 2018.

[14] “Iran denounces USA ‘conspiracy’ against Syria“. The Siver Times, 17 January 2018.

[15] See “Remarks by David Satterfield, Acting Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs”, in “Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, January 12, 2018“.

[16] Sara Elizabeth Williams, “Rex Tillerson blames Russia for Syrian ‘chemical weapons’ attacks“. The Telegraph, 23 January 2018.

|17] Gardiner Harris, “Tillerson Says U.S. Troops to Stay in Syria Beyond Battle With ISIS“. The New York Times, 17 January 2018.

[18] “AA’s map of US bases in Syria infuriates Pentagon“. Orient News Net, 20 July 2017.

[19] “The point of separation between the US and Russia in Syria”., 13 January 2018.

[20] Michele Kelemen, “What The U.S. Presence Is Doing In Raqqa Despite Wishes Of Syrian Government“. NPR – National Public Radio, 22 January 2018.

Posted in Middle East, USA, SyriaComments Off on U.S. ‘Plan B’ for the Middle East. The Occupation of One Third of Syria’s Territory

The Useful Idiocy of Donald Trump


The problem with Donald Trump is not that he is imbecilic and inept—it is that he has surrendered total power to the oligarchic and military elites. They get what they want. They do what they want. Although the president is a one-man wrecking crew aimed at democratic norms and institutions, although he has turned the United States into a laughingstock around the globe, our national crisis is embodied not in Trump but the corporate state’s now unfettered pillage.

Trump, who has no inclination or ability to govern, has handed the machinery of government over to the bankers, corporate executives, right-wing think tanks, intelligence chiefs and generals. They are eradicating the few regulations and laws that inhibited a naked kleptocracy. They are dynamiting the institutions, including the State Department, that served interests other than corporate profit and are stacking the courts with right-wing, corporate-controlled ideologues. Trump provides the daily entertainment; the elites handle the business of looting, exploiting and destroying.

Once democratic institutions are hollowed out, a process begun before the election of Trump, despotism is inevitable. The press is shackled. Corruption and theft take place on a massive scale. The rights and needs of citizens are irrelevant. Dissent is criminalized. Militarized police monitor, seize and detain Americans without probable cause. The rituals of democracy become farce. This is the road we are traveling. It is a road that leads to internal collapse and tyranny, and we are very far down it.

The elites’ moral and intellectual vacuum produced Trump. They too are con artists. They are slicker than he at selling the lies and more adept at disguising their greed through absurd ideologies such as neoliberalism and globalization, but they belong to the same criminal class and share many of the pathologies that characterize Trump. The grotesque visage of Trump is the true face of politicians such as George W. Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Clintons and Obama, unlike Bush and Trump, are self-aware and therefore cynical, but all lack a moral compass. As Michael Wolff writes in “Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House,” the president has “no scruples.” He lives “outside the rules” and is “contemptuous of them.” And this makes him identical to those he has replaced, not different.

“A close Trump friend who was also a good Bill Clinton friend found them eerily similar—except that Clinton had a respectable front and Trump did not,” Wolff writes.

Trump, backed by the most retrograde elements of corporate capitalism, including Robert and Rebekah MercerSheldon Adelson and Carl Icahn, is the fool who prances at the front of our death march. As natural resources become scarce and the wealth of the empire evaporates, a shackled population will be forced to work harder for less. State revenues will be squandered in grandiose projects and futile wars in an attempt to return the empire to a mythical golden age. The decision to slash corporate tax rates for the rich while increasing an already bloated military budget by $54 billion is typical of decayed civilizations. Empires expand beyond their capacity to sustain themselves and then go bankrupt. The Sumerian, Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Mayan, Khmer, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires all imploded in a similar fashion. The lessons of history are clear. But the illiterate charlatans who seize power in the dying days of empire know nothing of history. They are driven by a primal and inchoate lust for wealth, one that is never satisfied no matter how many billions they possess.

The elites in dying cultures turn everything into a commodity. Human beings are commodities. The natural world is a commodity. Government and democratic institutions are commodities. All are mined and wrecked for profit. Nothing has an intrinsic value. Nothing is sacred. The relentless and suicidal drive to accumulate greater and greater wealth by destroying the systems that sustain life is idolatry. It ignores the biblical injunction that idols always begin by demanding human sacrifice and end by demanding self-sacrifice. The elites are not only building our funeral pyre, they are building their own.

The elites, lacking a vision beyond satiating their own greed, revel in the intoxicating power to destroy. They confuse destruction with creation. They are agents of what Sigmund Freud calls the death instinct. They find in acts of national self-immolation a godlike power. They denigrate empathy, intellectual curiosity, artistic expression and the common good, virtues that sustain life. They celebrate a hyper-individualism embodied in celebrity, wealth, hedonism, manipulation and the ability to dominate others. They know nothing of the past. They do not think about the future. Those around them are temporarily useful to their aims and must be flattered and rewarded but in the end are ruthlessly cast aside. There is no human connection. This emotional numbness lies at the core of Trump’s personality.

[Stephen] Bannon described Trump as a simple machine,” Wolff writes. “The On switch was full of flattery, the Off switch full of calumny. The flattery was dripping, slavish, cast in ultimate superlatives, and entirely disconnected from reality: so-and-so was the best, the most incredible, the ne plus ultra, the eternal. The calumny was angry, bitter, resentful, ever a casting out and closing of the iron door.”

The elites in a dying culture confuse what economist Karl Polanyi calls “real” and “fictitious” commodities. A commodity is a product manufactured for sale. The ecosystem, labor and money, therefore, are not commodities. Once these fictitious commodities are treated as real ones for exploitation and manipulation, Polanyi writes, human society devours itself. Workers become dehumanized cogs. Currency and trade are manipulated by speculators, wreaking havoc with the economy and leading to financial collapse. The natural world is turned into a toxic wasteland. The elites, as the society breaks down, retreat into protected enclaves where they have access to security and services denied to the wider population. They last longer than those outside their gates, but the tsunami of destruction they orchestrate does not spare them.

As long as Trump serves the interests of the elites he will remain president. If, for some reason, he is unable to serve these interests he will disappear. Wolff notes in the book that after his election there was “a surprising and sudden business and Wall Street affinity for Trump.” He went on:

“An antiregulatory White House and the promise of tax reform outweighed the prospect of disruptive tweeting and other forms of Trump chaos; besides, the market had not stopped climbing since November 9, the day after the election.”

The Russia investigation—launched when Robert Mueller became special counsel in May and which appears to be focused on money laundering, fraud and shady business practices, things that have always characterized Trump’s financial empire—is unlikely to unseat the president. He will not be impeached for mental incompetence, over the emoluments clause or for obstruction of justice, although he is guilty on all these counts. He is useful to those who hold real power in the corporate state, however much they would like to domesticate him.

Trump’s bizarre ramblings and behavior also serve a useful purpose. They are a colorful diversion from the razing of democratic institutions. As cable news networks feed us stories of his trysts with a porn actress and outlandish tweets, the real work of the elites is being carried out largely away from public view. The courts are stacked with Federalist Society judges, the fossil fuel industry is plundering public lands and the coastlines and ripping up regulations that protected us from its poisons, and the Pentagon, given carte blanche, is engaged in an orgy of militarism with a trillion-dollar-a-year budget and about 800 military bases in scores of countries around the world.

Trump, as Wolff describes him in the book, is clueless about what he has unleashed. He is uninterested in and bored by the complexities of governance and policy. The faster Trump finds a member of the oligarchy or the military to take a job off his hands the happier he becomes. This suits his desires. It suits the desires of those who manage the corporate state. For the president there is only one real concern, the tumultuous Trump White House reality show and how it plays out on television. He is a creature solely concerned with image, or more exactly his image. Nothing else matters.

“For each of his enemies—and, actually, for each of his friends—the issue for him came down, in many ways, to their personal press plan,” Wolff writes of the president. “Trump assumed everybody wanted his or her fifteen minutes and that everybody had a press strategy for when they got them. If you couldn’t get press directly for yourself, you became a leaker. There was no happenstance news, in Trump’s view. All news was manipulated and designed, planned and planted. All news was to some extent fake—he understood that very well, because he himself had faked it so many times in his career. This was why he had so naturally cottoned to the ‘fake news’ label. ‘I’ve made stuff up forever, and they always print it,’ he bragged.”

Yes, the elites wish Trump would act more presidential. It would help the brand. But all attempts by the elites to make Trump conform to the outward norms embraced by most public officials have failed. Trump will not be reformed by criticism from the establishment. Republican Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee, who denounced Trump, saw their approval ratings plummet and have decided not to run for re-election. Trump may have public approval of only 39 percent overall, but among Republicans the figure is 78 percent. And I don’t think those numbers will decrease.

The inability of the political establishment and the press to moderate or reform Trump’s egregious behavior is rooted in their loss of credibility. The press, along with political and intellectual elites, spent decades championing economic and political policies that solidified corporate power and betrayed and impoverished American workers. The hypocrisy and mendacity of the elites left them despised and distrusted by the victims of deindustrialization and austerity programs. The attempt to restore civility to public discourse and competency to political office is, therefore, fruitless. Liberal and establishment institutions, including the leadership of the two main political parties, academia and the press, squandered their moral authority. And the dogged refusal by the elites to address the engine of discontent—social inequality—ensures that they will remain ineffectual. They lay down the asphalt for the buffoonery of Trump and the coming tyranny.

Posted in USAComments Off on The Useful Idiocy of Donald Trump

Kosovo for “Europe”: Washington’s “Balkans Policy” and the Future of Serbia


The assassination of Kosovo’s Serb leader Oliver Ivanović on January 16th, 2018 in the northern (the Serb) part of the divided city of Kosovska Mitrovica once again put on the agenda both the issue of contested land of Kosovo and Serbia’s policy toward the West, in particular, the EU.

The Western (the USA/EU) client Serbia’s government is quite long time under the direct pressure from Brussels to recognize an independence of the narco-mafia Kosovo’s quasi-state in exchange for joining  the EU but not before 2025.

It is only a question of time that a Western colony of Serbia has to finally declare its position towards Kosovo’s independence. All pro-Western bots and trolls in Serbia, already publicly announced their official position in regard to this question: Serbia’s Government has to finally inform the Serbian nation that Kosovo is no longer an integral part of Serbia and therefore the recognition of Kosovo’s independence by Belgrade is only way towards a “prosperous” Euro future of the country that is within the EU (and the NATO’s pact as well). The fundamental Western quisling in Belgrade – president of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić (of the Bosnian origin from a Nazi-Croat district of Bugojno) recently clearly informed the nation not to be surprised if Serbia has to recognize the independence of Kosovo in order to join “Europe” (why Switzerland, Andorra, Lichtenstein, Monaco, Norway or Iceland are not in “Europe” he did not explain).

In the following paragraphs, the most important features of the “Kosovo Question” are going to be presented for the better understanding of the present political situation in which the Serb nation is questioned by the Western “democracies” upon both its own national identity and national pride.


The southeastern province of the Republic of Serbia – under the administrative title of Kosovo-Metochia (in the English only Kosovo), was at the very end of the 20th century in the center of international relations and global politics due to the NATO’s 78 days of “humanitarian” military intervention against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the FRY composed by Serbia and Montenegro) in 1999 (March 24th–June 10th). As it was not approved and verified by the General Assembly or the Security Council of the United Nations, the US-led operation “Merciful Angel” opened among the academicians a fundamental question of the purpose and nature of the “humanitarian” interventions in the world like it was previously in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1995, Rwanda in 1994 or Somalia in 1991−1995. More precisely, it provoked dilemmas of the misusing ethical, legal and political aspects of armed “humanitarian” interventions as the “responsibility to protect” (R2P) for the very reason that it became finally obvious in 2008 that the NATO’s “humanitarian” military intervention in 1999 was primarily aimed to lay the foundation for Kosovo’s independence and its separation from Serbia with transformation of the province into the US−EU’s political-economic colony, what Kosovo, in fact, today is [see more in Hannes Hofbauer, Eksperiment Kosovo: Povratak kolonijalizma, Beograd: Albatros Plus, 2009].

Kosovo as contested land between the Serbs and the Albanians

The province of Kosovo-Metochia (Kosova in the Albanian) is a landlocked territory in Central Balkans having borders with Albania, the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (the FYROM), Central Serbia and Montenegro. It is almost of the same size as Montenegro but having more than four times Montenegro’s population [Sabrina P. Ramet (ed.), Central and Southeast European Politics since 1989, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 359]. The province, as historically contested land between the Serbs and the Albanians, did not, does not and will not have an equal significance for these two nations. For the Albanians, Kosovo was all the time just a provincial land populated by them without any cultural or historical importance except for the single historical event that the first Albanian nationalistic political league was proclaimed in the town of Prizren in Metochia (West Kosovo) in 1878 and existed only till 1881. However, both Kosovo as a province and the town of Prizren were chosen to host the First (pan-Albanian) Prizren League only for the very propaganda reason – to emphasize allegedly predominantly the “Albanian” character of both Kosovo and Prizren regardless to the very fact that at that time the Serbs were a majority of population either in Kosovo or in Prizren. Kosovo was never part of Albania and the Albanians from Albania had no important cultural, political or economic links with Kosovo’s Albanians regardless the fact that the overwhelming majority of Kosovo’s Albanians originally came from North Albania after the First Great Serbian Migration from Kosovo in 1690.

However, quite contrary to the Albanian case, Kosovo-Metochia is the focal point of the Serbian nationhood, statehood, traditions, customs, history, culture, church and above all of the ethnonational identity. It was exactly Kosovo-Metochia to be the central administrative-cultural part of medieval Serbia with the capital in Prizren. The administrative centre of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the medieval and later on the Ottoman-time was also in Kosovo-Metochia in the town of Peć (Ipek in the Turkish; Pejë in the Albanian). Before Muslim Kosovo’s Albanians started to demolish the Serbian Christian Orthodox churches and monasteries from June 1999 onward, there were around 1.500 Serbian Christian shrines in this province. Kosovo-Metochia is even today called by the Serbs as the “Serbian Holy Land” while the town of Prizren is known for the Serbs as the “Serbian Jerusalem” and the “Imperial Town” (Tsarigrad) in which there was an imperial court of the Emperor Stefan Dušan of Serbia (1346−1355) [see more in Миладин Стевановић, Душановоцарство, Београд: Књига-комерц, 2001]. The Serbs, differently to the Albanians, have a plenty of national folk songs and legends about Kosovo-Metochia, especially in regard to the Kosovo Battle of 1389 in which they lost state independence to the Ottoman Turks. For the Serbs, Kosovo-Metochia is the “cradle of the Serbs” and real “Serbia proper” while for the Albanians, Kosovo is just a peripheral province of their nationhood and culture.

Prizren – A Serbian Orthodox Church (built in 1306) of Holy Virgin of Ljevish. However, the Albanian propaganda is presenting this church as all other (Serbian) Christian Orthodox churches in Kosovo-Metochia either as the Byzantine or even as the Albanian. In March 2004 the church was set on fire and seriously damaged by local (Muslim) Albanians. The church is proclaimed as the UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2006 (Source: author)

Nevertheless, there is nothing similar in the Albanian case in regards to Kosovo. For instance, there is no single Albanian church or monastery in this province from the medieval time or any important monument as the witness of the Albanian ethnic presence in the province before the time of the administration by the Ottoman Sultanate. Even the Muslim mosques from the Ottoman time (1455−1912) claimed by the Albanians to belong to the Albanian national heritage, were, in fact, built by the Ottoman authorities but not by ethnic Albanians. The Albanian national folk songs are not mentioning the medieval Kosovo that is one of the crucial evidence that they simply have nothing in common with the pre-Ottoman Kosovo. All Kosovo’s place-names (toponyms) are of the Slavic (the Serb) origin but not of the Albanian. The Albanians during the last 50 years are just renaming or adapting the original place-names according to their vocabulary what is making a wrong impression that the province is authentically the Albanian. We have not right to forget the very fact that the word Kosovo is of the Slavic (the Serb) origin meaning a kind of eagle (kos) while the same word means simply nothing in the Albanian language. Finally, in the Serbian tradition, Kosovo-Metochia was always a part of the “Old Serbia” while in the Albanian tradition Kosovo was never called as any kind of Albania.

The province became contested land between the Serbs and the Albanians when the later started to migrate from North Albania to Kosovo-Metochia after 1690 with getting a privileged status as the Muslims by the Ottoman authorities. A Muslim Albanian terror against the Christian Serbs at the Ottoman time resulted in the Albanisation of the province to such extent that the ethnic structure of Kosovo-Metochia became drastically changed in the 20th century. A very high Muslim Albanian birthrate played an important role in the process of Kosovo’s Albanisation too. Therefore, after the WWII the ethnic breakdown of the Albanians in the province was around 67 percent. The new and primarily anti-Serb communist authorities of socialist Yugoslavia legally forbade to some 100.000 WWII Serb refugees from Kosovo-Metochia to return to their homes back after the collapse of the Greater Albania in 1945 of which Kosovo was an integral part. A Croat-Slovenian communist dictator of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito (1892−1980), granted to the province of Kosovo-Metochia a considerable political autonomous status in 1974 with a separate government, Provincial Assembly, president, Academy of Sciences, security forces, independent University of Prishtina and even military defense system for the fundamental political reason to prepare Kosovo’s independence after the death of his Titoslavia. Therefore, Kosovo-Metochia in socialist Yugoslavia was just formally part of Serbia as the province was from a political-administrative point of view an independent as all Yugoslav republics.

A fully Albanian-governed Kosovo from 1974 to 1989 resulted in both destruction of the Christian (the Serb) cultural monuments and continuation of mass expulsion of the ethnic Serbs and Montenegrins from the province to such extent that according to some estimations there were around 200.000 Serbs and Montenegrins expelled from the province after the WWII up to the abolition of political autonomy of the province (in fact, independence) by Serbia’s authority in 1989 with the legal and legitimate verification by the provincial assembly of Kosovo-Metochia and the reintegration of Kosovo-Metochia into Serbia. At the same time, there were around 300.000 Albanians who illegally came to live in Kosovo-Metochia from Albania after 1945. Consequently, according to the official census, in 1991 there was only 10 percent of the Serbs and Montenegrins in Kosovo-Metochia, 87 percent of the Albanians and 3 percent of others. In one word, during one century of time, the Serbian population of Kosovo-Metochia from 65−70 percent fell down to 10 percent (according to the first Ottoman census in 1455, there was only 2 percent of the Albanians in Kosovo-Metochia) [see more in Р. Самарџић et al, Косово и Метохија у српској историји, Београд: Друштво за чување споменика и неговање традиција ослободилачких ратова Србије до 1918. године у Београду−Српска књижевна задруга, 1989; Д. Т. Батаковић, Косово и Метохија: Историја и идеологија, Београд: Чигоја штампа, 2007].

Fighting Kosovo’s Albanian political terrorism and territorial secession

The revocation of Kosovo’s political autonomy in 1989 by Serbia’s central government in Belgrade was aimed primarily to stop further ethnic Albanian terror against the Serbs and Montenegrins and to prevent secession of the province from Serbia with the final aim to restore the WWII Greater Albania and legalize the Albanian ethnic cleansing of all non-Albanian population what practically happened in Kosovo after mid-June 1999 when the NATO’s troops occupied the province and brought to the power a classical terrorist political-military organization – Kosovo’s Liberation Army (the KLA). Nevertheless, the Western mainstream media, as well as academia, presented Serbia’s fighting Kosovo’s Albanian political terrorism and territorial secession after 1989 as Belgrade policy of discrimination against the Albanian population which became deprived of political and economic rights and opportunities [typical examples of such approach are, for instance, propaganda and shameful books based on the falsification of historical facts and a partisan interpretation of political events Noel Malcolm, Kosovo: A Short History, New York: HarperPerennial, 1999; and Sabrina P. Ramet (ed.), Central and Southeast European Politics since 1989, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010]. The fact was that such “discrimination” was primarily a result of the Albanian policy of boycotting Serbia’s state institutions and even job opportunities offered to them in order to present their living conditions in Kosovo as the governmental-sponsored minority rights oppression.

The Serbian Orthodox Church Samodrezha (second half of the 14th century) demolished by the (Muslim) Albanian mob in March 2004 (Source: author)

In the Western mainstream mass media and even in academic writings, Dr Ibrahim Rugova, a political leader of Kosovo’s Albanians in the 1990s, was described as a person who led a non-violent resistance movement against alleged Milošević’s policy of ethnic discrimination of Kosovo’s Albanians. I. Rugova was even called as a “Balkans Gandhi”. In the 1990s there were established in Kosovo-Metochia the Albanian parallel and illegal social, educational and political structures and institutions as a state within the state. The Albanians under the leadership of Rugova even three times proclaimed the independence of Kosovo. However, these proclamations of independence were at that time totally ignored by the West and the rest of the world. Therefore, Rugova-led Kosovo’s Albanian national-political movement failed to promote and advance Kosovo’s Albanian struggle for secession from Serbia and independence of the province with the final political task to incorporate it into a Greater Albania. I. Rugova himself, coming from the Muslim Albanian Kosovo’s clan that originally migrated to Kosovo from Albania, was active in political writings on the “Kosovo Question” as a way to present the Albanian viewpoint on the problem to the Western audience and, therefore, as a former French student, he published his crucial political writing in the French language in 1994.

One of the crucial questions in regard to the Kosovo problem in the 1990s is why the Western “democracies” did not recognize self-proclaimed Kosovo’s independence? The fact was that the “Kosovo Question” was absolutely ignored by the US-designed Dayton Accords of 1995 which were dealing only with the independence of Bosnia-Herzegovina. A part of the answer is probably laying in the fact that Rugova-led Albanian secession movement was, in essence, illegal and even terrorist. It is known that Rugova himself was a sponsor of a terrorist party’s militia which was responsible for violent actions against Serbia’s authorities and non-Albanian ethnic groups in Kosovo. For instance, in July 1988, from the graves of the village of Grace’s graveyard (between Priština and Vučitrn) were excavated and taken to pieces the bodies of two Serbian babies of the Petrović’s family. Nevertheless, as a response to Rugova’s unsuccessful independence policy, it was established the notorious KLA which by 1997 openly advocated a full-scale of terror against everything that was the Serbian in Kosovo.

The KLA had two main open political aims:

  • To get an independence for Kosovo from Serbia with a possibility to include the province into a Greater Albania.
  • To ethnically clean the province from all non-Albanians especially from the Serbs and Montenegrins.

However, the hidden task of the KLA was to wage an Islamic Holy War (the Jihad) against the Christianity in Kosovo by committing the Islamic terror similarly to the case of the present-day Islamic State (the ISIS/ISIL) in the Middle East. Surely, the KLA was and is a part of the policy of radicalization of the Islam at the Balkans after 1991 following the pattern of the governmental (Islamic) Party of Democratic Action (Stranka demokratske akcije – the SDA) in Bosnia-Herzegovina presided by Alija Izetbegović who was a member of Islamic SS Handžar Division in the WWII and the author of a radical Islamic Declaration in 1970.

That the KLA was established as a terrorist organization is even confirmed by the Western scholars and the US administration too. About the focal point of Kosovo’s War in 1998−1999 we can read in the following sentence:

Aware that it lacked popular support, and was weak compared to the Serbian authorities, the KLA deliberately provoked Serbian police and Interior Ministry attacks on Albanian civilians, with the aim of garnering international support, specifically military intervention” [T. B. Seybolt, Humanitarian Military Intervention: The Conditions for Success and Failure, Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press, 2007, 79].


It was true that the KLA realized very well that the more Albanian civilians were killed as a matter of the KLA’s “hit-and-run” guerrilla warfare strategy, the Western (the NATO’s) military intervention against the FRY was becoming a reality. In other words, the KLA with his commander-in-chief Hashim Thaci (today president of Kosovo and still on the Interpol list of the wanted criminals) were quite aware that any armed action against Serbia’s authorities and the Serbian civilians would bring retaliation against the Kosovo Albanian civilians as the KLA was using them in fact as a “human shield”. That was, in fact, the price which the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo had to pay for their “independence” under the KLA’s governance after the war. That was the same strategy used by Croatia’s government and Bosnian-Herzegovinian Muslim authorities in the process of divorce from Yugoslavia in the 1990s [see more in Jelena Guskova, Istorija jugoslovenske krize 1990−2000, 1−2, Beograd: ИГАМ, 2003].

However, as the violence in Kosovo escalated in 1998 the EU’s authorities and the US’s government began to support diplomatically the Albanian course – a policy which brought Serbia’s government and the leadership of the KLA to the ceasefire and withdrawal of certain Serbian police detachments and the Yugoslav military troops from Kosovo followed by the deployment of the “international” (the Western) monitors (the Kosovo Verification Mission, the KVM) under the formal authority of the OSCE. However, it was, in fact, informal deployment of the NATO’s troops in Kosovo. The KVM was authorized by the UN’s Security Council Resolution 1199 on September 23rd, 1998. That was the beginning of a real territorial-administrative secession of Kosovo-Metochia from Serbia sponsored by the West for the only and very reason that Serbia did not want to join the NATO and to sell her economic infrastructure to the Western companies according to the “transition” pattern of the Central and South-East European countries after the Cold War. The punishment came in the face of the Western-sponsored KLA.

Today, the Western gangsters of NATO, the EU and the USA need from Serbia only a formal verification of the results of their dirty policy in Kosovo-Metochia – an official recognition of the “independence” of the Republic of Kosovo. Nevertheless, behind Kosovo’s secession from Serbia are both economic and geopolitical goals of primarily American Balkans policy. Firstly, the Americans build up in Kosovo one of their biggest military camps all over the world – Bondsteel. Secondly, the greatest part of Kosovo’s natural resources and economic infrastructure are under direct control and exploitation by the US companies including and a private company of General Wesley Clark – the NATO’s chief commander who bombed Serbia and Montenegro in 1999. Finally, why the West occupied Kosovo-Metochia in June 1999 and put it under direct their control one can understood from the very fact that this province has 45 percent of the lignite reserves in Europe [Sabrina P. Ramet (ed.), Central and Southeast European Politics since 1989, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010, 359].


Assassination in Kosovo: The Killing of Oliver Ivanović
Kosovo: A Savage Assassination Rocks the Balkans
Serbia’s Sovereignty as a Nation State: “A Policy of Complete Surrender”. Kosovo and EU Integration
Serbia’s Sovereignty as a Nation State: “A Policy of Complete Surrender”. Kosovo and EU Integration
The War on Yugoslavia, Kosovo “Self-Determination” and EU-NATO Support of KLA Terrorists
The Balkans: Endurance and Endeavour. Resistance to Foreign Oppression
Kosovo Police Arrest Old Man Who Was Rebuilding the Church. Ethnic Cleansing Directed against Serbs

Posted in KosovoComments Off on Kosovo for “Europe”: Washington’s “Balkans Policy” and the Future of Serbia

Where did this guy, Barrack Obama come from, anyway? ‘VIDEO’





You might be one of those people who asked and perhaps is still asking: “Where did this guy Barrack Obama come from anyway? Who found this guy? No one even heard of him before 2008?” Good questions.

Most people have never heard of the Chicago Pritzker family or U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker either. They are one of the wealthiest families in America, $20 billion worth of family, as noted by Forbes Magazine. Penny has $4 billion alone.

She used to have more. That was before 2001 when a predatory subprime mortgage securitization racket she set up with her family led to the failure of Superior Bank in Chicago in 2008. She was fined $400 million by the Feds for bringing the sub-prime loan racket to Chicago and then let loose to roam.

The sub-prime mortgage racket was carried out in then, Senator Obama’s Congressional District, the South Side of Chicago. That is where Obama and Pritzker met. That is where they planned.

It was Penny Pritzker who found Obama; Penny Pritzker who when he was a Senator in Chicago, introduced him to the likes of Robert Rubin, Jamie Dimon and many other banksters and fraudsters on Wall St. Rubin’s backing of Obama in 2008 was the clincher that denied Hillary Clinton the nomination.

Posted in USAComments Off on Where did this guy, Barrack Obama come from, anyway? ‘VIDEO’

Shoah’s pages