Washington’s Fifth Columns Inside Russia and China

Paul Craig ROBERTS | 03.08.2015 | 08:00

It took two decades for Russia and China to understand that «pro-democracy» and «human rights» organizations operating within their countries were subversive organizations funded by the US Department of State and a collection of private American foundations organized by Washington. The real purpose of these non-governmental organizations (NGOs) is to advance Washington’s hegemony by destabilizing the two countries capable of resisting US hegemony. Washington’s Fifth Columns pulled off «color revolutions» in former Russian provinces, such as Georgia, the birthplace of Joseph Stalin and Ukraine, a Russian province for centuries.  When Vladimir Putin was last elected, Washington was able to use its Fifth Columns to pour thousands of protesters into the streets of Russia claiming that Putin had «stolen the election». This American propaganda had no effect on Russia, where the citizen back their president by 89%. The other 11% consists almost entirely of Russians who believe Putin is too soft toward the West’s aggression. This minority supports Putin as well. They only want him to be tougher. The actual percentage of the population that Washington has been able to turn into treasonous agents is only 2-3 percent of the population. These traitors are the «Westerners», the «Atlantic integrationists», who are willing for their country to be an American vassal state in exchange for money. Paid to them, of course. But Washington’s ability to put its Fifth Columns into the streets of Moscow had an effect on insouciant Americans and Europeans. Many Westerners today believe that Putin stole his election and is intent on using his office to rebuild the Soviet Empire and to crush the West. Not that crushing the West would be a difficult thing to do. The West has pretty much already crushed itself. China, obsessed with becoming rich, has been an easy mark for Washington. The Rockefeller Foundation is supporting pro-American Chinese professors in the universities. US corporations operating in China create superfluous «boards» to which the relatives of the ruling political class are appointed and paid high «directors’s fees». This compromises the loyalty of the Chinese ruling class.  Hoping to have compromised the Chinese ruling class with money, Washington then launched its Hong Kong NGOs in protests, hoping that the protests would spread into China and that the ruling class, bought with American money, would be slow to see the danger. Russia and China finally caught on. It is amazing that the governments of the two countries that Washington regards as «threats» were so tolerant of foreign-financed NGOs for so long. The Russian and Chinese toleration of Washington’s Fifth Columns must have greatly encouraged the American neoconservatives, thus pushing the world closer to conflict.  But as they say, all good things come to an end. The Saker reports that China finally has acted to protect itself from Washington’s subversion. Russia, also, has acted in her defense,  аlso.  We Americans need to be humble, not arrogant. We need to acknowledge that American living standards, except for the favored One Percent, are in long-term decline and have been for two decades. If life on earth is to continue, Americans need to understand that it is not Russia and China, any more than it was Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, Assad, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia, that are threats to the US. The threat to the US resides entirely in the crazed neoconservative ideology of Washington’s hegemony over the world and over the American people. This arrogant goal commits the US and its vassal states to nuclear war. If Americans were to wake up, would they be able to do anything about their out-of-control-government? Are Europeans, having experienced the devastating results of World War I and World War II, capable of understanding that the incredible damage done to Europe in those wars is minuscule compared to the damage from nuclear war?  If the EU were an intelligent and independent government, the EU would absolutely forbid any member country from hosting a US anti-ballistic missile or any other military base anywhere close to Russia’s borders.  The Eastern European lobby groups in Washington want revenge on the Soviet Union, an entity that is no longer with us. The hatred transmits to Russia. Russia has done nothing except to have failed to read the Wolfowitz Doctrine and to realize that Washington intends to rule the world, which requires prevailing over Russia and China.

Tags: China Russia US Source: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/08/03/washington-fifth-columns-inside-russia-and-china.html

German Parliamentarians to Discuss Visit to Crimea

News | 03.08.2015 | 09:45

Sputnik - German lawmakers can visit the Crimean Peninsula following the French delegation, Alexander Neu, member of the German parliament (Bundestag) from the left-wing Die Linke party said Monday. On July 23-24, a 10-member delegation of French lawmakers, headed by former Minister of Transport Thierry Mariani, travelled to Crimea to examine the economic and social situation on the peninsula. “I consider the visit of French lawmakers as the right activity… They had to show and to tell to the French officials, politicians and the community about the real state of affairs,” Neu said, as quoted by Russia's Izvestia newspaper. He added that the possibility of visiting the peninsula is more acceptable for Die Linke than for other Bundestag’s parties. He said that his party would discuss the visit after Bundestag would renew its activities in September. Italy’s influential opposition Five Star Movement (M5S) parties, northern Italy’s regional Lega Nord party, Hungarian Jobbik party are also planning to visit Crimea in the fall. Crimea seceded from Ukraine and reunified with Russia following a March 2014 referendum in which over 96 percent of voters supported the move. The vote was labelled an illegal annexation by Kiev and the West.

Tags: Crimea Germany Russia

The Entire Case for Sanctions Against Russia Is Pure Lies By Eric Zuesse

 Feb 27, 2015 U.S. President Barack Obama has stated many times his case against Russia — the reason for the economic sanctions. In his National Security Strategy 2015, he uses the term “aggression” 18 times, and 17 of them are referring specifically to only one country as “aggressive”: Russia. However, not once does he say there what the “aggression” consisted of: what its target was, or what it itself was. He’s vague there on everything except his own target: Russia. For those things (what Russia’s “aggression” consists of), Obama’s only statement that has been even as lengthy as moderately brief — since he has never presented it at any more length — was his interview with Fareed Zacaria of CNN on 1 February 2015, which happened to be a statement given only three days short of the first anniversary of his agent’s, Victoria Nuland’s, having selected, on 4 February 2014, whom the next leader of Ukraine would be, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (she called him “Yats”) after the democratically elected and sitting Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, would become overthrown, which happened 18 days later, on 22 February 2014. (It was nothing like Czechoslovakia’s “Velvet Revolution”. This wasn’t democratic; it was a coup.) Obama said there, in this CNN interview, that the reason for the sanctions against Russia was that, “since Mr. Putin made this decision around Crimea and Ukraine — not because of some grand strategy, but essentially because he was caught off-balance by the protests in the Maidan and Yanukovych then fleeing after we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine — since that time, this improvisation that he’s been doing has getting — has gotten him deeper and deeper into a situation that is a violation of international law, that violates the integrity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, has isolated Russia diplomatically, has made Europe wary of doing business with Russia, has allowed the imposition of sanctions that are crippling Russia’s economy at a time when their oil revenues are dropping. There’s no formula in which this ends up being good for Russia. The annexation of Crimea is a cost, not a benefit, to Russia. The days in which conquest of land somehow was a formula for great nation status is over.” That’s all; he didn’t mention the subsequent shooting-down of the Malaysian airliner over the conflict-zone in Ukraine on 17 July 2014, which was the incident that he used, after the first set of sanctions, in order to get the European Union to increase the sanctions against Russia (and that incident will be discussed at the end of this article because he simply didn’t mention it in this, his lengthiest statement on the cause of the sanctions). His entire reason there — and no reason at all was given in his National Security Strategy 2015 for calling Russia “aggressive” — was “the annexation of Crimea.” What, then, are the facts on that matter, of Crimea? First, we must make note of the fact that this annexation occurred on 16 March 2014, when Crimeans went to the polls and voted in a referendum on whether to remain ruled by the Ukrainian national Government in Kiev, as they had been ruled only since 1954, or instead by the Russian national Government in Moscow, as they had been ruled from 1783 to 1954; and we must also keep in mind that this referendum had occurred as a direct result of Obama’s coup against the man, Viktor Yanukovych, for whom Crimeans had voted at around 75% throughout Crimea. In the United States, that type of election, one in which the leading candidate had received 75% of the vote, would be called a “landslide.” How would Americans feel if they had voted 75% for a President in 2010, for a six-year term, only to find him overthrown in an extremely violent coup four years later by a foreign power that they despised and feared as an aggressor, as Crimeans overwhelmingly, and by far more than 75%, felt about the United States? Specifically, if you’ll look there (at that link) at those polls by Gallup (and you can get to each one of them there by just two clicks, so it’s quick), what you’ll find is that even before Obama’s February 2014 coup which overthrew the Ukrainian President whom nearly 80% of Crimeans had voted for, the Crimean people overwhelmingly wanted to secede from Ukraine — and, especially now they did, right after the President for whom they had overwhelmingly voted, Viktor Yanukovych, had been overthrown in this extremely bloody coup. Furthermore, in April 2014, Gallup again polled Crimea, and they found that 71.3% of Crimeans viewed as “Mostly positive” the role of Russia there, and 4.0% viewed it as “Mostly negative”; by contrast, only 2.8% of Crimeans viewed the role of the United States there as “Mostly positive,” and a whopping 76.2% viewed it as “Mostly negative.” During the intervening year (i.e., both before and after Obama’s coup and the resulting secession-referendum), Crimeans’ favorability toward America had plunged down to 2.8%, from its year-earlier 6%. Clearly, what Obama had done in Ukraine (his violent coup in Kiev) had antagonized the Crimeans. And, as if that weren’t enough, the 2014 poll provided yet more evidence: “The 500 people that were sampled in Crimea were asked [and this is crucial] ‘Please tell me if you agree or disagree: The results of the referendum on Crimea’s status [whether to rejoin Russia] reflect the views of most people here.’ 82.8% said ‘Agree.’ 6.7% said ‘Disagree.’” But there turned out to be even more evidence that the referendum-results in Crimea had been accurate: Even after just one click (not even two) from there, you’ll see the following information, also with a link to its source: Because both of those two Gallup polls had been paid-for by the U.S. Government, Canada’s Government wanted its own read on the Crimean situation; and, so, they hired a different polling organization to do their own poll. However, the Canadian Government got no better news than the U.S. Government had gotten: 82% of Crimeans “Fully endorse” Crimea’s having become part of Russia; 11% “Mostly endorse” it; 2% “Mostly disapprove”; 3% “Don’t know”; and only 2% “Fully disapprove.” Or, to put it simply: 93% approve; 3% don’t know, and 4% disapprove. The results of the referendum had been 96% to rejoin Russia. 4% voted against. That’s like the 4% who disapproved of the return to Russia, in the Canadian-sponsored poll. In a situation like that, what can one say of President Obama’s statement against Russia: “The days in which conquest of land somehow was a formula for great nation status is over.” Which country had engaged in conquest here? Did Russia conquer Crimea, as Obama constantly alleges? Or did the United States conquer Ukraine? Is Putin the aggressor? Or is Obama? Obama knows the answer to that question. He isn’t an ignorant man. He had hired Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to head the State Department, and they had hired Dick Cheney’s chief foreign-policy advisor Victoria Nuland to run the operation to take over Ukraine. (And they kicked off the coup a day earlier than the Maidan demonstrations even started, but the operation had been long planned regardless.) Obama knew that both Clinton and Kerry had voted for the invasion of Iraq and that both have also been lifelong supporters of the CIA’s Gladio operation that hired Hitler’s and Mussolini’s intelligence operatives in order to exploit not only anti-communist sentiment but anti-Russian sentiment in Eastern Europe (and here’s the much lengthier BBC documentary on that), so as for the U.S. to take control of Eastern European countries and strip Russia of its western allies and take Russia over, as well, for an unchallenged American Empire, which Obama constantly refers to as “the one indispensable nation,” meaning that all other nations are “dispensable.” Obama has a consistent record as being supportive of the Gladio operation, and of the CIA’s other specifically anti-Russian operations, though his statement to Fareed Zakaria on CNN pretended that Obama had been friendly toward Russia when Dmitry Medvedev was Russia’s President, throughout Obama’s first term. (He can pretend that, because it helps deceive people to think that Putin must be overthrown, that Putin is ‘the problem.’) All during Obama’s first term, he was continuing the preparations at the CIA, State Department, etc., to conquer Russia by surrounding it with recently recruited hostile NATO member states, thus far: Croatia and Albania in 2009 under Obama; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004 under Bush; Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999 under Clinton — that’s a total of 12 formerly Russia-friendly nations which have switched to become members of the anti-Russia military club: NATO. Obama is having trouble bringing Ukraine into that club, because Putin has set a red line at Ukraine, both because of its size and because of its having, ever since 1783, Russia’s key naval base, in Crimea. President Obama knew that he would be crossing this red line by seizing Ukraine as he did in February 2014, but he did it anyway; and Putin responded by using Russia’s existing military in Crimea to protect Crimeans so that they could have a peaceful and honest referendum, which Putin knew, just as well as Obama did, would overwhelmingly favor rejoining Russia. Yet now, Obama has the nerve to say that it’s Putin instead of Obama who has been the aggressor here and who should be subject to “regime change.” (Of course, if Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush becomes the U.S. President, then there will be continuity of the existing U.S. imperial regime, which actually started in earnest in 1980, long before Putin came to power.) Regarding the shoot-down of the MH17 Malaysian airliner (the pretext for Obama’s getting the EU to support increased anti-Russian sanctions): the U.S.-Ukrainian account of the downing is that pro-Russian rebels shot it down by mistake, with a missile. For this, Obama blamed Russia, and his agents who run European governments and the EU went along with that and hiked their economic sanctions against Russia; but, nobody in power believed it, because the postulated scenario is absurd to anyone who knows anything. However, even if that scenario had been true, yet still, Obama definitely caused the Malaysian airliner to be downed. Furthermore, the reason why the official ‘investigation’ into the downing is not being made public is that Obama’s own Ukrainian Government was given veto-power over everything that will be in it, and they won’t allow the additional evidence, above and beyond the already dispositive evidence that has been revealed but not publicized, to be included in it; so, the report is not issued. The Ukrainian Government weren’t able to prevent the decisive proof that their own Air Force plane had intentionally shot it down from leaking out; but the Western press have cooperated with Obama to suppress that information. More information keeps leaking out supporting that earlier proof; but, actually, additional proof isn’t even needed. Publication of the existing damning evidence is. However, no one will be able to suppress the ‘findings’ by the official ‘investigation.’ So: it doesn’t yet exist, and maybe it never will. In other words: President Obama planned and executed an operation to take over Ukraine for the United States; and for then using that country as a springboard to ‘justify’ sanctions against Russia, including sanctions that have been added, on the basis of Obama’s operation shooting down the Malaysian airliner in order to be able to stir up yet more hatred against Russia. And here is how the ‘news’ media in the West have reported on all that. If it seems like George Orwell’s 1984, that’s because it is. However, it’s heading toward a far worse ending. And this isn’t fiction. ————— Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.
 Source: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/entire-case-sanctions-russia-pure-lies.html

Kyoto Declaration In Solidarity with Local and National Movements Resisting US base expansions.

Final Declaration from the Kyoto International 

Conference on Space and Peace (August 2, 2015)

The United Nations was established in 1946 after the Second World War to “Save the succeeding generations from the scourge of wars, which twice in our life time has brought untold sorrow to humankind”. The UN visualized establishing a New International Order. But the US and the erstwhile European colonial countries have joined together and instead of a New International Order, they have brought a “New International Disorder”.      

The entire 20^th Century witnessed wars, aggressions, and assassinations in Asia, Africa and Latin America. The imperialist countries formed the NATO military alliance which is being used to indulge in attacks on sovereign nations and committing war crimes which go unpunished. Even the UN is being side tracked as NATO expands its mission as the primary resource extraction service for corporate globalization.

Instead of allowing an alternative social order to capitalism to be developed the US engaged the USSR in a nuclear arms race. US has established approximately 1,000 military bases throughout the world. It was largely responsible for boosting global military expenditures to more than 1.75 Trillion US Dollars. Along with allies like Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies the US has over the years fostered the growth of Taliban, Al-Qaida and terrorism throughout the Middle East, Central Asia and parts of Africa. 

Missile defense systems, key elements in Pentagon first-strike attack planning, have been deployed around Russia and China. This has helped deal a death blow to hopes for global nuclear disarmament as both those nations have repeatedly warned that they cannot afford to reduce their nuclear retaliatory capability at the same time the US deploys the ‘shield’ on their doorstep.

At the beginning of the 21^st Century the United Nations made another attempt to herald a “New International Order” by adopting the “Millennium Declaration” and the Millennium Development Goals. All UN members have accepted to eschew violence and follow peaceful co-existence ushering disarmament and development. But again the US and many European partners have created a “New International Disorder”. 

Lies have been spoken in the governments of US & Britain and also in the UN Security Council about the non-existent nuclear weapons in Iraq. War in Afghanistan, invasion of Iraq, attacks on Libya, and drones attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and other nations have led to the killing of many innocent people.

Having directed a coup d’état in Ukraine the US has helped create a deadly civil war on Russia’s border that appears designed to destabilize the government in Moscow.  

NATO has been extended up to the borders of Russia violating post-Cold War promises to the former Soviet Union that the western military alliance would not move ‘one inch’ eastward. The US-NATO are today sending troops and heavy military hardware to NATO members Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, and Georgia all along or near the Russian border.  These provocative developments could be the trigger for WW III.

US refusal to negotiate a ban on weapons in space at the UN has left the door open for continued development of offensive and destabilizing space technologies like the military space plane and Prompt Global Strike systems.  US military satellites offer global surveillance to the Pentagon and allow for targeting of virtually any place on Earth.

The recently announced Obama ‘pivot’ of US forces into the Asia-Pacific is intended to give the Pentagon the capability to contain and control China.  More airfields, barracks, and ports-of-call are needed for US military operations in the region thus we see expansion of existing bases, or construction of new bases, in places like South Korea, Okinawa, Guam, Philippines, Australia and more.  We stand in solidarity with those local and national movements that resist these US base expansions.  

Particularly as we meet in Kyoto, Japan we declare our strong opposition to the US deployment of a “missile defense” X-Band radar system in the local prefecture that is provocatively aimed at China.

This Kyoto Conference declares our opposition to the dangerous spread of global militarization, on behalf of corporate domination, which cannot be allowed to continue as we see the coming ravages of climate change and growing global poverty.  We must all work to realize the UN ideal to “save the succeeding generations from the scourge of wars”. This can only happen with a powerful and unified global movement for peace, justice and environmental sanity.

We call for the conversion of the global war machine so that all life on our spaceship Earth may live and flourish in the years to come.  We recognize the need for bold and determined action now to ensure that another world may in fact be possible.

 

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
globalnet@mindspring.com
www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.com/  (blog)

On Ukraine: U.S. Propaganda: It’s Not Just False but Absurd

Eric ZUESSE | 03.08.2015 | 00:00

It’s so ridiculous, no intelligent and informed person would give it any serious consideration whatsoever. It insults the public’s intelligence. Here’s a typical example of the ridiculousness of U.S. propaganda: On July 16th, the U.S. State Department issued a «Ukraine Travel Warning». It says: «The Department of State warns U.S. citizens to defer all travel to Crimea and the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, and recommends those U.S. citizens currently living in or visiting these regions to depart... Russia-backed separatists continue to control areas in the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts. Despite the signing of a ceasefire agreement by representatives of Ukraine, Russia and the OSCE, violent clashes between combined Russian separatist forces and Ukrainian forces continue in parts of the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk, resulting in thousands of injuries and deaths. The ceasefire agreement established a de facto dividing line between Ukrainian government-controlled and separatist-held areas of Ukraine, with numerous checkpoints controlled by government and separatist forces. Individuals, including U.S. citizens, have been threatened, detained or kidnapped for hours or days after being stopped at separatist checkpoints... The Department of State also warns U.S. citizens to defer all travel to the Crimean Peninsula, which is occupied by Russia. The Russian Federation is likely to take further actions in Crimea throughout the remainder of 2015 consistent with its attempted unlawful annexation and occupation of this part of Ukraine. The international community, including the United States and Ukraine, does not recognize this purported annexation. The Russian Federation maintains an extensive military presence in Crimea and along the border of eastern Ukraine...» Prior to the U.S. overthrow of the democratically elected President of Ukraine in February 2014, there was peace throughout Ukraine. Obama (his Administration, as shown in that video) replaced the existing Ukrainian President, Viktor Yanukovych, who, like all of his predecessors, was corrupt; and the U.S. propaganda-machine publicized his corruption, while virtually ignoring the fact of corruption’s normalcy in at least post-Soviet Ukraine (corruption that had been greatly encouraged by the U.S.). The U.S. didn’t replace him because he was corrupt. The U.S. replaced him because he supported a non-aligned Ukraine: neither a stooge to the U.S., nor to Russia. Barack Obama repeatedly asserts that — as he phrased it to West Point cadets on 28 May 2014 — «The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation. [So: all other nations are ‘dispensable.’] That has been true for the century passed [he misspelled ‘past’] and it will be true for the century to come». Adolf Hitler and his Nazis said it for their country more succinctly: «Deutschland über alles». Except that Hitler proclaimed that his would be a «Thousand-Year Reich», not merely «for the century to come». The U.S. began its overthrow-operation early in 2013. At that time, Yanukovych was still considering offers for Ukraine to join the U.S.-backed European Union, or else to join the Russia-backed Eurasian Economic Community. The EU is much larger, but Ukraine’s centuries-long former association with, and economic extensions from (including favored-nation trading status with) Russia, would have been very costly for Ukraine to sever. Ukraine’s economy had long been based far more on trade with Russia than on with trade with the rest of Europe.  According to MIT, the «Top 5 export destinations» from Ukraine were: Russia (24%), Egypt (6.5%), Turkey (5.2%), Italy (3.8%), and Kazakhstan (3.5%). The «Top 5 import origins» into Ukraine were: Russia (31%), China (9.0%), Germany (8.2%), Belarus (6.4%), and Poland (5.0%).  On 19 November 2013, Yanukovych met with the European Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighbourhood Policy. The economists at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences had recently delivered their report to Yanukovych, which concluded that the net loss from joining the EU would be $160 billion. Yanukovych asked the Commissioner, «If we sign, will you help us,» so that Ukraine wouldn’t bear the entirety of this enormous cost. The Commissioner said, «Sorry», no. (The Commissioner suggested that Ukraine might borrow the money from the IMF — which would be the kind of national suicide that actually occurred after the U.S. overthrew Yanukovych.) The next day, Yanukovych announced that he was turning down the EU’s offer. Then, according to wikipedia, the «Maidan» demonstrations to oust Yanukovych from power started on 21 November 2013. Brandon Turbeville has described the 40-year-long development of the technology that the CIA and State Department built for that overthrow. But, in fact, as I documented back in February, «The Entire Case for Sanctions. The whole case is fraudulent.  So: the U.S. State Department rejects the legitimacy of the overwhelming, and the repeatedly polling-confirmed, desire of the Crimean people to cease being Ukrainian (which they had been only from 1954 to 2014), even though this same U.S. State Department accepts the legitimacy of the Scottish people to determine whether or not to continue being British (which they have been ever since 1707). The sovereign democratic right of Crimeans isdenied, while the sovereign democratic right of the Scotts is affirmed. One needs to be a sucker to believe that, but it’s the U.S. Government’s official line. As for the residents of Donbass(«Donetsk and Luhansk Oblasts»), Obama needs to get rid of them, because they had voted over 90% for the man he overthrew. If they stay alive and within Ukraine, then the regime that Obama installed will get voted out of office.  In fact, that’s the reason why Russia’s leader, Vladimir Putin, has insisted that they remain within Ukraine — so that they will vote out of office the anti-Russian racist fascists that Obama installed, next door to Russia, in Ukraine. That’s as if during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the dictator of the Soviet Union, Nikita Khruschev, had grabbed control over not only Cuba but even over Mexico right on America’s border. Would the United States have tolerated that, then? So, Putin doesn’t tolerate this, now. The irony is that it’s Putin who wants the «pro-Russian rebels» to remain as part of Ukraine; and it’s Obama who wants them not to be — even while he claims that Putin does, and asserts that Putin is the aggressor. For example, on 3 September 2014, Obama said: «Fifth - we must continue to stand united against Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. (Applause.) Keep in mind that, repeatedly, President Putin has ignored the opportunity to resolve the crisis in Ukraine diplomatically. The United States, the European Union, our partners around the world have all said we prefer a diplomatic solution. But in light of Russia’s unwillingness to seize that opportunity, we have come together to impose major sanctions on Russia for its actions». A more devilishly lying country than the United States of today is hard to imagine. It’s even a dictatorship: its government represents not the public (as its Founders had intended) but its aristocracy (which those Founders had tried to overthrow — and did overthrow, in their own era). The U.S. Government even has the brazen audacity to brag about its success at fooling the global publics. In fact, as I headlined on 7 October 2014, «Leading German Journalist Admits CIA ‘Bribed’ Him and Other Leaders of the Western ‘Press’». The U.S. Government holds the public everywhere in contempt. __________________________ Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. Foto: Sputniknews

Tags: Novorossiya Russia Ukraine US http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/08/03/us-propaganda-its-not-just-false-but-absurd.html

Ban Ki Moon: Israel ist verantwortlich

• 
• 

Erstellt am Samstag, 01. August 2015 11:22

UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki-moon verurteilte den offenbar von radikalen jüdischen Siedlern verübten Anschlag, bei dem ein palästinensisches Kleinkind gestorben war, scharf.

Für den jüngsten Brandanschlag im Westjordanland fand UN-Generalsekretär Ban Ki Moon deutliche Worte: Es handle sich um eine "heimtückische Terrorattacke", dessen Verantwortlichen umgehend zur Rechenschaft gezogen werden müssten, erklärte Ban am UN-Sitz in New York. Er machte Israels Siedlungspolitik für den Tod eines Kleinkindes bei dem Anschlag mitverantwortlich.

"Die Abwesenheit eines politischen Prozesses und Israels illegale Siedlungspolitik sowie die harsche und unnötige Praxis, palästinensische Häuser zu zerstören, haben gewaltsamen Extremismus auf beiden Seiten befördert", sagte Bans Sprecher Stephane Dujarric. Radikale jüdische Siedler seien für ihre Gewalttaten oft nicht ausreichend bestraft worden.
http://www.freunde-palaestinas.de/palaestina-heute/2345-ban-ki-moon-israel-ist-verantwortlich.html

German Know-Nothings Today and The Refugees By Victor Grossman

"... too few (people) realize that the wars which force so many (refugees) to risk their lives in leaky death traps were caused or armed by the major western powers in Bagdad, Kabul and Aleppo, or that the poverty sending Africans along the same route derives from giant, lasting exploitation, with cheap exports of “northern“ goods destroying the livelihoods of small farmers, tailors and other craftsmen, forcing them... across the deserts to Libya, where warplanes of the great powers created the chaos conducive to today’s racketeering boat-dealers."

Berlin Bulletin No. 96, August 1 2015

“I don’t know.” Those words, often repeated 160-odd years ago in the USA, earned the gang of those using them the nickname “Know Nothing Party”. Those were no expressions of intellectual modesty; party doings were secret, so members were not supposed to disclose anything about them, but just say “I don’t know”. Their patriotic title was actually “American Party” but many members truly knew almost nothing except that they hated immigrants, especially Catholic Germans and Irish, and wanted to bar them from entry, from citizenship and from the vote. This uplifting program, including violent attacks on those fleeing famine in Ireland or repression in Germany after a lost revolution, won the “Know-Nothings” by 1856 eight state governorships, five seats in the US Senate and forty-three in the House of Representatives. 

Today we are also blessed with Know-Nothings – in many countries. We hear similar views in London and Paris, in Amsterdam and Copenhagen, in Munich and Berlin. And we hear of results worse than in 1855 in Maryland or Massachusetts: of desperate misery in the “Jungle” of Calais or at the Italian-French border, of broken windows and flaming roofs in refugee hostels in more and more German towns. Such attacks, vicious graffiti, insulting hog carcasses, increasingly, Molotov cocktails as well, numbered 173 in Germany alone in the first half of 2015, almost three times the number in 2014.

No-one can deny that serious problems exist. Refugees today are not from Ireland or Germany, now one of their main goals; 160,000 applied here for asylum by June 30th and the numbers are increasing. Very many are fleeing war zones, their direct dangers and their hunger and destruction – people from Afghanistan, Iraq, Gaza, Turkey, Sudan and South Sudan. Hunger and destitution play key roles for many from African countries, often paired with repression. Then there are those from Bulgaria, Rumania and the countries carved out with the dismemberment of Yugoslavia. These ”Eastern Balkan” asylum-seekers are mostly Roma (“Gypsies”), discriminated against nearly everywhere, pressed into miserable schools, largely bound to the worst of jobs or none at all, subject to hatred and often violent attacks. All the refugees want only a chance to earn a living, care for their families, return where possible or to find peaceful new homes. 

Germany was often faced by waves of newcomers, not only in past centuries. Millions of ethnic Germans, forced to leave Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary after 1945, faced difficult, often frosty receptions in places where they were resettled. Then huge sums were invested to build up West Germany and workers from Spain, Italy and then Turkey were “imported” by government agreement, especially after 1961, when the Wall prevented further recruitment of East Germans. Most of these nicely titled “guest workers” were given heavy and dirty jobs, on shift work and assembly lines, and their employment helped keep wages down in Germany while lessening unemployment and political radicalization in their home countries. The program ended in 1973; almost all 14 million returned home; two million stayed, grew roots, fetched and raised families and are now in their second and third generations. But the integration process is far from concluded and was complicated in the early 1990’s by German unification – or annexation. There was nasty violence against people with different colors, clothes and languages, by West Germans but even worse by East Germans suddenly deprived of their jobs, less accustomed to many nationalities hence more easily misguided in their frustration and disappointment to attack peaceful, industrious people they were led to see as intruders.

The situation cooled somewhat after 2000. But today, with large new numbers arriving, it is again threatening, indeed very threatening. Despite some people’s theories, however, not all Germans are the same! Many feel great sympathy toward them after the terrible scenes of warfare in Syria and Iraq or the terrible tragedies of capsized vessels and lost human beings in the stormy Mediterranean. Perhaps some recalled their own travails. In addition to many who accept the newcomers with at least mental welcome mats, not a few offer food, clothing, toys and personal care to help them settle at least temporarily. Thousands, especially young people, demonstrate in their defense, march with “Welcome” signs, and defiantly confront that other contingent – the modern Know-nothings. 

However, as more and more are assigned to city boroughs, small towns, even villages, as container homes are erected and even school gymnasiums get filled with cots or mattresses, it becomes easier to stir up hatred, spread fear of disease or crime and warn of dangers to schoolchildren. Public aid sums are falsely magnified to encourage envy. Donald Trump’s vicious words about Mexicans or pictures of anti-alien vigilantes in the US-Southwest can give a hint of this. But very icy fears are bor of recollections of the not so distant German past, of similar visages and bulging, shaven napes. 

Among such German Know-Nothings are still the Pegida demonstrators with their “anti-Islamic” shouts and banners. Nationally more organized are those in the Alternative for Deutschland party (AfD), which recently ousted its moderately far right leader and moved even further to the racist right; the split cut its poll numbers to 3-4 %, which would at least keep it out of the Bundestag. The older National Democratic Party (NPD), no longer seated in Saxony’s legislature but very present in its main districts, has now been augmented by a newer group called the Third Way, a mix of violence-prone neo-Nazis which has spread from Bavaria to the eastern Brandenburg -  and of course Saxony.

Though small in number, they are clever in stirring fear and resentment, especially when those responsible for bringing in refugees fail to discuss and explain the move to local residents. Freital near Dresden, in GDR days a flourishing steel town, has been plagued for weeks by noisily menacing rallies led by such right-wing forces. The police hold them back from the hotel assigned to asylum-seekers, but just barely; at a public meeting those supporting the refugees were booed and denied the word, including Saxony’s Interior Minister, who as mayor in another town once took a strong stand on the issue, but more recently, like his boss at the helm in Saxony, often seems nearly tongue-tied. Freital’s mayor, on the other hand, was anything but tongue-tied during his election campaign when he demanded “sanctions against the swarming, violent asylum-seekers…adventurers coming to Germany to live a life of ease at the cost of the community”. All three politicians are from the ruling Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the party of Angela Merkel. 

One city councilor, a leader of the LINKE (Left) party who took a courageous stand for the refugees, awoke one night when his car exploded and burnt. Threats mailed to him had been dismissed by the police. In Meissen, to the north of Dresden, threats to a building being repaired for use by the new arrivals were similarly dismissed. It was also wrecked by fire. 

German politics are again split. With a low birthrate and sinking population, new people are needed by many corporations, to whom national background is of little importance. Upright democratic words come easily to the tongue-tips of politicians – if they want them. But above all the demands of working people must be contained, and how better than, despite all doubletalk, to let them be misled into fighting not the big firms but those “greedy foreigners” – whether Greeks in Athens or Syrians in Dortmund? New laws now demonstrate this bipolarity; refugees who have lived here four to six years, if they speak German and have jobs, have better chances to remain, which is humane. But for those refugees still outside the borders it will be tougher. 

Perhaps not for all of them. Qualified engineers, doctors and other desirable professionals will now have better chances, for they are needed. The right-wing Bavarian leader Horst Seehofer had a new plan, now being copied elsewhere. Sort out those from the “East Balkans” with little hopes of acceptance, keep them in gyms or tents and throw them out speedily. Only a few on the Left or some Greens have noted the possible resemblance of such “Gypsy camps” with those of the Nazis before the trains brought the Roma to Auschwitz. 

No, it’s not the same. But too few realize that the wars which force so many to risk their lives in leaky death traps were caused or armed by the major western powers in Bagdad, Kabul and Aleppo, or that the poverty sending Africans along the same route derives from giant, lasting exploitation, with cheap exports of “northern“ goods destroying the livelihoods of small farmers, tailors and other craftsmen, forcing them into giant, hopeless slums and from there across the deserts to Libya, where warplanes of the great powers created the chaos conducive to today’s racketeering boat-dealers. s.

The solutions will not be easy. They demand peace and justice in the Near East, without western armies and armaments, they demand truly independent, healthy development in Africa, north and south, and fair, humane treatment of everyone living in a country, regardless of origin. No, not easy!

The old Know-Nothings in the USA, with nothing to offer voters except hatred, were soon overrun by the approaching Civil War, though the human problems still remain. In Europe, especially in Germany, the forces misusing the problems of properly treating such increasingly desperate “undesirables” represent a growing threat, far more dangerous than the old Know-Nothings, and actively awaiting their chances – in all continents.