FARA STATELE UNITE, DAR ALATURI DE RUSIA SI IRAN, PENTRU O LUME MAI SIGURA, MAI MULTILATERALA!

https://bogdancalehari.wordpress.com/2018/06/02/fara-statele-unite-dar-alaturi-de-rusia-si-iran-pentru-o-lume-mai-sigura-mai-multilaterala/

In trimestrul trei al anului 2016, cand campania electorala din Statele Unite era la apogeu, guvernul german a donat Fundatiei Clinton, prin intermediul Ministerului Mediului, cateva milioane de dolari. Presa germana a facut aceasta descoperire chiar pe siteul Fundatiei Clinton! Raspunzand banuielilor de finantare mascata a campaniei lui Hillary Clinton, ministerul Mediului a raspuns ca sumele donate sunt pentru protejarea mediului in Statele Unite!

Imediat dupa alegerea lui Trump, Ursula van der Leyden, ministrul  german al Apararii, a spus : “Dupa alegerea presedintelui Donald Trump, este important ca noi, in calitate de europeni, sa ne putem organiza independent.” Cu siguranta ca Angela Merkel se gandea inca de pe atunci ca un mediu sigur, e un mediu fara Donald Trump!

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article159791364/Bundesregierung-zahlte-Millionen-an-Clinton-Stiftung.html

Cand Trump a devenit presedinte, doar 5 membri ai NATO (Statele Unite, Marea Britanie, Polonia, Estonia si Grecia) se achitau de obligatia prevazuta in statul organizatiei si alocau pentru intarirea apararii 2% din PIB-ul anual. Germania, cu 1,2 % din PIB, se clasa pe locul 16 din 28 de membri, asadar nu era ultima. Franta aloca 1,8 % din PIB, Marea Britanie 2,2% si America 3,6%!

Donald Trump le-a cerut tuturor membrilor NATO sa se achite de obligatiile lor si sa nu mai lase, ca pana atunci, povara sustinerii organizatiei nord atlantice doar in seama Statelor Unite. Mesajul mediatic transmis international a fost insa pe cat de clar pe atat de unanim: Donald Trump destabilizeaza NATO si pune in pericol viitorul organizatiei!

Cu un an in urma, in 2016, Frank Walter Steimeier, ministrul de externe al Germaniei ceruse ca manevrele NATO din Polonia sa inceteze, pentru ca “inflameaza relatiile cu Moscova”! Spunea atunci Steinmeier : “Cine crede ca o parada de tancuri aduce securitate greseste”! Iar in momentele in care, Donald Trump, “destabilizatorul” NATO, cerea ca organizatia sa fie sprijinita de toti, Jean Claude Juncker, presedintele Comisiei Europene”, i se alatura lui Frank Walter Steimeier si  declara pe Euro News: “Fara Rusia nu putem vorbi de o arhitectura de securitate in Europa. Trebuie spus acest lucru. Eu as vrea sa discutam cu Rusia de la egal la egal pentru ca Rusia nu este doar o putere regionala asa cum a spus presedintele Obama. Aceea a fost o grava eroare de apreciere.”

https://www.digi24.ro/stiri/externe/ue/juncker-europa-nu-si-poate-asigura-securitatea-fara-ajutorul-rusiei-620693

Pe 16 februarie 2017, la Conferinta pentru Securitate de la Munchen, Jean Claude Juncker reliefa inca o data pozitia refractara a aliatilor europeni fata de cerintele lui Trump, declarand ca Statele Unite au gresit obligand membri europeni NATO sa cheltuiasca mai mult pentru intretinerea fortelor armate! Juncker spunea atunci: “A fost mesajul american pentru multi multi ani de-acum inainte. Sunt total impotriva ideii de a ne lasa impinsi in treaba asta…Nu-mi plac prietenii nostri americani care ingusteaza conceptul de securitate acordand atentie militarilor… Daca te uiti la ceea ce face Europa pentru aparare, plus ajutorul pentru dezvoltare și ajutorul umanitar, comparatia cu Statele Unite pare destul de diferita. Politica moderna nu inseamna doar a creste cheltuielile pentru aparare”.

https://euobserver.com/foreign/136943

Angela Merkel, politistul bun, a preferat insa o abordare mai nuantata: a anuntat ca Germania isi va dubla bugetul alocat apararii, dar va face asta in timp, de-a lungul anilor, dupa care a profitat de un interviu acordat ziarului Die Zeit pentru a transmite nu numai un avertisment lui Trump, dar si pentru a dezvalui in cateva cuvinte modul in care europenii se vor raporta la parteneriatul nord atlantic intr-un viitor care nu e atat de departat pe cat o cred unii sau si-o doresc altii. Ea a  spus:  “Nu stim daca pe viitor ne vom mai putea sprijini pe Statele Unite…Timpul cand ne puteam sprijini total unii pe altii este in parte trecut.” Si a intarit asta dupa G7 desfasurat la Taormina: “Noi, europenii, trebuie sa ne luam propriul destin in maini si sa ne batem pentru el”.

Ca Statele Unite nu se mai pot sprijini pe aliatii europeni, nu total, ci deloc, s-a vazut, mai intai, in decembrie 2017, cand, la ONU,  ambasadorii Franţei, Marii Britanii, Italiei, Suediei şi Germaniei au declarat ca decizia lui Donald Trump de a recunoaste Ierusalimul drept capitala Statului evreu nu e conforma cu rezolutiile Consiliului de Securitate. A urmat, pe 28 februarie 2018, la Bruxelles,o conferinta comuna a celor  28 de ministri de externe ai tarilor membre UE cu omologii lor din mai multe tari arabe! Tema summitului: intentia Statelor Unite de a-si muta ambasada la Ierusalim si a recunoaste astfel Ierusalimul drept capitala statului evreu!  Dupa conferinta, Federica Mogherini, sefa diplomatiei europene, a declarat: “Uniunea Europeana s-a implicat destul de-a lungul timpului in conflict pentru a stii ce merge si ce nu merge…Impartasim global pozitia Ligii Arabe asupra relansarii procesului de pace.”

Ca si in decembrie 2017 la New York, “aliatii” europeni i-au demonstrat lui Trump ca au opinii diferite nu numai in ceea ce priveste NATO, dar si in ceea ce priveste politica din Orientul Mijlociu! L-au facut astfel sa vizualizeze o noua harta geo-politica: de o parte Statele Unite si Israel, iar de cealalta parte UE, Rusia, Liga Araba si Autoritatea Palestiniana! I-au dovedit sunt ferm hotarati sa se bata pentru destinul lor, cum spunea Merkel, dar alaturi de alti aliati!

Dupa NATO si Ierusalim a urmat acordul nuclear cu Iranul. Pe care Donald Trump l-a denuntat ca fiind un acord prost. Negocierea acestui acord fusese torpilata in 2013, la Geneva, de catre ministrul de externe francez, Laurent Fabius, din aceleasi motive. Dupa care, Franta l-a semnat totusi, in 2015, la Viena, alaturi de Statele Unite, Germania, Marea Britanie, Rusia, China si Iran.

Donald Trump a anuntat pe 8 mai retragerea Statelor Unite din acest acord, pe care l-a calificat drept “dezastruos”, si a anuntat restabilirea sanctiunilor impotriva regimului ayatollahilor. Reactia “aliatilor” europeni? Aceeasi ca in cazul finantarii NATO si a recunoasterii Ierusalimului! Emmanuel Macron a calificat drept o “greseala” decizia lui Donald Trump. El a spus: “Regret decizia presedintelui american, cred ca este gresita, si din aceasta cauza, noi, Europenii, am decis sa ramanem in acordul din 2015.” I s-au alaturat Angela Merkel si Theresa May. Macron, Merkel, May – noi, Europenii! Alaturi de ei, Iranul, Rusia si China!

Maja Kocijancic, purtatorul de cuvant al diplomatiei europene, a declarat ca retragerea lui Trump din Acordul nuclear cu Iranul reprezinta „o ruptura care atinge interesele vitale ale Europei.”! De cand si de ce interesele vitale ale Europei sunt legate de Iran si nu de Statele Unite, purtatorul de cuvant al diplomatiei UE n-a mai spus-o.

Jean Claude Juncker a fost, din nou, politistul rau: “Uniunea Europeana trebuie sa inlocuiasca Statele Unite pe scena internationala. America renunta la multilateralism cu o ferocitate care nu poate decat sa surprinda…La acest stadiu trebuie sa inlocuim Statele Unite care, ca actor international si-au pierdut din vigoare si, din aceasta cauza, pe termen lung, din influenta.”

Dupa ce condamnase conceptul de securitate american pentru viziunea sa anacronica, ingusta, si laudase potentiala contributie a Rusiei la arhitectura de securitate europeana, Juncker acuza acum nu ferocitatea dictaturii islamiste de la Teheran, sponsor principal al terorismului global, ci pe cea a Statelor Unite, care i se opunea!

La Aachen, Angela Merkel a reluat tema viitorului desi acesta devenise déjà, datorita ei, prezent: “Timpul în care puteam simplu sa contam pe Statele Unite pentru a ne proteja a trecut… Europa trebuie sa-si ia propriul destin in maini, este provocarea noastra pentru viitor”. Dupa care a plecat la Soci pentru a se intalni cu Putin si a recunoaste in prezenta acestuia: „Avem un interes strategic în a menține bune relații cu Rusia”!

Lideri europeni invoca drept motiv principal al actiunilor lor, faptul ca interesele economice ale UE, a se citi Germania si Franta, in Iran, sunt grav afectate de hotararea americana. In 2017, balanta comerciala Germania – Iran a ajuns la 3,5 miliarde de euro. In 2017, numai excedentul inregistrat de Germania in relatia comerciala cu Statele Unite se cifra la 50,5 miliarde euro! Franta are incheiate cu Iranul contracte pentru exploatarea zacamintelor de gaz in valoare de 4,6 milarde euro, iar grupul Airbus urmeaza sa vanda Iranului  114 avioane pentru 17,5 miliarde euro. In 2017, excendentul UE in relatiile economice cu Statele Unite a depasit 100 de milarde de euro!

Dupa NATO, dupa Ierusalim si dupa Iran, Donald Trump era obligat sa raspunda. Si avertismentele lui voalate cu aplicarea de taxe vamale asupra importurilor de otel si aluminiu, in special, din tarile care nu se dovedesc adevarati aliati ai Statelor Unite, au devenit realitate. Trump a trecut joi de la declaratii la fapte: 25 % taxa pe otel si 10% taxa pe aluminiul importat! Germania, in primul rand, dar si Franta sunt acum in vizor si trebuie sa plateasca.

Liderii UE isi continua insa marsul alaturi de Iran, invocand drept pretext, pierderile economice ce ar putea surveni daca ar denunta acordul nuclear incheiat, dar intorc spatele Statelor Unite, fara a tine cont de uriasele pierderi economice ce vor surveni din cauza aceasta!

Prin urmare, la 24 de ore dupa decizia lui Donald Trump, UE a anuntat ceea ce avea pregatit din timp: lansarea „Legii Blocajului” – procedura oficiala prin care companiile europene ce fac afaceri cu Iranul vor fi protejate de sanctiunile americane!
Aceasta lege permite companiilor si tribunalelor europene sa nu se supuna reglementarilor sau sanctiunilor luate de terte tari si stipuleaza ca nicio hotarare luata de tribunale straine pe baza acestor reglementari nu se va aplica in Uniunea Europeana!
Executivul european a lansat procedurile pentru a permite Bancii Europene de Investitii sa sustina investitiile europene in economia iraniana!

Oficial, „Legea Blocajului protejeaza relatiile comerciale si politice dintre dictatura islamica de la Teheran si democratia europeana de la Bruxelles. Neoficial, „Legea Blocajului” reprezinta moartea aliantei euro-atlantice!

Bineinteles, vinovatul a fost gasit: dezlantuind razboiul comercial, Donald Trump si-a atacat aliatii europeni, fisurand grav parteneriatul euro-atlantic si punand in pericol forta si credibilitatea NATO. Donald Trump, protectionistul, a declarat razboi comercial Uniunii Europene, impunand taxe vamale suplimentare unor aliati!

Acesta, cred, va fi in linii mari mesajul, ambalat propagandistic, care va fi livrat opiniei publice, in perioada urmatoare, de mai toate sursele media! Asta desi pana acum UE a taxat masinile importate din Statele Unite cu 10% in timp ce Statele Unite au taxat, si mai taxeaza inca, masinile importate din UE cu 2,5 % ! Dar Donald Trump este protectionist, asa cum este si destabilizatorul NATO!

Europa, si aici conducatorii germani au avut o contributie uriasa, s-a batut pentru “propriul destin”, o citez iar pe Merkel, in doua razboaie mondiale fierbinti, si intr-unul rece. De fiecare data, America “a intervenit cu o ferocitate ce nu putea decat sa surprinda”, ar spune Juncker azi, si a salvat-o. Se convinge acum ca nu-l poti salva la infinit pe unul ce este ferm hotarat sa se sinucida.

„Unii cred ca pot scapa de un crocodil, dandu-i cate o bucata de carne ori de cate ori fac cate un pas inapoi. Procedand asa se transforma treptat in ultima bucata de carne.” – spunea Donald Rumsfeld.

Aforismul definiste perfect strategia Uniunii Europene aplicata in politica externa atunci cand vine vorba de sistemele totalitare indiferent de origine lor. Si pentru ca Trump vrea sa impuste crocodilul, Uniunea Europeana (Germania si Franta) se simte amenintata! Asadar, lupta sa protejeze mediul de Statele Unite!

Advertisements

87-year-old German grandma shocks world by doubting Holocaust

https://www.darkmoon.me/2018/87-year-old-german-grandma-shocks-world-by-doubting-holocaust/

Video plus full transcript

From Russian Insider
(May 9, 2018)

Questioning the Holocaust can get you in serious trouble in Germany, a country which takes great pride in its democracy.

The German government cares so much about democracy, that it unstintingly supports all of America’s and Israel’s democracy-spreading regime-change wars in the Middle East, often gladly selling the weapons for the butchery to both sides. When millions of refugees flood Europe as a result of those wars, the government then forces its obedient, long-suffering tax-payers to take them in at great expense and considerable danger to their womenfolk.

Meet Ursula Haverbeck, a numerically challenged octogenarian who goes around telling people she thinks the 6 million Holocaust number is bullticky.

Watch her break German law, right here on YouTube, as she calmly explains her reasoning in her sweet grandmotherly way that has endeared her to millions. (Turn on English captions).

Grandma Haverbeck is a rather astute self-promoter. Knowing she would be tossed in the slammer for questioning the holiest of holies, she welcomed the fact, knowing it would draw more attention to her arguments. German prisons are really quite comfy, compared to Mexican or Turkish ones.

Then, she pulled a next level PR move, she went on the lam, knowing it would generate yet more headlines. Then, still 2 steps ahead of her foes, once a nation-wide Gestapo-like manhunt was launched, she returned to her living room and cuckoo clocks and calmly awaited the arrival of the Polizei, slyly generating yet more media kerfuffle.

Come on German democracy spreaders and 6 million true-believers!, you are being trounced by this little 89 year old! If you’re not careful she’ll become a new Rosa Parks.

German Holocaust denial laws are doing a great job spreading …  Holocaust denial! – with a little help from Granny Haverbeck.

Full English Transcript of Video

URSULA HAVERBECK:  My dear fellow Germans, do you know the answer? Where did the murder by gassing of six million (or at least, millions) of Jews take place? For five years now I have been asking this question — and waiting, in vain, for an answer.

Perhaps you will think that it is rather remarkable that I should even pose this question. Why do I do it? The Holocaust is self-evident, after all: everyone knows that six million Jews were gassed, above all in Auschwitz. And yet, precisely in the past twenty to twenty-five years this claim has become ever more questionable. First, through the reduction of the number of victims in Auschwitz itself.

It was there — and this in the public news programming of ZDF TV — on the eighth of October, 1993, in the open view of all citizens, that the old memorial tablet with its “Four Million Murdered” was taken down and replaced with a new tablet with only “About One and a Half Million.”

And in a debate afterwards, Jews, Poles and Gypsies quarreled over who had the biggest share among these victims. An explanation or even an apology to the German people for having, for decades, accused them with a false number was nowhere to be heard.

Secondly, through an article published by Der Spiegel editor Fritjof Meyer in a respected scholarly journal, namely “Osteuropa” [Eastern Europe], in May 2002, in which, taking note of new discoveries resulting from the emergence of previously unknown documents, etc., he comes to the conclusion that in Auschwitz itself no one at all was gassed.

And it’s certainly not one and a half million either but at the most — Mr. Meyer is very careful — in a subcamp of Auschwitz, in Birkenau, and even there, outside the camp itself, in a farmhouse (the foundations of which, curiously, have only recently been discovered) around (“presumably,” he says)365,000 Jews were gassed. That too, thus, is an open question.

And amazingly Mr. Meyer has never been prosecuted or indicted or denounced to the police for “trivialization” of the Holocaust.

And thirdly — and this really is new for all of us, though it was published back in 2000 — the book “Garrison and Commandant Orders” from the Institute for Contemporary History, a collection of material which had been stored away in Moscow ever since Auschwitz was overrun by the Russians, by the Red Army, and which now was made available to the Institute for Contemporary History. And already by the year 2000 the Institute for Contemporary History had deemed it necessary to publish it.

This is quite a thick book, mind you, and it costs the tidy little sum, today in Euros, of €124. But you can order it, and you can ask for it in the library too and study it there. From these “Commandant orders” in which the instructions from the administration at Auschwitz to the guard staff were laid down complete with dates, numbers and so on, all very precise as is usual with German officialdom, telling the guards what they are to do, it emerges clearly and undeniably, plain to see, that Auschwitz was NOT an extermination camp but rather a work camp in which people were to be kept as fit for work as possible in order for them to work in the munitions industries which were necessary for the war effort.

Naturally, with the continuous worsening of transportation conditions and the like, and of course the events of the war itself, it became ever more difficult to care for a large number of people in such a camp but it was, and remained, a work camp and not an extermination camp. And that’s precisely what, from the beginning, those who served there have always insisted.

Now finally, one might think, there would have to be a public explanation and a reconsideration, as well, of all the trials in which Germans have been condemned because they doubted that Auschwitz was an extermination camp: here now we have the confirmation that they were right. But once more nothing happened. To this day some of these people are still in prison.

All that should cause any thinking person to ask the question: If people are still being imprisoned because the murder of the six million Jews is “self-evident” well then, where were they murdered? You need to tell us that.

WHERE WERE 6 MILLION JEWS MURDERED?

And that led me to write with this question, repeatedly, to the Central Council of Jews in Germany, to whom I have written three times in succession in the last five years and asked this question; then to the German Association of Judges; to the Chief Justices of the Regional and Higher Regional Courts; to the Prosecutor General’s Offices of the sixteen German States; and now also to the Ministry of Justice. So far I have received from these other institutions — and these are all public, official institutions — no answer to this question.

Quite plainly, none of the people written to and questioned knows where six million Jews were gassed, or even simply murdered. That leaves, for a thinking person, only one conclusion: they have no answer, there is no answer, and why? Because there was no Holocaust.

—   §   —

Since this murder is supposed to be “self-evident” — as the courts to this day never tire of emphasizing and holding up to us over and over — one cannot now go on about some kind of “order to maintain secrecy” [i.e., preventing us from knowing more] and a retreat back to a drastically reduced number of victims is also impossible for then the singularity, the uniqueness, the unforgivable scope of the greatest crime of all time would be called into question.

We need merely think of the victims of the Rhine Meadows Camps, of Dresden, Hiroshima . . . and the huge number of victims, more than 2,500,000, during the expulsion of the Germans from the East.

No valid confession can be extracted by torture and no one claimed that in this concentration camp there was ever a gas chamber in which people were gassed except for [former Auschwitz commandant Rudolf] Höss, who was tortured so terribly that he afterwards said, “I would have signed anything.”

Indeed Fritjof Meyer himself noted that it is “not to be taken into account” in any reasonably fair trial when someone, after being tortured so terribly, says, “Yes, it was three million, or however many million, whatever you like, that were gassed by us.”

I think it’s now becoming clear and comprehensible for us, this question which we’ve always wondered about: Why indeed must there be this Paragraph 130 of the German Criminal Code?  In order to keep these things from being looked into too closely. And it also becomes comprehensible that the innumerable motions to present evidence which the accused have put forward have been completely struck down and ignored. These could only serve as evidence of something if that something happened; clearly they could serve as evidence of “nothing” — and so they had to disappear.

If we now look at world politics after 1945 it becomes clear that the Holocaust is the greatest and most enduring lie in history.

It was needed in order to finally complete the centuries-long struggle for world domination by the chosen people — that world domination was once promised to them by their god Yahweh and they believed in that promise firmly, it was their conviction.

Whether we call them Zionists, Khazars, oligarchs or globalizers, it is always the same.

World Wars I and II themselves were merely a preliminary stage for this achievement — in their view, understandably, but why, why in the view of the French, the Swiss, the Germans?

Why have German judges, whose independence is constitutionally guaranteed, gone along with that?

Why have state prosecutors, who should represent the federal government, indeed the German state, represented the interests of Israel instead? For that is what they have done in these trials.

And why have all the historians in our universities not unanimously refused to renounce their freedom of research, which likewise is guaranteed to them constitutionally?

And this poor, miseducated, lie-fed German people . . . will it now turn, indignant, against those who want to relieve it of this deeply implanted belief?

Might Germans not be ready, and able, to rethink their beliefs? The ancient Greeks used to lay such weighty questions at the feet the gods.

I do the same.

Before concluding, I would like to present a much needed — even if it has been done before — definition of the question work camp / extermination camp / concentration camp. I want to do this in order to prevent misunderstandings, and to emphasize once more that no revisionist has ever denied there were concentration camps.

Their existence is never questioned by the so-called “neo-Nazis,” as they’re called today, or “right-extremists” when these want to be taken seriously.

Moreover, concentration camps were no invention of the National Socialists but were already around during the Boer War in 1900, and indeed were established by the English and they’re still being set up to this day by the Americans, as for example at Guantanamo Bay.

According to the Hague Conventions on War on Land, members of an enemy nation may be interned in order to prevent espionage and the multiple, repeated Jewish declarations of war against the Third Reich since 1933 led to a situation in which, as for example Professor Ernst Nolte has established, the Third Reich was justified in treating German Jews as prisoners of war for these declarations of war had clearly demonstrated that Jewry considered itself at war with the Third Reich. Ernst Nolte says this in his book “The Passing of the Past” [Das Vergehen der Vergangenheit] where anyone can read it on page 171 and earlier as well on page 21.

So there were German concentration camps — no revisionist has ever disputed that. Nor is it disputed that the majority of the Jews were interned in them. This occurred in particular following the failure of Hitler’s many offers of peace to England.

(See in this connection English historian Martin Allen in his book “The Hitler/Hess Deception” which you can get at any bookstore.)

These concentration camps were, in Germany, in the Third Reich, work camps — during the war. The word “concentration camp,” however, is often used to evoke the idea of extermination — or emotionally provoke it.

With the increasing ferocity of the war, and above all with the increasing bombardment of all transport facilities — practically the entire infrastructure in Germany —through Allied bombing raids, living conditions in the concentration camps obviously became ever more difficult and not just for the German people.

And likewise it has not been disputed by anyone that in German concentration camps there were incidents of cruelty and mistreatment and even of murder. Why otherwise would four — some even say five — camp commandants have been brought before an SS tribunal with two of them even being sentenced to death? The taking up and exposure and publication of these events has come about entirely through the efforts of the revisionists, they have never been mentioned in court. And I ask myself if in any other state — any of the states that stood against us then in open hostility — such drastic punishments existed for the mistreatment of prisoners.

If historians meanwhile have arrived at fundamentally lower numbers of victims (for the concentration camps) that indeed does not mean that a correction was thereby made in public as well.

The saying “History is written by the victors” in no way implies that this history must correspond with the truth.

We must therefore demand, now that in verifiable form, and now that these official reports and contemporary statements from the time of the Third Reich, as for example the Commandant Orders, have been made public, that at the very least there should now follow a public explanation and — I would say — an apology too from those who have spread these lies.

And finally, of necessity there must also follow a reconsideration of all these convictions based on a false claim.

In conclusion, I would like to read a quotation from Germar Rudolf, who as a young chemist made a thorough study of the chemical properties of Zyklon-B — on professional grounds — including on location in Auschwitz, something for which he had to spend three-and-a-half years in prison because his research conclusions, as a chemist, were different from so-called politically correct opinion.

I would like to read this quotation from him in conclusion, Germar Rudolf writes:

“One of the important characteristics of evil is that it forbids questioning and it taboos or punishes the candid search for answers.” (I might add, punishes BY LAW.)

By prohibiting a person to ask questions and to search for answers. it is denying that which makes us human.

For the capacity to doubt and to search for answers to pressing problems is one of the most important attributes that distinguishes humans from animals.”

(This one can read in his “Lectures on the Holocaust,” page 12.)

It is therefore urgently necessary that an official, public clarification, unencumbered by any taboo or law, be provided to the German people and to the entire world  that explains what really happened in the German concentration camps.

Thank you.

Source

 

Iohannis, ai și tu un denunț… la „niște evrei”!

http://www.justitiarul.ro/iohannis-ai-si-tu-un-denunt-la-niste-evrei/http://www.justitiarul.ro/iohannis-ai-si-tu-un-denunt-la-niste-evrei/

Scrisoare deschisă adresată Ambasadei statului Israel

        Către

                   Ambasada Israelului

                   Excelenţa Sa Doamna Tamar Samash, ambasador al Israelului  în România

 

                                                           Excelenţă,

Subsemnatul, socio-psiholog şi jurnalist Marius Albin Marinescu, domiciliat în municipiul Sibiu, str. xxxx, nr. xx, ap. xx, județul Sibiu, România, adresă de e-mail: contact@justitiarul.ro, vă sesizez un abuz deosebit de grav al Justiţiei din România, care poate avea repercusiuni pe plan internaţional, mai ales că este implicat actualul președinte al României, Klaus Werner Iohannis. În cele ce urmează mă refer la resuscitarea unei organizaţii hitleriste din Al Doilea Război Mondial implicată în Holocaust și condamnată de Tribunalul de la Nürnberg, prin încălcarea Convenţiei de Armistiţiu din 12 septembrie 1944, semnată de România cu Uniunea Sovietică, Regatul Unit al Marii Britanii şi Statele Unite ale Americii la 12 septembrie 1944, nerespectarea Decretului-Lege nr. 485 din 7 octombrie 1944 emis de regele Mihai al României și nesocotirea Tratatului de pace de  la Paris din 10 februarie 1947.

Astfel, în data de 27 februarie 2007, Hans Klein, în calitatea sa de preşedinte al organizaţiei municipiului Sibiu a Forumului Democrat al Germanilor din România (F.D.G.R.), a depus la Judecătoria Sibiu o Cerere de chemare în judecată împotriva municipiului Sibiu reprezentat de primarul Klaus Iohannis (şeful lui Klein în F.D.G.R., Iohannis fiind la vremea respectivă și preşedintele organizaţiei la nivel naţional) şi Consiliului Local Sibiu, unde F.D.G.R. avea majoritate absolută la acea dată, 16 consilieri (printre care şi „petentul” Hans Klein) din totalul de 23. Numitul Hans Klein a solicitat prin acţiunea civilă depusă la Judecătoria Sibiu următoarele, citez: „Vă rugăm să constataţi calitatea de succesor în drepturi al organizaţiei noastre faţă de Grupul Etnic German (Deutsche Volksgruppe)”.  

      Grupul Etnic German a fost înfiinţat imediat după Dictatul de la Viena. El exista şi în alte ţări cu minoritate germană: Franţa (Alsacia), Polonia (Silezia), Cehoslovacia (Sudeţi). Scopurile acestor Grupuri Etnice Germane (celebra Coloana a V-a a lui Hitler) erau: propaganda nazistă, sabotajele economice, acţiunile diversioniste în spatele frontului, „intoxicarea” şi dezinformarea populaţiei majoritare din ţările respective.

Puterile Aliate au impus României, prin articolul 15 al Convenţiei de Armistiţiu  din 12 septembrie 1944dizolvarea organizaţiilor pro-hitleriste de pe teritoriul românesc, nepermiţând în viitor existenţa unor organizaţii de acest fel. Datorită Convenţiei de Armistiţiu din 12 septembrie 1944, Grupul Etnic German a fost desfiinţat prin Decretul – Lege nr. 485 din 7 octombrie 1944, semnat de regele Mihai al României.  Grupul Etnic German a fost o organizaţie nazistă, creată pe considerente etnice şi hitleriste!

Revenind la simulacrul de proces din anul 2007, instanţa sibiană a admis cererea preşedintelui organizaţiei F.D.G.R. (municipiul Sibiu) Hans Klein, iar sentinţa civilă nr. 2790 din 28 mai 2007, la dosar nr. 1672/306/2007, nu a fost atacată de nimeni, deoarece s-au dat în judecată pe ei înşişi. FDGR a fost şi reclamant şi pârât prin primar (Klaus Iohannis fiind atât primar, cât și preşedinte FDGR – conflict de interese) şi Consiliul Local Sibiu (alcătuit majoritar din consilieri FDGR). Pârâţii (municipiul Sibiu prin primar și Consiliul Local Sibiu) nici nu s-au prezentat în instanţă şi nici nu au atacat sentinţa respectivă(abuz în serviciu din partea primarului Klaus Werner Iohannis cu consecințe deosebit de grave!),aceasta rămânând definitivă. Aşa că, în mod oficial, printr-o sentinţă definitivă, Forumul Democrat al Germanilor din România (F.D.G.R.) este succesorul unei organizaţii naziste înfiinţate sub presiunea Germaniei hitleriste. La 21 noiembrie 1940, în România a fost emis Decretul – Lege nr. 830 pentru constituirea Grupului Etnic German din România (Deutsche Volksgruppe in Rumänien). Acest grup etnic a fost o organizaţie cu statut de persoană juridică, subordonată direct capitalei celui de-al treilea Reich.
Fapta aceasta, reactivarea prin succesiune a unei organizații fasciste, constituie infracţiune conform  Ordonanţei de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 31/2002, publicată în Monitorul Oficial nr. 214 din 28 martie 2002, privind interzicerea organizaţiilor şi simbolurilor cu caracter fascist, rasist sau xenofob şi a promovării cultului persoanelor vinovate de săvârşirea unor infracţiuni contra păcii şi omenirii.

Cei doi preşedinţi ai F.D.G.R. au calităţile de instigator (Iohannis Klaus Werner) şi autor (Hans Klein), deoarece aceştia prin demersurile lor au reînfiinţat o organizaţie fascistă, încălcând şi Constituţia României, care prevede la art. 11, alin. (1): „Statul român se obligă să îndeplinească întocmai şi cu bună-credinţă obligaţiile ce-i revin din tratatele la care este parte.”  Statul român a fost parte semnatară a Convenţiei de Armistiţiu din 12 septembrie 1944 , care prevedea la articolul 15:„Dizolvarea organizaţiilor pro-hitleriste de pe teritoriul românesc, nepermiţând în viitor existenţa unor organizaţii de acest fel.” De asemenea, Articolul 5 din Tratatul de pace, semnat la Paris în ziua de 10 februarie 1947, de România cu Puterile Aliate şi Asociate (URSS, Regatul Unit al Marii Britanii şi Irlandei de Nord, SUA, Australia, Republica Sovietică a Belorusiei, Canada, Cehoslovacia, India, Noua Zeelandă, Republica Socialistă a Ucrainei şi Republica Sud-Africană), prevedea: „România, care în conformitate cu Convenţiunea de armistiţiu a luat măsuri pentru dizolvarea tuturor organizaţiilor de tip fascist pe teritoriul român, fie ele politice, fie militare sau paramilitare, precum şi alte organizaţiuni făcând o propagandă ostilă Uniunii Sovietice sau oricăreia dintre celelalte Naţiuni Unite, nu va îngădui în viitor existenţa şi activitatea unor organizaţiuni de această natură care au drept scop lipsirea poporului de drepturile sale democratice”.

A fost depusă plângere penală de către subsemnatul, Marinescu Marius Albin, la Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu pentru infracţiunea de  constituire a unei organizaţii cu caracter fascist, dar procurorii au decis Neînceperea Urmăririi Penale (NUP) şi în urma plângerii împotriva acestei soluţii, la fel a decis şi Judecătoria Sibiu. Detalii aici: http://www.justitiarul.ro/jaf-imobiliar-la-sibiu-retrocedari-ilegale-catre-fdgr-succesor-al-organizatiei-naziste-grupul-etnic-german-i/ Aceste decizii sunt contrare legilor actuale ale României, contrare Constituţiei României, contrare Decretului-Lege nr. 485 din 7 octombrie 1944 neabrogat, contrare Convenţiei Internaţionale de Armistiţiu din 12 septembrie 1944 și Tratatului de pace de  la Paris din 10 februarie 1947, în vigoare şi la ora actuală.

Acestea sunt argumentele mele privind ilegala oficializare pentru FDGR a calităţii de succesor al organizaţiei naziste Grupul Etnic German (Deutsche Volksgruppe):

Nu poate să fie solicitată recunoaşterea calităţii de succesor al unei organizaţii, solicitantul dezicându-se de doctrina acesteia, deoarece automat nu mai are cum să fi succesor (moştenitor), fiindcă nu mai  ar avea  în comun exact identitatea organizaţiei al cărei moştenitor se revendică. Crezul unei organizaţii, care se regăseşte în statutul acesteia,  indiferent că asocierea este politică sau de altă natură, îi conferă identitate proprie acesteia şi o diferenţiază de alte organizaţii.

În ceea ce priveşte aspectul patrimonial, se observă clar o contradicţie între statutul F.D.G.R., recunoscut şi prin declaraţia de la Parchetul de pe lângă Judecătoria Sibiu a numitului Hans Klein, cum că organizaţia este „constituită fără scop patrimonial” şi declaraţia aceluiaşi Hans Klein că  „F.D.G.R este succesoarea în drepturi patrimoniale a Grupului Etnic German”. Acest aspect contradictoriu evident a fost trecut cu vederea de către procurorii sibieni.

Statutul F.D.G.R., la capitolul introductiv, „Dispoziţii generale”,  la Art. 1, susţine următoarele: „Forumul Democrat al Germanilor din România (F.D.G.R.) este o asociaţie a minorităţii germane din România, organizată pe bază etnică, persoană juridică română de drept privat, fără scop patrimonial.”  Prin revendicarea drepturilor patrimoniale ale organizației hitleriste Grupul Etnic German, FDGR Sibiu încalcă chiar propriul statut, art. 1!

Mai mult, eu susţin şi argumentez că această organizaţie aşa-zis „democratică” a fost creată premeditat  în scop revizionist. Astfel, la articolul 6, al aceluiaşi Statut F.D.G.R. sunt scrise următoarele: „F.D.G.R. este succesorul de drept al tuturor instituţiilor şi organizaţiilor ale minorităţii germane, care au fost desfiinţate prin constrângere.”  Adică, fondatorii din anul 1990 al acestei asociaţii etnice (ce fel de democraţie poate să fie într-o organizaţie constituită pe criterii etnice, exclusiviste şi care participă la alegeri ca un partid politic?!) pregăteau terenul pentru revendicările lor ulterioare de succesiune după Grupul Etnic German!!! Singura problemă care a stat şi stă, în continuare, în calea planurilor acestor neonazişti este aceea că Grupul Etnic German nu a fost desfiinţat prin constrângere de către comunişti, aşa cum avocaţii FDGR sau ai Consistoriului Bisericii Evangelice C.A. au susţinut permanent, în fals, în faţa instanţelor de judecată, atunci când s-au revendicat imobile în numele celor două instituţii ale minorităţii germane. Aşa cum am arătat mai sus: Puterile Aliate au impus României, prin articolul 15 al Convenţiei de Armistiţiu  din 12 septembrie 1944 , dizolvarea organizaţiilor pro-hitleriste de pe teritoriul românesc. Astfel, Grupul Etnic German a fost desfiinţat prin Decretul – Lege nr. 485 din 7 octombrie 1944, semnat de regele Mihai al României.  Comuniştii nu au făcut altceva decât să aplice acest Decret – Lege nr. 485 din 7 octombrie 1944, care nu le-a aparţinut, ei nefiind la putere la momentul istoric respectiv.

Institutul Național pentru Studierea Holocaustului din România „Elie Wiesel” judecă cu dublă măsură! În timp ce acest Institut, plătit din banii românilor, a început o prigoană demnă de Gestapo împotriva Mareșalului Ion Antonescu, Armatei Române și a intelectualilor simpatizanți ai Mișcării Legionare, același institut „Elie Wiesel” tace mâlc în privința Forumului Democrat al Germanilor din România (FDGR) și a fostului președinte al acestuia, Klaus Iohannis, care s-au declarat oficial, prin decizie judecătorească, succesori ai organizației hitleriste Grupul Etnic German din România!

Nu Mareșalul Antonescu și Armata Română sau Mişcarea Legionară din  România au fost declarate „fasciste“ la Nürnberg, ci Grupul Etnic German, succedat oficial de FDGR-ul condus de Klaus Iohannis în anul 2007! Conform sentinţelor Tribunalului de la Nürnberg, singura organizaţie de pe teritoriul României care a fost declarată ca fiind „fascistă“ și care a putut avea un rol în prigonirea evreilor a fost Grupul Etnic German. Puterile Aliate au impus României, prin articolul 15 al Convenţiei de Armistiţiu  din 12 septembrie 1944, dizolvarea organizaţiilor pro-hitleriste de pe teritoriul românesc. Astfel, Grupul Etnic German a fost desfiinţat și patrimoniul acestuia confiscat prin Decretul-Lege nr. 485 din 7 octombrie 1944, semnat de regele Mihai I al României. Locul Grupului Etnic German din România (Deutsche Volksgruppe in Rumänien) după evenimentele din decembrie 1989, a fost luat de Forumul Democrat al Germanilor din România (F.D.G.R.), care s-a și autodeclarat oficial ca succesor al respectivei organizații hitleriste! Acest abuz s-a petrecut în anul 2007 prin cârdășia dintre F.D.G.R., Primăria Sibiu  –  ambele conduse de Iohannis Klaus Werner  –  și Judecătoria Sibiu.

În mod normal, după apariţia Ordonanţei Guvernamentale 31/2002, după fățuirea ei prin Legea nr. 107/2006 şi, mai cu seamă, după promulgarea Legii 217/2015, prima organizaţie din România despre care ar fi trebuit să se sesizeze din oficiu Parchetul General spre a fi interzisă ar fi fost tocmai Forumul Democrat al Germanilor din România, în frunte cu fostul său președinte, Klaus Werner Iohannis, pentru reactivarea organizației hitleriste Grupul Etnic German. Situația este deosebit de gravă fiindcă evreii din România știau de aceste fapte încă din vara anului 2010, conform acestui articol care îmi aparține: „Evreii din România au decorat un hitlerist autodeclarat!” (http://sibiu.justitiarul.ro/evreii-din-romania-au-decorat-un-hitlerist-autodeclarat/) Însă acum, după ce l-au decorat și ca primar, cum scrie în articol, îl invită, ca președinte al României, la toate sărbătorile lor, iar ipocritul nu pregetă să participe cu kipa așezată fățarnic pe creștet.

În concluzie, vă solicit să întreprindeți demersurile diplomatice necesare pentru scoaterea în afara legii şi dizolvarea Forumului Democrat al Germanilor din România (F.D.G.R.) pe cale legală, conform legislație române(legile privind organizațiile fasciste și Holocaustul: Ordonanţa Guvernamentală nr. 31/2002, Legea nr. 107/2006 și  Legea  217/2015) precum și legislația internațională privind organizațiile naziste și  Memoria Holocaustului.  De asemenea, se impune cercetarea penală de către autorităţile române a numiţilor Iohannis Klaus Werner, preşedinte în funcţie al FDGR la data respectivă şi Klein Hans, preşedintele organizaţiei municipale Sibiu la data respectivă, în baza acelorași legi românești pentru săvârşirea infracţiunii de  constituire a unei organizaţii cu caracter fascist, aşa cum se regăseşte aceasta în  Ordonanţa de urgenţă a Guvernului nr. 31/2002, publicată în Monitorul Oficial nr. 214 din 28 martie 2002, privind interzicerea organizaţiilor şi simbolurilor cu caracter fascist, rasist sau xenofob şi a promovării cultului persoanelor vinovate de săvârşirea unor infracţiuni contra păcii şi omenirii.

Pentru aprofundarea problemei Grupului Etnic German, din punct de vedere istoric, vă pun la dispoziţie următorul material de presă scrise de mine:

http://www.justitiarul.ro/forumul-democrat-al-germanilor-din-romania-fdgr-condus-de-klaus-iohannis-se-declar-oficial-continuatorul-partidului-nazist-din-al-doilea-rzboi-mondial/

Pentru detalii suplimentare, în cazul în care consideraţi că acestea sunt necesare, vă rog respectuos să-mi adresaţi eventuala corespondenţă la adresa: Marius Albin Marinescu, str. XXXX, nr. XX, ap. X, Sibiu, jud. Sibiu. Pentru corespondență electronică am următoarea adresă de e-mail: contact@justitiarul.ro

Vă rog să primiţi, Domnă Ambasador, Excelenţa Voastră, asigurarea întregii mele considerațiuni, cu deosebit respect,

                                                                                                                MARIUS ALBIN MARINESCU

 

ORIANA FALLACI: “RUSINE OCCIDENTULUI CARE A CAPITULAT IN FATA ISLAMULUI !”

preluare de la https://bogdancalehari.wordpress.com/2018/03/28/oriana-fallaci-rusine-occidentului-care-a-capitulat-in-fata-islamului/

Oriana Fallaci scria in 2005: “Ce vreti in plus? De ce altceva mai aveti nevoie pentru a va trezi si a intelege ca a venit timpul sa ne aparati? Ce vreti in plus? De ce altceva mai aveti nevoie pentru a intelege ca libertatea noastra este in pericol, ca civilizatia noastra este in pericol, ca Democratia este dezarmata, slaba si sinucigasa? Ce vreti in plus? De ce mai aveti nevoie pentru a iesi din inertie sau mai degraba din servitutea in care v-ati refugiat pentru a va proteja agresorii, invadatorii, dusmanii?”

Azi, dupa cateva zeci de atentate teroriste islamiste in plus; dupa cateva mii de morti europeni in plus; dupa cateva mii de raniti europeni in plus; dupa o invazie imigrationala musulmana in plus; dupa cateva mii de moschei in plus; dupa ce Manchester, Bruxelles, Berlin, Barcelona, Stockholm, Nisa, Toulouse si Paris au fost lovite… in plus; dupa ce toate acestea s-au intamplat, ba chiar au ajuns sa faca parte din cotidianul european, daca Oriana Fallaci ar mai trai si ar scrie la fel, “extremista de dreapta” ar fi condamnata la inchisoare, in Marea Britanie, pentru “discurs ce instiga la ura”, in Franta ar fi adusa in fata justitiei si amendata, iar daca ar sta in Germania, si-ar pierde locul de munca, casa i-ar fi taguita cu zvastici si, in plus, masina i-ar fi arsa! Dar Oriana Fallaci a murit la vreme, atunci cand inertia, servitutea si capitularea nu devenisera inca oficiale si obligatorii!

Text scris de Oriana Fallaci dupa ce ziarul danez Jyllands-Posten a publicat caricaturile profetului Mahomed.

<<Dragi conducatori politici si religiosi,

Ce vreti mai mult, de ce mai aveti nevoie pentru a admite ceea ce déjà stiti foarte bine, dar refuzati sa recunoasteti din teama, din ipocrizie si comoditate, ca suntem in razboi – un razboi care a fost declarat de ei nu de noi!

Vreti ca acest razboi sa continue manifestandu-se in toate formele posibile, prin sange, prin asasinate, prin incendierea ambasadelor (pe cand si incendierea bisericiilor?), prin amenintari, prin persecutii, cum au fost cele pe care déjà le-am indurat, prin decapitari reale sau simulate?

Ce vreti in plus? De ce altceva mai aveti nevoie pentru a va trezi si a intelege ca a venit timpul sa ne aparati? Ce vreti in plus? De ce altceva mai aveti nevoie pentru a intelege ca libertatea noastra este in pericol, ca civilizatia noastra este in pericol, ca Democratia este dezarmata, slaba si sinucigasa?

Ce vreti in plus? De ce mai aveti nevoie pentru a iesi din inertie sau mai degraba din servitutea in care v-ati refugiat pentru a va proteja agresorii, invadatorii, dusmanii?

Don Andrea din dioceza din Roma, in varsta de 60 de ani, a fost omorat in biserica sa din Trabzon, in Turcia, cu focuri de revolver de catre un adolescent, cand se afla in plina rugaciune. Era misionar in Turcia de 5 ani.

Ce vreti mai mult? Pe strazile Damascului, ei canta: “Allah Akbar”. Stransi in hoarde repeta ca vor ca razboiul sfant sa fie generalizat, ca-l vor apara pe profet cu sange. Si nu este vorba de doi sau trei kamikaze, ci de sute si sute de manifestanti, pe care ii calificati drept “moderati”. Desigur, acesti buni cetateni nu fac parte dintr-o mica minoritate, sau o mica secta de asasini si nu ar trebui confundati cu teroristii din Al-Qaeda, deoarece poporul musulman este bun si pasnic. Dar acesti oameni debarca pe tarmurile noastre si, putin cate putin, conform unei strategii bine conceputa si condusa, ne invadeaza si ne inlocuiesc. Si voi nu spuneti nimic contra lor! Soptiti aceleasi mici condamnari mincinoase si ambigue, dar condamnati cu virulenta pe autorii unor caricaturi, totusi, legitime.

In Pakistan, plebea urla isteric. La Islamabad, ambasadorii Frantei, Germaniei, Spaniei si Olandei au fost convocati si condamnati din cauza caricaturilor blasfemiatoare. La Amman, directorul saptamanalului Shinan a fost arestat pentru ca a publicat caricaturile profetului. La Paris, da, la Paris, directorul France Soir a fost concediat din aceeasi cauza! La Beirut, ambasada daneza a fost incendiata, la fel si drapelele daneze. In cartierul maronit, biserica a fost atacata cu pietre si magazinele au fost jefuite. Pe internet, musulmanii au fost incitati sa-i extermine pe danezi.

V-ati pierdut mintile cu totii! Si odata cu mintile, v-ati pierdut, toti, nu numai demnitatea dar si instinctul de supravietuire. Nu mai este permis sa te aperi, sa incerci sa supravietuiesti. Dar ce nu intelegeti voi e ca azi ei ard ambasadele, dar maine vor arde bisericile si poimaine va vor arde casele.

Si asta din cauza inertiei voastre, a compromisurilor voastre, a fricii voastre. Si in numele unei iubiri greu de inteles, voi va alaturati lor, le justificati violenta fizica, intelectuala si morala.

Asadar nu mai suntem liberi sa publicam o caricatura inofensiva, arma anodina a ironiei. Nu mai avem dreptul de a rade si a surade. Ce mai inseamna Libertatea cand ea e obligata sa vegheze ca o comunitate sa nu fie ofensata, in acest caz mesagerii unei religii?

Asadar este ingaduit sa aprobi indemnul la uciderea unui cetatean (cum este in cazul meu), aratandu-l decapitat, dar nu este permis sa-l prezinti de Domnul profet intr-un mic desen asa cum este el, ridicol. Unde va este Democratia? Unde va este respectul fata de Libertate? Unde va este Ratiunea? Unde va este Inteligenta?

Sunteti Barbati, sunteti Femei, sau sunteti doar niste Lucruri? Slujitori, sclavi, caini credinciosi, iata ce sunteti, voi care ii protejati, voi care nu-i condamnati, voi care azi priviti cu detasare si cu falsa obiectivitate ambasadele care ard si care maine veti privi la fel de indiferenti bisericile si casele voastre pe cale sa arda. Voi sunteti primii vinovati, pentru ca ei lupta si voi nu! Ei se bat pentru o idée infama, pentru noul nazism, dar voi, voi nu mai sunteti in stare sa va bateti pentru nimic. Sunteti niste fiinte goale pe dinauntru, fara suflet, fara creier, care pentru a supravietui sunt gata sa sacrifice viitorul, viata copiilor lor, a tarilor si a civilizatiei lor.

Nu va voi urma pe acest drum. Atat timp cat voi mai avea un pic de viata in mine, voi continua sa ma opun voua, asa cum ma impotrivesc lor.

Sunt profund ranita, foarte dezamagita si ingrozita de condamnarile echivoce si pline de umilinta care au fost exprimate de “zei”, cei care ar fi trebuit sa fie gardienii Libertatii noastre, ai Civilizatiei noastre. Cu totii au condamnat caricaturile! Cu totii! De la Departamentul de Stat al Statelor Unite la cele mai inalte Autoritati ale Vaticanului. De la Sefii de Stat si ai guvernelor occidentale, ca Blair si Chirac, la episcopul luteran din orasul unde au ars ambasade: Copenhaga. De la reprezentantii Dreptei la cei ai Stangii, ca domnul Fini care coplesit de curaj a spus “Ne aflam pe un butoi cu praf de pusca”. ( Domnule Fini, cand la Torino soldatii francezi au invadat catedrala, Pietro Mirca care statea pe un butoi cu praf de pusca s-a aruncat in aer murind impreuna cu ei.)

Dar potrivit unui sondaj realizat de Repubblica numai 24% dintre italieni gandesc la fel ca ei. 76% dintre italieni gandesc la fel ca mine! Cei 76% sunt toti cretini, anti-liberali, prosti? Unde va este Democratia la care faceti referire mereu, daca nu tineti cont de parerea ultra majoritatii populatiei, care gandeste ca  mine si care nu va respecta? Aceasta mare majoritate e buna numai ca sa-i smulgeti votul in timpul alegerilor voastre mincinoase, tinute in democratia voastra mincinoasa.

In acest moment, in aceste zile, in casele italiene, franceze, engleze, germane, spaniole, in casele europene, in casele occidentale, oamenii gandesc asa cum gandesc eu. Spun ceea ce spun eu. Ei asculta stirile si afla ca satira nu se mai poate aplica religiei, ca este interzis sa reprezinti chiar si mutra “Profetului”, un “Profet” care in ciuda razboaielor, a masacrelor si a crimelor cele mai atroce, e uns ca Sfiintenia Sa, un camilar barbar si asasin care predica distrugerea tuturor celor care refuzau sa se supuna soldatilor sai. Autorul unei carti care pare a fi scrisa de Satana si pe care trebuie sa o tratati cu acelasi respect cu care tratati cele 10 Porunci si Evangheliile!

Sunteti o ofensa la adresa Logicii. Sunteti o ofensa la adresa Ratiunii. Sunteti o ofensa la adresa Adevarului. Sunteti o ofensa la adresa Vietii. Sunteti aparatorii cultului mortii. Va cereti iertare pentru Evul Mediu, va cereti iertare pentru Cruciade. Evul Mediu a fost o epoca luminoasa, o epoca care a sustinut si favorizat dezvoltarea civilizatiei noastre, indiferent ca a fost in domeniul cultural, artistic, filozofic sau religios. Cruciadele au fost raspunsul la 11 septembrie al lor, la invaziile lor. Nu sunteti altceva decat niste falsificatori, niste Falsificatori ai Istoriei.

Imi este greu sa cred ca o Biserica – in sanul careia Papa Wojtyla vorbeste in enciclica sa “Evangelium Vitae” despre “cultura mortii” – ne invita sa nu-i caricaturizam pe cei care sunt purtatorii culturii mortii. O Biserica care defineste aceasta cultura a mortii drept “credinta religioasa” si “cult religios”, atunci cand ea se opune chiar credintei sale, care este un “cult al vietii”.

Mi-e greu sa cred ca o Biserica care in numele Vietii se bate contra masacrarii embrionilor, contra avortului, poate sa puna pe acelasi plan Evangheliile si coranul, o carte ca “Mein Kampf”, care nu numai ca autorizeaza, dar isi si invita credinciosii sa-i extermine fizic pe cei care nu sunt musulmani. Un “Mein Kampf” care interzice libertatea de gandire, daca nu este conforma cu gandirea conducatorului de camile.

Imi este greu sa inteleg de ce o Biserica, care n-a protestat niciodata cu atata vehementa impotriva caricaturilor cu Cristos rastignit, cu preoti, cu papi, cu cardinali, cu episcopi, pune acum oprelisti libertatii satirei (o forma de expresie artistica care a existat intotdeauna in istoria lumii civilizate), dar nu la toata satira, ci doar aceleia indreptate impotriva unei singure religii.

Imi este greu sa inteleg de ce o Biserica, care la timpul sau n-a protestat impotriva oribilelor caricaturi cu Evrei, se ridica azi contra inofensivelor si amuzantelor caricaturi cu musulmani si socoteste ca este nepotrivit, chiar jignitor, sa-i reprezinti pe profet si pe imami asa cum sunt. >>

https://www.dreuz.info/2018/03/21/oriana-fallaci-honte-a-loccident-qui-capitule-devant-lislam/

© Rosaly pour Dreuz.info.

A Review of the Anomolous Aspects of The Dreyfus Affair

http://www.renegadetribune.com/review-anomolous-aspects-dreyfus-affair/

By Russ Winter

Before diving into this post, readers are encouraged to first familiarize themselves with the mainstream narrative on the The Dreyfus Affair of late 19th century France via the following History Channel documentary. Some takeaways are also sourced from a 41-page work by “Josh G” published at Miles Mathis’ website. For those seeking more detail on anomalies, it’s a good rendition.

The Dreyfus Affair received non-stop, blanket news coverage, mostly by the tabloids, and the story absorbed France and the world for years. Then, as now, most French newspapers were owned and operated by wealthy bankers and industrialists, who were predominantly Jewish. In the ensuing brouhaha, French society was polarized into two camps: The Dreyfusards and the Anti-Dreyfusards (aka “anti-Semites”).

Jewish author Albert Lindemann in “The Jew Accused” writes:

The political situation in France [at that time] might be usefully presented in terms of two large, opposing clusters: one that was republican, secular, left-wing, modernist, and on balance friendly to modern Jews; another that was monarchist, Catholic, right-wing, anti-modernist, and thus not friendly to modern Jews. (p.90)”

As you go through this astonishing sequence, keep in mind that the secular modernists were the ones in power, as the 3rd Republic was established in 1870. There were 10 Jewish generals in the French Army at this point, which is an over-representation given than only 0.2% of France’s general population were Jewish. We suggest that the Republicans, and not the right-wing, held the Deep State operational levers to pull this “Affair” off. Thus the notion that a clique of alleged anti-semites in the intelligence apparatus had the means and controls to set Dreyfus up is improbable on its face.

The history of the affair has been regurgitated countless times. Dozens of books and hundreds of academic articles have been written on the topic, usually presented in a consecrated, intricate and multi-layered tapestry. Today, the tale is unquestioned and largely unrevised.

The Dreyfus Affair scandal became the theme of the popular board game. IMAGE: via Dziennik Polski/©Fot. Archives

The gist of the story (or script) goes like this: Capt. Alfred Dreyfus (1859-1935), an assimilated Jew and loyal Frenchman, was picked out and falsely accused of espionage by unscrupulous “anti-Semite” French officers and subsequently imprisoned on Devil’s Island, French Guinea. Further, when “evidence” later emerged that the real culprit was one Ferdinand Esterhazy, these officers continued with a cover up. They also charged with forgery “the hero,” George Picquart, who “solved the crime.” Eventually, Dreyfus was pardoned and rehabilitated. The rest is history — or rather hidden history.

Without a doubt, then and now, The Dreyfus Affair is a wild tale full of twists and surprises. One peculiarity is how the story broke. Allegedly, French intelligence had an agent functioning as a maid working in the German Embassy. We are also asked to believe that the Germans would willy nilly toss sensitive, secret documents into wastepaper baskets for said maid to pick through and send to her spymasters.

Photograph of the bordereau dated Oct. 13, 1894. The original disappeared in 1940.

Among the scraps of paper were torn pieces of a report called “The Bordereau” addressed to German intelligence Col. Von Schwartzkoppen. The good colonel also conveniently tossed away a letter to his lover, an Italian military attache named Maj. Allesandro Panizzardi. This just so happened to freely reference “the scoundrel of a D.” The letter ended with “Don’t exhaust yourself with too much buggery.”

Emerging at last in 2013 were contents of the “secret dossier” used in the behind-closed-doors military trial of Dreyfus. In it was another incredulous exchange between the lover boys. Alessandro supposedly informed his lover that “if Dreyfus is brought in for questioning,” they must both claim that they “never had any dealings with that Jew. … Clearly, no one can ever know what happened with him.”

At left is “The Bordereau.” As an experiment, take a piece of paper and rip it into six parts. What are the odds that the end product would look like this, with a straight, clean rip exactly down the center?

The ripped document then passed into the hands of the wicked anti-Semite henchman Maj. (later Lt. Col.) Hubert-Joseph Henry (1846-1898). Henry then determined that the spy must be an artillery officer whose name started with the letter “D.” After handwriting analysis, it led to Dreyfus and he was arrested.

Take note that when the case flipped against the “plotters,” Henry was supposedly jailed and found the next day in his cell with throat slashed. Henry was with SR counter-intelligence, a unit we discuss later in this article. In the hours before his “death,” he wrote to his superior, General Gonse (Deputy Chief of Staff- French Army), “I absolutely must speak to you. You know in whose interest I acted.” Next, we are asked to believe, while halfway through a bottle of rum and midway through another letter to his wife, Henry wrote, “I am like a madman” and proceeded to slit his own throat with a shaving razor. Was Henry an actor, or was he the patsy set up for this agit-prop?

The ‘Bordereau’ Story is Contrived, But by Whom?

The operation of military counterintelligence [alias the “Statistics Section” (SR)] should be noted. In 1894, it was headed by Lt. Col. Jean Sandherr (1846-1897), a graduate of Saint-Cyr and an Alsatian from Mulhouse. It just so happened that Mulhouse is the hometown of Albert Dreyfus and his wealthy family. Sandherr did not live to see the end of the Dreyfus Affair, as he was conveniently “struck by a general paralysis” (at 51), he had to leave active service in December, 1896, succumbing to his sickness before the scandal came to light.

The SR was supported by the “Secret Affairs” of the Quai d’Orsay at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Virtually all observers characterize these operatives as deep state, often utilizing dirty tricks and misdirection. SR usually had four officers. One of the notable features of the SR was that it was outside the military chain of command, reporting to and taking orders from the Minister of War. Thus, the SR was under direct civilian control, making it a kind of a political mole burrowed inside the French army. Did they operate on behalf of “anti-Semites” as the conventional narrative claims or for others, say the interests of the hyper-wealthy Zionist Rothschilds, who were a major presence in Paris in this era.

Jews were already over-represented among the military officer corp in France and especially in intelligence, at around 3% from the 1860s to the eve of WWI. With Jews constituting 0.2% of the total population in those years, that means it was an over-representation of 15 fold. Far from a suppressed minority, they had plenty of presence and clout in government and otherwise.

Who was Albert Dreyfus?

There are certain hidden facts in the case. One was that Capt. Dreyfus was no longer an artillery officer as claimed. Indeed, Dreyfus revealed in his 1901 memoir “Five Years of My Life” that he was working in military intelligence (Deuxième Bureau) the entire time he was in the general staff. The bureau had a tight-knit, select staff of 20 to 30 officers. He entered St. Cyr War College in 1891 and started with the general staff on Jan. 1, 1893. St. Cyr (covered by Miles Mathis elsewhere) has major red-flag deep-state history, and not just involving Frenchmen. In October 1893, Dreyfus was transferred to the infantry. Yet, to this day, the false narrative claims he was just another artillery officer at the time of the affair. 

Dreyfus’ account of his imprisonment on Devil’s Island is farcical. He whined incessantly about the extreme heat. In his published prison diary for Nov. 4, 1895, he wrote, “Terrific heat, over 45° Centigrade (113° Farenheit).” Did they give him a thermometer on Île du Diable? In today’s day and age, we have a little thing called the Internet, so “facts” like this can be checked. According to Weather Underground, French Guiana’s highest-ever recorded temperature was on Nov. 3, 2015. It was 37.9° Celsius (100°F). In fact, the weather, especially on the sea coast, is balmy and breezy, with maximums in the 80s.

Incredibly — and The New Nationalist (TNN) would say conveniently — a special law was passed on Feb. 9, 1895, restoring the Îles du Salut in French Guiana as a place of fortified deportation. “Devil’s Island” actually refers to several islands and locations. The tiny isle where Dreyfus was alleged to have been held never housed more than 12 political prisoners at one time, and Alfred Dreyfus was the first. Apart from his guards, he was the only inhabitant of the island, and he stayed in a stone hut that was 4 meters by 4 metres.

TNN’s takeaway: Was anybody really on that rock? Oddly, in 1896, the drama continued with a story of Dreyfus escaping and being spotted. To cover for this, Alfred’s brother Mathius inexplicably claimed to have planted the “escape” subterfuge.

As Lindemann wrote, “Anyone who reads Dreyfus’s memoirs or his letters to his wife can hardly avoid the sense of reading a bad novel, filled with mawkish and self-congratulatory passages.” Much of it is filler in which he’s just writing in his diary to complain about waiting for the mail to come. If Samuel Beckett had written a play about Dreyfus’s years in prison, he probably would’ve called it “Waiting for Mail.” This hokey-looking soap-opera photo (with an early version of a set screen) was alleged to be Dreyfus (apparently dressed for a cooler day) on Devil’s Island and was put out for public consumption in 1899.

Alfred, at right, appears little worse for the wear.

At right is a photo of Alfred Dreyfus posing with his brother Mathius shortly after his reunion in France. The media described him as a wrecked, frail man health wise, as a result of his Devil Island ordeal. You decide.

This suggests the whole story was a concocted victimization stance to build a fake canard against those questioning the Jewish agenda. Dreyfus was never a spy or a traitor, but he was a subterfuge misdirection agent. The villian Esterházy may have been a double agent. The publication of notes by Schwartzkoppen in 1930 suggests that they were receiving material from Esterhazy. Esterhazy himself later confessed in a British newspaper that he had indeed authored “The Bordereau” and passed it along to the Germans as disinformation. Who knows, as this is secondary to the larger picture of what The Dreyfus Affair was about.

Who was Ferdinand Esterhazy?
The villainous Esterhazy. He looks the part, doesn’t he?

Esterházy (1847- 1923) benefited from special treatment by the upper echelons of the army. He was the son of a general, an intelligence operative, descendant of royalty and a Rothschild classmate who was protected his entire life and well rewarded for doing his shabbos goy part in The Dreyfus Affair.  Esterhazy also worked in the “Statistics Section” (SR). Source: The Return of the Rothschilds. When he was “busted” the villain was able to easily escape to England where he lived the rest of his life in comfort and undisturbed.

According to Wikipedia, “Through the medium of Zadoc Kahn, chief rabbi of France, Esterhazy obtained “assistance” (aka money) from the Rothschilds in June, 1894, right before Dreyfus’ arrest. At the same time he was on good terms with the editors of the anti-Semitic newspaper La Libre Parole, which he supplied with information.” So was he just an opportunist playing both sides against each other? Esterhazy, by the way, didn’t need Zadoc Kahn: he was on good terms with the Rothschilds, having attended high school with Edmond (From The Return of the Rothschilds, pp. 116-17).

With Esterhazy, the Shakespearean scoundrel as William James called him, there is no end of interesting material.  For instance…if in the years before The Dreyfus Affair you were a Jewish officer in the army who had been insulted by a professional anti-Semite, say Edouard Drumont, in the press, the thing to do was to challenge your insulter to a duel. Ah, but that was difficult. You had to find someone to assist and to serve as your second in a duel—not so easy, preferably a non-Jew to vouch for your honor. Well, it turned out that there was such a man who set up a concession; he could be hired out to serve as a second for Jewish officers whose honor had been doubted in the press, questioned in the press, attacked in the press. That man who was none other than Ferdinand Esterhazy, the future villain of the Affair. Esterhazy stood for a Jewish officer Andre Crémieu-Foain in a faked, soap opera duel with the notorious “anti-semite” Drumont.

Incredibly when suspicion fell on Esterhazy, he insisted on and was granted a trial and was quickly acquitted. We didn’t realize military court martials are handed out by request. A suspect demanding a trial sounds like hogwash, that’s not how “justice” works.

Who was George Picquart?

George Picquart was cast as the hero of the Affair. After trying to clear Dreyfus he was accused of forging the note that had convinced him of Esterhazy’s guilt. Even though he was head of counter-intelligence he was later arrested for forgery and convicted in yet another secret trial. Post Dreyfus he experienced a meteoric career advancement. In 1906, General Picquart entered Georges Clemenceau’s first cabinet as Minister of War. He held that position for the entire duration of the Clemenceau Cabinet, from 25 October 1906 to 24 July 1909. Picquart then returned to military service as an Army Corps commander. Curiously Picquart was yet another Alsatian.

Who was Edouard-Adolphe Drumont?

Edouard-Adolphe Drumont (1844-1917) is sometimes called the “Pope of Antisemitism.” He was instrumental as the character who the SR tipped off about the investigation of Dreyfus and subsequently “broke the story” in his rag.

There is a curious entry on him from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia:

“French anti-Semitic author and former deputy from Algeria; born at Paris on May 3, 1844. Drumont’s ancestry is not Jewish, as has been sometimes asserted.”

So apparently it was necessary to try and claim this, given that some in that era suspected Drumont of being Jewish controlled opposition. Whodathunk? Some might think he looks Jewish? You decide.

Drumont is famous — or rather infamous — for writing one of the most anti-Jewish books of all time: “La France Juive,” or “The Jewish France.” The book sold 150,000 copies in its first year. He started working on it under the encouragement of a Jesuit priest, Father Stanislas Du Lac, who he met in 1879. Du Lac bankrolled Drumont’s newspaper, which was launched on April 20, 1892. His genealogy page states that Du Lac “converted” him to Catholicism. Converted from what? It’s left unsaid. DuLac hailed from a village 20 km from Dreyfus’ hometown of Mulhouse in — you guessed it — Alsace.

But before he published his rabidly anti-Semitic book, Drumont worked at a newspaper run by the Pereire brothers, who were wealthy Jewish financiers. In 1875, he gave the eulogy for Jacob Pereire, who he compared (favorably) to Napoleon. In 1880, he gave a eulogy praising Jacob’s brother, Isaac. According to the Encyclopedia entry (and elsewhere), we are to believe that he quit his job at the newspaper in 1886 after (suddenly) realizing newspapers were unduly controlled by Jews. Even though the book was published in 1886, Drumont is said to have started working on it in 1880. So he was on the Perieres payroll in the six intervening years.

Drumont studied at Lycée Condorcet. According to the Lycee Condorcet’s Wikipedia page, notable alumni include Ferdinand Walsin-Esterhazy, as well as a couple Rothschilds. Drumont was born in 1844 and Edmond de Rothschild in 1845.

As mentioned above, Drumont and his associates were involved in highly publicized, staged-deception drama duels with Jewish military officers, where Esterhazy play acted as the second to those officers. This was part of the buildup strategy of tension, a ploy used to this day.

On the Lycée Condorcet’s webpage, it states (translated from French):

Since the mid-19th century a large number of Protestant and Jewish students were accepted. The school has played a prominent role in the emergence of ‘Franco-Judaism,’ in the creation of the Dreyfus network, and in the history of the League of Human Rights.”

That league, by the way, is said to have been founded in reaction to The Dreyfus Affair. What a cohencidence.

Drumont’s most surprising admirer was Theodore Herzl, who was in Paris in the early 1890s as foreign correspondent for the Neue Freie Presse of Vienna.

Herzl wrote in his diary, “I owe Drumont much for my present freedom of conception, because he is an artist. ”

The admiration was mutual. When Herzl’s “Judenstaat” (“Jewish State,” his description of a future national-state for Jews) appeared in 1896, it received what Herzl himself described as a “highly flattering” review in a paper edited by Drumont.

Also among Drumont’s friends was Emile Zola.

What was Emile Zola’s Role?

As you go through the History Channel documentary (above), you will realize that Emile Zola, who was a famous writer, was the actor who at the precisely right time levied the anti-Semite accusations against the military plotters. “J’accuse” implicated leading French politicians in a deliberate fabrication of documents to frame Dreyfus and cover up their actions. His coup de grace letter was spread to virtually all western media throughout the world.

Zola also was able to play the victimization card as he was tried for libel. Wikipedia tells us that he “was convicted on 23 February and removed from the Legion of Honor.” Rather than go to jail, Zola fled to England. But first he was still walking around Paris for five months. How was Zola able to escape? Why wasn’t he put in jail? Did they put inspector Clouseau on the case? He only returned to France “after Dreyfus was pardoned,” which was on Sept. 19, 1899. Of note: It was Dreyfus who was pardoned, not Zola.

What was the Purpose of the Manufactured Dreyfus Affair?

The Dreyfus Affair kick-started the Zionist movement. Before Dreyfus, Theodor Herzl claimed he supported Jewish assimilation into gentile society. But The Dreyfus Affair shook Herzl’s view of the world, and he became completely enveloped in a tiny movement that called for the restoration of a Jewish State within the biblical homeland of Israel. Herzl quickly took charge in leading the movement. He organized the First Zionist Congress in Basel held on Aug. 29, 1897.

From Herzl’s Wikipedia entry:

Herzl came to believe through the trial that the officer was wrongly convicted. It may have been witnessing the trial of Colonel Dreyfus that converted him to the Zionist cause.”

But we know that can’t be true, because the trial was held in secret, in a closed courtroom. In any event, the evidence for his innocence would only be discovered (or revealed) many years later. Dreyfus was pardoned in 1899. Herzl launched Zionism in 1897. The trial — sham though it was — might never have even taken place. The entire degradation ceremony could have simply been made up

What better way to get the ball rolling than to frame a Jewish officer for treason and whip the crowd into a frenzy with all sorts of anti-Semitic propaganda put out by Drumont’s controlled opposition paper, among others.

Another goal of the Dreyfus agitprop, and perhaps its chief goal, was utilizing the victim-hood stance to delegitimize (or “blackwash”) any and all criticism of the behavior of certainJews as “antisemitism.”

It also allowed wealthy Jews a more direct pathway into political power and set of justifications for undermining the existing sources of power (the church, the aristocracy).

In politics, another winner was the triumph of the Third Republic. It was during the affair that the term “intellectual” was coined.


This article originally appeared on The New Nationalist and was republished here with permission.

Dragnea First! Tillerson a coborât la Bucureşti, ca să vadă cum arată un partener credibil

http://www.gandul.info/puterea-gandului/dragnea-first-tillerson-a-coborat-la-bucuresti-ca-sa-vada-cum-arata-un-partener-credibil-16822157

Rex Tillerson a făcut o escală în România ca să audă din gura ambasadorului Klemm ceea ce, din partea unui partener strategic, cum ne lăudăm că suntem, e de neacceptat. Coaliţia de guvernare PSD-ALDE a boicotat lucrările Comisiei de Apărare care urma să se discute-în regim de urgenţă, cum ceruse Guvernul-proiectul de lege privind achiziţia sistemului de rachete Patriot.

Era pe 14 noiembrie. Sfârşitul anului e ca mâine. “Până la finele anului, Armata va lua primul sistem Patriot. Suntem în grafic cu cheltuielile, iar la finele anului vom arată că suntem pun partener credibil…”, a declarat antropologul de la Apărare la întoarcerea din Statele Unite.

Nu se va întâmpla asta, pentru că un oarecare domn Dragnea, întâmplător şeful PSD, co-lider al Coaliţiei şi preşedinte al Camerei, are probleme. Iar slugile sale politice consideră că mai întâi trebuie rezolvate problemele domnului Dragnea şi abia apoi, dacă mai e vreme, problemele de securitate ale României. Slugile politice din Parlament -care şi-au găsit timp să-şi umfle lefurile, ba chiar şi viitoarele pensii, deşi lucrează doar câteva ore pe săptămâna-cred că un contract cu America se face ca la Tel Drum: noi vă dăm o gălăgie de bani, dar faceţi şi voi ceva să tăiem mâna lungă a Justiţiei până să-l înhaţe pe  Dragnea.

Dragnea first!

Altfel spus, PSD-ALDE cred că îi pot ţine în şah pe americani, singurii care, în aceste vremuri tulburi, ne oferă garanţii de securitate.
Faptul că nişte unii, căţăraţi în funcţii de parlamentari, joacă soarta ţării, e de netolerat chiar şi în România.

Turkey’s new role: From NATO lapdog to Emerging Empire

https://alethonews.wordpress.com/2016/09/02/turkeys-new-role-from-nato-lapdog-to-emerging-empire/

gearoidocolmain.org | August 30, 2016

The recent Turkish coup attempt marks a turning point in NATO’s war on Syria. An emerging empire and portal to the orient, Turkey has always played a key role in NATO’s ‘Drang Nach Osten’- the drive to encircle Russia, destroy its client-states Syria and Ukraine and serve as a bulwark against other emerging powers such as Iran. But now it seems Turkey may no longer be carrying out its designated role.

Stratfor director George Friedman claims Turkey is now a world power, whose military is more powerful than the French or British. The US strategy for Europe was to force Turkish entry into the EU – most recently through weapons of mass migration. The policy worked in Turkey’s favour. But the British decision to exit the European Union changed the balance of power. Moscow took the opportunity to extend the hand of friendship once more to Ankara. Just before last week’s coup attempt, there were reports of a possible detente between Turkey and Syria.

US/Turkish relations have soured considerably since 2013 when U.S-based billionaire Fetullah Gulen fomented the Gesi Park protest movement against the Erdoğan regime. Though there was certainly popular discontent in the country with Erdoğan’s Islamisation policies and his support for terrorism in Syria, the Gesi Park protests were really about pushing Gulen’s attempt to destabilise the regime and take over. Fethullah Gulen is the founder of a vast empire of private prep schools throughout the world. He promotes an extremist form of Islam.

Though originally close to Erdoğan’s Justice and Development Party, Gulen’s movement Hizmat (service) is less nationalist and therefore more amenable to US/Zionist interests. The Gulenist network operates as a fifth column in Turkey, a para-state operating at the highest levels of the military, intelligence and judicial apparatuses. I was asked by Russian state media RT to comment on the Turkish shooting down of a Russian jet in November 2015. I said then that the Turkish government was acting against the national interest. It has since transpired that the attack was carried out by Gulenist military personnel, who have been prosecuted for the crime. President Erdoğan recently apologised to Russian President Vladimir Putin for the attack. In fact, Turkey had indicated on July 13th that it intended to normalise relations with Syria, thus ending the war against Assad.  Contacts between Ankara and Damascus have been growing in recent months and it now looks like Russia and Turkey may have mended relations. Southstream, Russia’s plan to pipe oil to Europe through Turkey, had to be abandoned last year due to US pressure on Ankara. There is now a possibility of renegotiation recommencing between Moscow and Ankara. Recent Turkish/Iranian contacts also indicate that the Kurdish question is forcing Ankara to recalibrate its foreign policy.

The geopolitical theories of Greek Turkologist Dmitiry Kitsikis have had a major influence on Turkish foreign policy. Kitsikis is famous for promoting the notion of Turkey as a civilisation-state which naturally encompasses the region stretching from North Africa, through the Balkans and Eastern Europe; Kitsikis refers to this as the intermediate region. Turkey’s previous ‘good neighbourly’ policy seemed to be in accordance with  Kitsikian geopolitics but was sabotaged by Ankara’s collaboration with U.S. chaos strategy in the Middle East.

U.S. policy towards Turkey has been to support the regime as a strong regional power to wield against Russia while at the same time supporting the Kurdish YPG (people’s defence units) in Syria. US support for the Kurds is part of the long-term geopolitical remodelling of the region – the creation of what former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice at the start of the ‘Arab Spring’ uprisings in 2011 referred to as the “New Middle East”. The U.S and Israel want to carve out a Kurdistan in the region, which would become a client-state of Israel; thus providing the Zionist regime with an effective proxy army against its Arab enemies, once the Zionist Da’esh-fomented genocide has created the Lebensraum.

Erdoğan’s ambitions of reviving the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East threatens U.S. hegemony. The United States Navy rules the waves. The U.S will not allow another major maritime power to threaten its global control. Rapid economic growth and the paying off of its IMF debt in 2013 have seen Turkey emerge more and more as a strategic regional power with increasing independence and political assertiveness. Turkish investment in Africa has increased more than ten-fold since 2000. The Turks have been investing heavily in Somalia and have opened embassies all over Africa. Turkey is selling the notion of ‘virtuous power’ in Africa with infrastructural development projects and investments designed to compete with China and the United States. Turkish involvement in Somalia has turned the East African nation into a veritable client-state of the emerging Turkish Empire. In 2015, Turkey opened a military base in Somalia. Turkey will henceforth have a strategic reach in the Gulf of Aden, one of the most important oil choke-points in the world. Turkey also has plans to establish military bases in Azerbaijan, Qatar and Georgia.

Turkey also has a strategic relationship with Ethiopia where Chinese imperialism is currently outsourcing much of its industry. The result has been the U.S-backed ‘Oromo protest’ movement. The Turkish regime has been attempting to oust the presence of the Gulenist movement in many African countries by offering to supply Turkish state funds for education. A recent statement by a Turkish government spokesman alluded to Ankara’s desire to counter Western ‘neo-colonial’ interests in Africa. The statement clearly shows that Turkey intends to join the new ‘scramble for Africa’ as part of neo-ottoman imperialism.

Turkey’s drive for world power status, together with the decline of Europe as a political entity, means that Ankara will continue to flex its muscles in the international arena. The French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault has said that Turkey is no longer a reliable partner in NATO’s fight against the Islamic State. Of course, Turkey was never a partner in the war against the Islamic State as the Turkish regime has been arming and training the Islamic State terrorists along with its NATO partners and has been caught in flagrante delicto on several occasions. But what the French Foreign Minister’s remarks mean is that Turkey may no longer be as sanguine in its support for terrorism in Syria, due to the West’s support for the Kurds, rapprochement with Moscow and Damascus, and now more than ever after the failed U.S.-backed coup attempt.

That the United States was behind the coup attempt there is little doubt, though some prominent analysts such as Thierry Meyssan disagree that the coup was orchestrated by Gulenists. Fetullah Gulen is known to be close to the CIA and the U.S. obmutescence during the coup was typical of standard procedure during U.S. covert regime change operations. While Erdoğan is unquestionably a war criminal, who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents in Syria and Libya, nonetheless, as in the case of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, the Turkish leader seems to have fallen out of favour in the West. The media have already begun the demonisation process, showing pictures of his opulent palaces etc.

Turkey will pay dearly for the folly of abandoning it’s ‘good neighbourly’ regional policy, which showed some promise until 2011. It had a glorious opportunity then to exercise ‘virtuous power’. Now, the country could be facing civil war. The purge of Gulenists in the Turkish regime has already led to hundreds of arrests of top military and government personnel. If Turkey is to emerge as a regional empire, it will have to leave the Zionist axis and find a solution to the Kurdish question in conjunction with Syria and Russia. It now looks like previous plans agreed upon by Ankara and Paris to carve out a Kurdish state in Northern Syria may be abandoned. As the French escalate bombing of Raqqa in Syria in the wake of the Nice terrorist psyops, Turkey is facing a real state of emergency.

The situation is further complicated by Israel’s stance towards the Turkish coup attempt and its aftermath. The Turkish regime thanked Israel for its help quashing the coup. Furthermore, relations between Tel Aviv and Ankara have improved, in spite of the current dispute with Washington. One should not overlook the fact that, although the Israeli Lobby exerts considerable control over U.S. foreign policy, Israel often adopts a friendlier attitude to many of America’s so-called enemies. Israel’s relationship with Belarus has been generally good, in spite of repeated U.S. aggression. Israel’s relationship with Azerbaijan for has been good, in spite of major diplomatic rows with the U.S, Israeli/Russian relations are far better than Moscow’s relationship with Washington. Israel has always had a more nuanced oriental policy than the U.S. The Israelis are masters at playing both sides off each other in conflicts. During the Iran/Iraq war of the 1980s, the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein’s regime while Israel covertly supplied Iran with weapons on U.S. approval. The aforementioned Stratfor director George Friedman has said that the Iran/Iraq war would be a model for dealing with the rise of Turkey as a world power.

The United States cannot tolerate the emergence of a major maritime power like Turkey which, since the Cold War, has been used as a tool against Russia. Turkey’s Incirlik Airbase holds up to 80 percent of Washington’s nuclear arsenal in Europe. Ankara’s shift in foreign policy would signal the end of America’s drive for ‘full spectrum dominance, creating the conditions for a new imperial configuration- a geopolitical reconfiguration one could imagine as falling in with conjectures of a Moscow/Constantinople axis or ‘Third Rome’.

It is possible that the U.S. already sees that a reconfiguration of imperialist alliances is necessary with the influential former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Bzrezinski advocating a detente in U.S. relations with Russia and China. What is clear is that the world imperialist system is going through seismic changes. What prospects these changes have for working-class liberation remain to be seen.

Missing from the Debate: U.S. Aid to Israel Israel’s grandiose demands for more aid from Israel.

Missing from the Debate: U.S. Aid to Israel

The U.S. is offering Israel $40 billion in aid over the next 10 years. Pictured: Israel Defense  Forces.

Some Yiddish words will live forever, and chutzpah is one of them. What better word could describe Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand for more U.S. aid after he tried to obstruct President Obama’s nuclear agreement with Iran with a personal appeal to the Senate? But don’t expect aid to Israel to be a campaign topic. Both candidates favor it.

The U.S. and Israel have been bargaining since early July over a proposed ten-year U.S. aid package to Israel. The U.S. is offering Israel $40 billion in aid over that period, an increase of $10 billion a year, which the White House called “the largest pledge of military assistance to any country in U.S. history.” But that amount is not enough for the Israelis, who are demanding more.

For a recipient to bargain with a donor over the size of a handout is unusual enough, but Israel has received more U.S. aid over the years than any other nation in the world, despite having one of the highest per capita incomes in the Middle East. Israel has also benefited from its exemption from the rule that recipients of U.S. military aid must spend the money on American-made weapons.

The Israelis have nevertheless felt free to reject requests from Washington whenever it suits them. Every president since Jimmy Carter has asked Israel to freeze settlement construction, saying the settlements were an obstacle to peace. Israel has continued to build and expand settlements while objections from Washington have faded into silence. As long as this situation remains, however, there can be no peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.

A powerful effort by the U.S. and its allies is needed to change the current situation, but Israel’s well-funded American supporters have so far been able to stave off any attempt to pressure Israel. Defenders of what President Obama calls America’s “special relationship” with Israel frequently describe the Jewish state as the only democracy in the Middle East, and claim it is surrounded by potential enemies. Today, 50 years after Israel’s establishment, that description no longer fits the facts.

With the fifth largest military in the Middle East, and firm backing from the U.S., Israel no longer faces danger from its Arab neighbors. For the 2 million or so Palestinians who make up some 40 percent of the population, Israel is a flawed democracy at best, one in which they are second-class citizens. For the more than 4 million Palestinians living in Israeli-occupied Gaza and the West Bank, Israel is an oppressor nation.

After capturing the West Bank from Jordan, and Gaza from Egypt, in the 1967 war, Israel proceeded to build Jewish settlements in the newly occupied territories despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions of 1945 specifically forbid a conquering nation to build civilian settlements on captive territory. Since then the U.N. Security Council has passed numerous resolutions condemning Israel’s continued settlement construction and calling for its withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza. The U.S. cast a veto each time.

At Oslo in 1993, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin signed an agreement with Palestinian president Yasir Arafat in which he pledged to freeze settlement building in the occupied territories and make it easier for Palestinians to travel between Gaza and the West Bank. The agreement held out a promise that the Palestinians could soon establish an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza.

But the Oslo agreement was never implemented. The massacre of 29 Palestinians in Hebron by a Jewish settler in February 1994, followed by a round-the-clock curfew on Palestinians in that city, ignited often violent Palestinian resistance. Israel’s response was harsh and indiscriminate, involving pre-dawn house raids and arrests on the West Bank, targeted assassinations, border closings, travel restrictions and the placing of hundreds of new check points throughout the West Bank. Rabin’s assassination by a right-wing Israeli in November 1995 marked the effective end of Oslo.

Since then the cycle of Israeli oppression and Palestinian violence has continued, with periods of violence alternating with periods of uneasy calm. Several negotiating sessions between Israel and the Palestinians brokered by the U.S. have faltered, doomed by the great imbalance of power between the two sides and by Washington’s refusal to intervene in behalf of the Palestinians.

Gaza meanwhile has endured repeated Israeli air strikes and three full-scale invasions by Israel troops, along with a nine-year blockade that Israel imposed in 2007 after the Gazans elected a Hamas-led government. As a result of Israel’s actions, that densely populated territory has seen the collapse of its economy and a broken infrastructure. Homes, schools and public buildings destroyed or damaged by Israel bombing have yet to be rebuilt, and a majority of Gazans now rely on United Nations handouts to survive.

On the West Bank, meanwhile, hundreds of new homes for Israelis are under construction. Earlier this month, State Department spokesman John Kirby described Israel’s latest authorization of new settler housing as “fundamentally undermining the prospects for a two-state solution.” In fact, the prospects for a two-state solution had already faded. The number of settler homes has steadily increased over the years, so that today 600,000 Israelis live in the West Bank, and thanks to government subsidies more are moving in.

The territory is criss-crossed by highways intended for settler-use only and barred to Palestinians. Netanyahu declared after Israel’s last election that there would be no Palestinian state on his watch, and several members of his government  have openly declared their opposition to a two-state solution. According to Deputy Prime Minister Tsipi Hotovely, “God willed all of Palestine to Israel. This land is ours.”

Such statements issuing from a close ally of the West undoubtedly arouse anger in the Arab world and may even influence the handful of young Arab immigrants to Europe who turn to violence. Yet Israel’s continuing occupation is seldom mentioned in public discourse, and it’s a safe bet that it won’t be a prominent issue in the race between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Consequently, an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement based on two independent states will remain a distant hope, and American taxpayers will continue subsidizing a military occupation that deprives millions of
Palestinians of their freedom.

Rachelle Marshall is a former editor and writer and a member of Mill Valley Seniors for Peace, a Jewish Voice for Peace, and Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom.

U.S.-Led Anti-ISIS Joke Coalition Snubs Kurds At Major Political Conference In DC; Foreign Policy Wisdom From Donald Trump; Proof That Coup Plotters In Turkey Were More Nuts Than They Appeared

http://disquietreservations.blogspot.ro/2016/07/us-led-anti-isis-joke-coalition-snubs.html

Global coalition meeting to counter ISIS excludes YPG and Pêşmerga who have given thousands of martyrs in the war.

The U.S. will back stab the Kurds as they have in the past. Snubbing them at this major political conference is only one example of their record of treachery. Those who have studied history know that the devils who rule in Washington don’t keep their word with people they consider to be militarily useful but politically expendable. There are so many instances. In 2011 they used the Al-Qaeda terrorists in Libya to squash Gaddafi, calling them rebels, but when their objectives were met they immediately went back to calling them terrorists and targeting them in airstrikes.

The U.S.-led anti-ISIS joke of a coalition will use the YPG and Peshmerga to roll back ISIS, but, in the end, when the time comes for negotiations and politics, they’ll pretend that they don’t even exist. They’ll credit the battlefield victories to the Gulf-backed Arab racists in the Syrian opposition, who have made no contribution to defeating ISIS, as well as the Iran-backed Shiite sectarian government in Baghdad, whose policies have only created resentment and discord in Iraqi society since the illegal US invasion in 2003.

An excerpt from, “Transcript: Donald Trump on NATO, Turkey’s Coup Attempt and the World” The New York Times, July 21, 2016:

TRUMP: I’m only saying this. We’re spending money, and if you’re talking about trade, we’re losing a tremendous amount of money, according to many stats, $800 billion a year on trade. So we are spending a fortune on military in order to lose $800 billion. That doesn’t sound like it’s smart to me. Just so you understand though, totally on the record, this is not 40 years ago. We are not the same country and the world is not the same world. Our country owes right now $19 trillion, going to $21 trillion very quickly because of the omnibus budget that was passed, which is incredible. We don’t have the luxury of doing what we used to do; we don’t have the luxury, and it is a luxury. We need other people to reimburse us much more substantially than they are giving right now because we are only paying for a fraction of the cost.

Trump is speaking words of wisdom in this interview. But the evil press still portrays him as an idiot who doesn’t understand the world, NATO, or US foreign policy. But the stats, facts, and figures that Trump regularly cites speak for themselves.

U.S. leaders should focus on rebuilding their own broken country, not the broken Middle East. Donald Trump gained popularity because he catered to American interests and concerns, not the desires of foreign lobbies, the corrupt interests of the military-industrial complex, and stupid fantasies of world hegemony. The leaders of North Korea and Russia respect Trump because they see in him a sane and logical leader who is not out for war.

An excerpt from, “Turkish coupists planned to charge Erdogan with overly gentle treatment of Kurds – report” RT, July 21, 2016:

The document that was addressed to chief public prosecutor’s office in Inegol, Bursa province, accused the Turkish leadership of“supporting” the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, (PKK), considered terrorist in Turkey.

In particular, it accused Erdogan, Interior Minister Efkan Ala, National Intelligence Organization chief Hakan Fidan, provincial governors as well as former Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoglu and former deputy prime ministers Besir Atalay and Yalcin Akdogan of conducting peace talks with the PKK leadership between 2009 and 2015.

The charges against Erdogan seem to be ironic as the Turkish president has on a number of occasions promised to “neutralize”the Kurds after a two and a half year ceasefire between the PKK and Ankara was shattered last July, which led to a massive army crackdown in the southeast of the country.

The militarization of the ethnic conflict in Turkey has done the country no good for several decades. The fact that the pro-coup plotters would’ve doubled down on a failed policy against the Kurds and the PKK, and prosecute the war even more harshly than Erdogan has, shows that Erdogan remaining in power saved Turkey from greater disasters.

As hard as it is to stomach, Erdogan is the lesser evil in Turkey. The CIA-backed Gulenists who wanted to take over the country are more Islamic, more anti-Russian, more anti-Kurdish, more anti-Syrian, and more pro-war. They would’ve done more damage to Turkey and its relationships with the Kurds, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Russia, you know, all the people in their neighbourhood.

Erdogan has shown the ability to compromise with the PKK in the past, and continues to make peaceful gestures towards his neighbours. Turkey under his totalitarian rule will be a nightmare, but at least he has inclinations to sit down and make peace with his enemies.