Saturday, June 16, 2018

734 De Neocons, omschreven door E. Michael Jones en Jimmy Moglie

Jimmy Moglia is een erudiete man die veel van de oude geschiedenis weet. Hij vertelt zijn verhalen op Youtube, en stottert dan soms lichtjes, wat wel hinderlijk kan worden.
In dit artikel – dat over Skripal lijkt te gaan-  geeft hij een overzicht van de Joodse Macht.
Helaas doet hij dat met mooi, bloemrijk taalgebruik, waardoor het voor mensen die het engels op school moesten leren lastig te volgen is.
Ik zal enkele passages ‘highlighten’ met geel, vet en rood.

Post Scriptum on Scripal
3045 ViewsJune 14, 2018 10 Comments
by Jimmy Moglia for The Saker Blog

The dust of time is settling on the Scripal affair, after the eruption of British anti-Russian bile, bursting out from the deep state, and scattered to the four winds by the deep-state’s minions. Bile converted into imaginative insults and tokens of contempt for which sometimes it is not easy to find a name – for they are real but escape an attempt to describe them. Including, for example, the asinine and uninformed reference by the Foreign Secretary to “Crime and Punishment,” his knowledge of which, as indicated by the Russian UN Ambassador, is – to be kind – approximate.
And equally including those members of Parliament, nodding and applauding the Prime Minister, unstoppable in her litany of insults and accusations towards Russia – proving that insolence always propagates itself. Indeed, from the times of ancient Rome, corruption would always supply flatterers eager to applaud, and ministers prepared to serve the fear or the avarice, the manias or the oddities of their masters.
Predictably, the memory of the event will be swept up in the gulf of blind forgetfulness and dark oblivion – especially considering the ridicule of the whole affair, since it has become quasi-official that the ex-spy and his daughter were victims of an opiates’ overdose rather than poison gas.
However, as the puppets involved could not injure Russia by invectives, they have now combined to erase the memory of the event by silence, or with silence to pretend that it never happened. Nevertheless, sundry retaliatory sanctions and exclusions against Russia, prompted by England and copied by Europe and America, remain extant. While the usual media suspects keep their tongue employed with very little assistance from memory or reflection. Or they call for assistance professors of profound learning, thirsty wallets and merchantable faith.
The American mirror of the Scripal affair is Trump’s alleged “Collusion with Russia” to win the presidency. Endless media repetition of ‘collusion’ and ‘Russia,’ thus associating one term with the other, is another practical example of sacrificing sense to sound.
Quite likely, it has occurred to the observant reader that the narrative of mainstream news is anchored in a safe harbor of prejudices.
For who hates Russia, also loves Europe and the Euro, favors US intervention in Syria, is mad at Maduro’s “dictatorship,” labels as “populists” the defenders of their nation against demographic invasions from the third-world, thinks of Iran as a den of devils, calls Assad a butcher, likes his well-financed jihadist enemies, rates the coup in Ukraine a triumph of democracy and decries the reconnection of Crimea with Russia. It’s almost a compulsive conspiracy theory in reverse.
These prejudices form a clump of convictions not even attributable to a specific ideology, for convictions and prejudices live in harmonious contradiction with each other. Notably, for example, calling for peace while waging war, and extolling democracy at large, while supporting, sustaining and selling massive volumes of lethal arms to Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia, which is an updated embodiment of medieval despotism, along with the Gulf’s petro-monarchies, the heritage of Britain when she was still an empire. Pretending to amity with the Arab people and support for their unity (Lawrence of Arabia docet…), only to shamefully betray them even at Britain’s cost in blood (read Judaic anti-British terrorism in Palestine), let alone credibility.
Therefore the referred-to clump of convictions does not constitute an ideology. Rather it is a kind of self-sustaining mental family of factoids, where empirical evidence, let alone coherence, is un-necessary. For the strength of the factoids lies only in its being imposed by authority and repetition. And, recently, even in the persecution and prosecution of dissenters, thanks to the new instruments of “fake news” and “hate speech.”
“We create our own reality,” said the blood-thirsty US defense-secretary Rumsfeld, at the time of the Iraq war, when a naive journalist dared to question him about one particularly unbelievable statement of fact.
Still, even an ideological castle of rubbish, a fictitious structure, arbitrarily called ‘reality’, requires some scaffolding. Authority protects the castle from criticism, but the structure would be subject to dangerous cracks, should empirical reality expose any. Which probably explains, in the instance, the sudden veil of silence on the Scripal affair. Or, as an ingenious observer put it, the clump of invented convictions, of which the Scripal affair is one, constitutes a “wholistic approach to reality.”
For very dangerous to the castle of rubbish would be a spontaneous mobilization of more than a few heads who do not exempt themselves from thought. To prevent it, TV shows simulate a parallel reality, aimed at making less tragic the anxiety for the future and less ridiculous the perception of the present.
All this a good part of the world well knows, yet none knows well, including yours truly, where to start, or how to create a movement organized enough to offer a viable ideological counter-current, based on empirical truth, for the world at large.
Which brings me to say something that may be, or is, unsavory, though uttered by an unimpeachable mouth.
Moglia kondigt aan dat hij nu gedurfde zaken hardop gaat vertellen.
Among the euphemisms of our current new-speak is the term “deep state,” of which, in the Scripal instance and others, the British government showed itself to be its unashamed purveyor and voice. In attempting to discover the details and the depth of the “deep state”, our curiosity would probably consume itself in toilsome and disappointed effort.
Still, Neo-Conservatives,” or “Neo-Cons,” are the currently accepted outward expression of the “Deep State.”
Here next I quote the definition of “neo-cons”, given to the New York Times by Bill Kristol, son of Irving Kristol, a Judaic Marxist from the Soviet Union.
Initially a Communist, Irving Kristol belonged to a loud Trotskyist anti-Soviet group, which later became known as “The New York Intellectuals.” He was a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and a fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute. A contributor to The Wall Street Journal, he also served on the Council of the National Endowment for the Humanities (Democracy).
I italicized the institutions universally acknowledged as shaping both internal and foreign American policies. George W. Bush gave him the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor. Kristol senior is considered the father of the Neo-Conservatives.
Irving Kristol’s son is Bill, a quintessential neo-conservative. In an interview with the New York Times, said that, in the term “Neo-Cons”, ‘neo’ means ‘new’ and ‘con’ means ‘Jews.’ A statement probably and pragmatically true, considering the ostentatious influence of the neo-cons, especially in foreign policies.
Dezelfde uitspraak is de ene keer OK, de andere keer anti-semitisme !
But Kristol’s frankness also shines a light onto the elephant that polite (and supposedly clever) people in the room must ignore. For if Joe Biden, VP of the United States says, as he did, for example, that Judaic influence were behind same-sex marriage, he is applauded. But if someone who disagrees with same-sex marriages says the same thing he is an anti-Semite.
It is OK to say that Iraq never had weapons of mass destruction. But a Gentile quoting the New York Times – which claims that without the neo-cons there would not have been a war in Iraq – is anti-Semitic.
I borrow from Michael Jones ( E. Michael Jones, neem ik aan.) a schematic description of the characteristics of the “neo-conservatives.”
The quotes mean that Conservatism is too wide a notion to be compressed into a verbal label. Or rather, that there is both a practical and an ideological divide between neo-cons and more traditional American conservatives, an issue outside the scope of this post.
However, it is demonstrably true that today’s neo-cons are an extension of Judaic-Israeli interests, politics and ideology. Whose characteristics can be described as follows:
1— A deep concern with furthering specific Judaic interests, such as helping Israel or promoting immigration (in the US and Europe).
2— Issues are framed in a rhetoric of universalism rather than Judaic particularism. (e.g. mass immigration is good in itself and who opposes it is a racist – exception made for Israel that opposes it, but is not racist.)
3— Issues are framed in moral terms, and an attitude of moral superiority pervades the movement.
4— Key cultural ideas are centered around charismatic leaders. For example, Boas (Darwin was wrong – there are no races, only superstructures), Trotsky, Freud, etc. Interested readers may check the post, “The Fraud of Freud.”)
5— Judaic thought forms a cohesive, mutually reinforcing core.
6— Some Gentiles appear in highly visible roles, but act as spokespersons for the movement. See for example the US representative at the UN – a pawn of wickedness in the guise of a woman, in whom penury of knowledge and vulgarity of sentiment were never so unhappily disguised.
7— A pronounced ingroup/outgroup atmosphere within the movement—dissenters are portrayed as the personification of evil and are expunged from the movement.
8— The movement is irrational in the sense that it is fundamentally concerned with using available intellectual resources to advance a political cause.
9— The movement is associated with the most prestigious academic institutions.
10— Access to prestigious and mainstream media sources, partly as a result of practical Judaic ownership of media and entertainment channels.
11— Active involvement of the wider Judaic community in supporting the movement.
12…, and, I will add, the extraordinary ability of the sect to be, appear and act as a monolith. 


Het is echter bewijsbaar dat de neo-cons van vandaag een onderdeel uitmaken van de Joods-Israëlische belangen, politiek en ideologie. De Neocons  kunnen als volgt worden beschreven: 

1- Een diepe bezorgdheid over het bevorderen van specifieke Joodse belangen, zoals het helpen van Israël of het bevorderen van immigratie (in de VS en Europa).  ( Ja, de Massa-immigratie is een gevolg van joodse bemoeienis in die discussie. Wie tègen open grenzen was, was een fascist. Nu is de immigratie voldoende, en  betalen ze Wilders om het lond in dat kruidvat aan te steken. Leon de Winter heeft beide agenda’s gediend (!). Jan V.) 

2- Kwesties worden ingekaderd in een retoriek van het universalisme in plaats van het Judaïstische particularisme. (bijvoorbeeld massale immigratie is goed op zichzelf en wie daar tegen is, is een racist - uitzondering wordt natuurlijk gemaakt voor Israël, dat geen immigranten wil, maar tòch  niet racistisch is.(!)

3- Problemen worden in morele termen geformuleerd en de Neocons meten zich een air van van morele superioriteit aan.

4- Belangrijke culturele ideeën zijn gecentreerd rond charismatische leiders. Bijvoorbeeld Boas (Darwin had ongelijk - er zijn geen rassen, alleen aangeleerde culturen), Trotsky, Freud, etc. Geïnteresseerde lezers kunnen de blog "The Fraud of Freud" Lezen.

5- Het joodse gedachtengoed  is intern samenhangend, en dat maakt het zo sterk. ( Vrij vertaald. J V.  Niet zeker of dit juist is.)  

6- Sommige niet-joden vervullen de duidelijk zichtbare rollen in de beweging, zoals woordvoerders.   Zie bijvoorbeeld de vertegenwoordiger van de VS bij de VN - een pion van slechtheid in de gedaante van een vrouw, erg dom en erg laag bij de gronds, en dat is nog goed zichtbaar ook !  

7-  The movement is associated with the most prestigious academic institutions.

8 - Een grote waarde wordt gehecht aan het feit of iemand mee doet (loyaal lid is van de groep) of niet. Wie kritiek heeft wordt afgeschilderd als de personificatie van het kwaad en wordt uit de beweging verwijderd.

9- De beweging werkt op ongebruikelijke wijzen:  ze streeft politieke doelen na door wetenschap als wapen te gebruiken.  ( Dit is een heel vrije vertaling.  Ik weet niet of ik de tekst goed gebruik. Maar inhoudelijk is deze zin wel juist.  J V. ) 

10- De Neocons hebben nauwe banden met de meest prestigieuze academische instellingen, deels als gevolg van het feit dat die Media joods eigendom zijn. 

(J V.:  Dit geldt ook voor entertainment kanalen, waarmee de jeugd enorm kan worden beïnvloed. Op kinder-kijk-tijd  vliegen de penissen en pedofielen over het scherm…  Wart vroeger porno was en verboden, wordt nu gelabeld als een ‘educatief kinderprogramma…’)  

11- Actieve betrokkenheid van de bredere Joodse gemeenschap bij het ondersteunen van de beweging.

12.. en het buitengewone vermogen van de sekte om als één uniforme beweging te  verschijnen en handelen maakt deel uit van haar grote kracht.

A phenomenon unique in history, which may explain why, when the sect reached the extreme of tolerance by the local populations, it was often expelled en mass, as any of them was deemed indistinguishable from the whole.
To sprinkle an anecdote on the text, each night at 10 PM the bells of Strasbourg’s Cathedral in France sound the Zehnerglock, a reminder of the associated Judenblos, (Juden horn), which notified them to leave the city. The association of the Zehnerglock with the night-banning of the members of the sect from the city stopped in 1790, but as of today, the 10 PM bell is still considered a reminder of that tradition.
Those members of the sect who criticize the critics of the sect’s practices, and accuse gentiles of indiscriminate generalization, actually prove the point. For in the very defense of the sect, they prove its core monolithic structure.
The influence of Judaic interests in the political, financial sphere and military ventures is universally acknowledged. Relatively less known is how a historically recent contributor to the Judaic monolith’s success has been…. the Catholic Church. The thread to justify the statement is lengthy, and there is only so much that can be written before it becomes too much( Grappig !). Let the patient reader forgive the omissions.
Moglie gaat uitleggen waarom de Katholieke Kerk de macht van de joden bevorderde.
To begin with – and I have observed this directly more than once – there is a perception at large, including among many Catholics, that Hitler was the father of so-called anti-Semitism. Hitler was bad – therefore, for the indifferent children of the earth, anything associated with Hitler is diabolic.
But for many, ‘Semitism’ is a somewhat nebulous term, as compared to, say, “Israel.” Which may explain the strenuous ongoing effort by the interested parties to declare any criticism of Israel “anti-Semitism,’ or better, a “hate-crime.”
Nevertheless, as we know, the so-called “Judaic Question” is as old as Christianity. And in relatively recent historic times (1880-1890), Judaic influence drew sharp criticism from many sources, including and notably the Catholic Church. Here, for example, is a translated extract from a 1890 issue of “Civilta’ Cattolica,” one of the key media organs of the Jesuits and the Vatican,
a 1890 issue of “Civilta’ Cattolica”:
“The XIXth century will end, in Europe, leaving her in the throngs of a very sad issue, of which the XXth century will feel consequences so calamitous, as to induce her (Europe) to drastically deal with it. We refer to the improperly-called “Semitic Question,” that more accurately should be called “Judaic Question” – which is connected via an intimate link, to the economic, moral, political and religious conditions of Europe.
How fervid at present and how much this question perturbs the major nations, is manifest by the common cry against the invasion by Jews in all spheres of public and social life; by the leagues formed to slow its advance in France, Austria, Germany, Italy, Russia, Rumania and elsewhere. By the calls for action in various Parliaments – by the large number of newspaper articles, books and pamphlets that are constantly printed, all showing the need to stem the growth of this plague, and to combat it, showing evidence of its very pernicious consequences….
Naively, some try to show that the ”Judaic Question” is the result of a (Christian) hatred of the (Judaic) religion or sect. Mosaism (read ‘religion inspired by Moses) in itself could not be an argument for hatred…. for it was the antecedent of Christianity… But for centuries Judaism has turned its back on Mosaism, exchanging it with the Talmud, quintessence of that pharisaism, many times blasted by Christ…. And although Talmudism is an integral element of the Jewish question, we cannot say that (Talmudism) is all that relevant to it (Judaic question). For in Talmudism the Christian nations detest not so much the theological part, almost reduced to insignificance, but the moral one, that contradicts the elementary principles of natural ethics…. “

Nu is Moglie weer aan het woord:
And in a starkly foretelling book, written at the end of the XIXth century by Georg Ratzinger, great uncle of Pope Benedict XVI, and titled “Die Volkswirtschaft in ihren sittlichen Grundlagen” (The national economy in its moral foundations), he wrote that “If the German workers would ever find a leader capable of guiding them, it cannot be predicted what could happen to the Jews.”
But all this changed with the Second Vatican Council, when it was discovered that the chosen people had never been an enemy of the Catholic Church, and those who earlier thought otherwise were wrong. In turn, and through a sequence of documented and extraordinary developments, the road was open, for the brethren at large, to the teachings, for example, of Wilhelm Reich, philosophical guru and proponent, among other things, of sexual liberation, feminism, transgenderism, homosexuality, sexualization of children and, literally, pedophilia. Reich was the spiritual father of the 1960s’ culture and of the 1968’s upheavals, along with the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism.
As an example of relatively recent Judaic influence on Catholicism, Eric Ericcson (whose real name is Eric Samuelson) was invited, by the eminently Catholic University of Notre Dame, to apply Freud’s theories to determining whether seminarists could be “psychologically mature” if they did not have sex, etc. In a scale of one to ten, someone who did not have sex would remain at level six. There is no need to expand on the consequences of this teaching on a religion that requires celibacy from its priests. And the matter should help to frame, at least in part, some of the grossest recent scandals of the Catholic Church.
Or take Cohn-Bendit, guru of the Green Party in Europe. Among other things, the Greens founded ‘sexually liberated’ children’s schools. In his memoirs, Cohn-Bendit relates how on arrival at one such school, one child unzipped his zipper and started fondling him.
In essence and skipping many steps, the devilish pact went as follows, “We (Deep State), give you (Christians or people of Christian upbringing) sexual liberation, the most disgusting pornography among pornographies, the most disgusting movies and entertainment and a seal of Freudian approval to degeneracy. In exchange, you will make the world safe for capitalism – where economy is but the metaphysics of the rich. And you will equally bless the perverse evolution of the social function into a function solely aimed at economic profitability.
Which also helps explain, at least in gross terms, why the “Left” all over Europe – including the heirs of socialist ideologies – has essentially abandoned claims to social justice, while embracing the tenets of the so-called “New Left.” That is, out with the social and in with the capital and the fostering of neo-liberal, neo-conservative Zionist objectives.
Talk about coincidentia oppositorum (coincidence of the opposites) – neo-liberals and neo-conservatives united in a harmonious coalescence of objectives.
But what is the link between this set of affairs and events like the so-called “Scripal” crisis with its attendant, vitriolic hatred of Russia? The informed reader may already know the answer. I repeat it here only to give consistency to the historical link.
Somewhat arbitrarily, it begins with the “Pale of Settlement” of Tzarina Catherine the Great, when members of the sect were eventually confined to the Western part of the Russian Empire. Solzhenitsyn, in his “Two Hundred Years Together,” explains at length why this measure had become necessary and inevitable.
That hatred was suspended during the Bolshevik stage of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath – when, coincidentally, the Judaic presence was predominant in the Soviet executive cadres. Then, as the latter-day Stalin changed his views, and even more after his death, even Soviet Russia discovered that it could not deny or reject its history, traditions, core values and the Christian-Orthodox religion.
The slow but palpable revival of traditions and religion coincided with the equally palpable revival of Judaic discontent, causing mass emigration to Israel and the US. Later, the externally engineered destruction of the Soviet Union led, in turn, to a revival of Judaic hopes and actual plunder, accompanied by the well documented, almost apocalyptic collapse of the Russian social and economic order. And we know what happened afterwards.
In the end, the hatred of Russia can be considered as added evidence of frustrated (but not abandoned) Judaic objectives. For, to quote Rahm Emanuel, major of Chicago and a bigwig in the Obama administration, “Do not let a good crisis go to waste.”
We know that the modern state is an engine of propaganda, producing crises so as to declare itself as the only instrument capable of resolving them. The Scripal crisis fits that mode of operation.
It may be a coincidence, but while the Scripal saga was developing and more sanctions were applied to Russia, there has been a renewed and apparently successful effort to expand the definition of so-called “anti-Semitism,” as applied to language, discourse, suspect words and implied criticism. With a view to turning free-speech into a crime and free-speech crime into punishment.
Emblematic, among the recently persecuted, are the 90 year-old German Ursula Haverbach, jailed for her opinions on the “Holocaust,” and the British housewife turned song-writer, Alison Chabloz, guilty of posting online satirical songs on sundry Judaic claims related to WW2.
Perhaps, most of what written above could be condensed into a quotation, attributed to Voltaire and well know to many Internauts. Namely, that to determine who rules over us, we should find whom we are prompted to hate (and why), and who we are not allowed to criticize.
On the other hand, history lends itself to unlimited analyses. ‘Analysis’ means to ‘unloose,’ and figuratively, to resolve a complex structure into its components. But the components of history are infinite and any selection must be inevitably reductive.
Still, if the past is recalled by narration, and the future anticipated by vision, I attempted a narration, let the reader provide the vision. Keeping in mind that, after all is said and done, hope is still the best comfort to our imperfect condition.

Thursday, June 14, 2018

733 Waar komt die haat voor Rusland vandaan?

Having just returned from a trip to Russia, I am pleased to report that the Russian people and the officialdom that I encountered displayed none of the vitriol towards Americans that I half expected as a response to the vilifying of Moscow and all its works that pervades the U.S. media and Establishment.
To be sure, many Russians I spoke with were quick to criticize the Trump Administration for its hot and cold performance vis-à-vis the bilateral ties to Moscow while also expressing mystification over why the relationship had gone south so quickly, but this anger over foreign policy did not necessarily translate into contempt for the American people and way of life that characterized the Soviet period. At least not yet.
Somewhat to my surprise, ordinary Russians were also quick to openly criticize President Vladimir Putin for his autocratic tendencies and his willingness to continue to tolerate corruption, but everyone I spoke to also conceded that he had generally acted constructively and had greatly improved life for ordinary people. Putin remains wildly popular.
One question that came up frequently was “Who is driving the hostility towards Russia?” I responded that the answer is not so simple and there are a number of constituencies that, for one reason or another, need a powerful enemy to justify policies that would otherwise be unsustainable. Defense contractors need a foe to justify their existence while congressmen need the contractors to fund their campaigns. The media needs a good fearmongering story to help sell itself and the public also is accustomed to having a world in which terrible threats lurk just below the horizon, thereby increasing support for government control of everyday life to keep everyone “safe.”
And then there are the neocons. As always, they are a distinct force for creative destruction, as they put it, certainly first in line with their hands out to get the funding of their no-expenses-spared foundations and think tanks, but also driven ideologically, which has made them the intellectual vanguard of the war party. They provide the palatable intellectual framework for America to take on the world, metaphorically speaking, and constitute the strike force that is always ready to appear on television talk shows or to be quoted in the media with an appropriate intelligent sounding one liner that can be used to justify the unthinkable. In return they are richly rewarded both with money and status.
The neocons believe in only two things.
First, that the United States is the sole world superpower, given license by something like a Divine Entity to exercise global leadership by force if necessary. That has been translated to the public as “American exceptionalism.” Indeed, U.S. interventionism in practice has been by force majeure preferably as it leaves little room for debate or discussion.

And the second neocon guiding principle is that everything possible must be done to protect and promote Israel. Absent these two beliefs, you do not have a neocon.

The founding fathers of neoconism were New York Jewish “intellectuals” who evolved (or devolved) from being bomb throwing Trotskyites to “conservatives,” a process they self-define as “idealism getting mugged by reality.”

The only reality is that they have always been faux conservatives, embracing a number of aggressive foreign policy and national security positions while also privately endorsing the standard Jewish liberal line on social issues. Neocon fanaticism on the issues that they do promote also suggests that more that a little of the Trotskyism remains in their character, hence their tenacity and ability to slither between the Democratic and Republican parties while also appearing comfortably on disparate media outlets considered to be either liberal or conservative, i.e. on both Fox news and MSNBC programs featuring the likes of Rachel Maddow.
I have long believed that the core hatred of Russia comes from the neocons and is to a large extent tribal or, if you prefer, ethno-religious based. Why? Because if the neoconservatives were actually foreign policy realists there is no good reason to express any visceral dislike of Russia or its government.
The allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election in the U.S. are clearly a sham, just as are the tales of the alleged Russian poisoning of the Skripals in Salisbury England and, most recently, the claimed assassination of journalist Arkady Babchenko in Kiev which turned out to be a false flag. Even the most cursory examination of the past decade’s developments in Georgia and Ukraine reveal that Russia was reacting to legitimate major security threats engineered by the United States with a little help from Israel and others. Russia has not since the Cold War ended threatened the United States and its ability to re-acquire its former Eastern European satellites is a fantasy. So why the hatred?
In fact, the neocons got along quite well with Russia when they and their overwhelmingly Jewish oligarchs and international commodity thieves cum financier friends were looting the resources of the old Soviet Union under the hapless Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. Alarms about the alleged Russian threat only re-emerged in the neocon dominated media and think tanks when old fashioned nationalist Vladimir Putin took office and made it a principal goal of his government to turn off the money tap.
With the looting stopped by Putin, the neocons and friends no longer had any reason to play nice, so they used their considerable resources in the media and within the halls of power in places like Washington, London and Paris to turn on Moscow. And they also might have perceived that there was a worse threat looming. The Putin government appeared to be resurrecting what the neocons might perceive as pogrom plagued Holy Russia! Old churches razed by the Bolsheviks were being rebuilt and people were again going to mass and claiming belief in Jesus Christ. The former Red Square now hosts a Christmas market while the nearby tomb of Lenin is only open one morning in the week and attracts few visitors.
I would like to suggest that it is quite possible that the historically well-informed neocons are merely longing for the good old Bolshevik days in Russia. The fact is that much of Bolshevik state atheism was driven by the large overrepresentation of Jews in the party in its formative days. British journalist Robert Wilton’s meticulously researched 1920 study “The Last Days of the Romanovs” describes how David R. Francis, United States ambassador in Russia, warned in a January 1918 message to Washington that
“The Bolshevik leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a worldwide social revolution.”

Dutch Ambassador William Oudendyke echoed that sentiment, writing that
“Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things.”

Russia’s greatest twentieth century writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn, feted in the west for his staunch resistance to Soviet authoritarianism, suddenly found himself friendless by the media and publishing world when he wrote “Two Centuries Together: A Russo-Jewish History to 1972”, recounting some of the dark side of the Russian-Jewish experience. In particular, Solzhenitsyn cited the significant overrepresentation of Russian Jews both as Bolsheviks and, prior to that time, as serf-owners.

Jews notably played a particularly disproportionate role in the Soviet secret police, which began as the Cheka and eventually became the KGB. Jewish historian Leonard Schapiro noted how “Anyone who had the misfortune to fall into the hands of the Cheka “stood a very good chance of finding himself confronted with, and possibly shot by, a Jewish investigator.” In Ukraine, “Jews made up nearly eighty percent of the rank-and-file Cheka agents.”
In light of all this it should surprise no one that the new Russian government of 1918 issued a decree a few months after taking power making anti-Semitism a crime in Russia. The Communist regime became the world’s first to criminally punish any anti-Jewish sentiment.
Wilton used official Russian government documents to identify the make-up of the Bolshevik regime in 1917-9.
The 62 members of the Central Committee included 41 Jews,  while the Extraordinary Cheka Commission Cheka of Moscow’s 36 members included 23 Jews.
The 22 strong Council of the People’s Commissars numbered had 17 Jews.
According to data furnished by the Soviet authorities, out of the 556 most important functionaries of the Bolshevik state in 1918-1919 there were: 17 Russians, two Ukrainians, eleven Armenians, 35 Latvians, 15 Germans, one Hungarian, ten Georgians, three Poles, three Finns, one Czech and 458 Jews.
In 1918-9, effective Russian governmental power rested in the Central Committee of the Bolshevik party. In 1918 this body had twelve members, of whom nine were of Jewish origin, and three were Russians.
The nine Jews were: Trotsky, Zinoviev, Larine, Uritsky, Volodarski, Kamenev, Smidovich, Yankel, and Steklov. The three Russians were: Lenin, Krylenko, and Lunacharsky.
The Communist diaspora in Europe and America was also largely Jewish, including the cabal of founders of neoconservativism in New York City. The United States Communist Party was from the start predominantly Jewish. It was in the 1930s headed by Jew Earl Browder, grandfather of the current snake oil salesman Bill Browder, who has been sanctimoniously proclaiming his desire to punish Vladimir Putin for various alleged high crimes. Browder is a complete hypocrite who has fabricated and sold to Congress a largely phony and self-serving narrative relating to Russian corruption. He is also not surprisingly a neocon media darling in the U.S. It has been more than plausibly claimed that Browder was a principal looter of Russia’s resources in the 1990s and Russian courts have convicted him of tax evasion among other crimes.
The undeniable historical affinity of Jews for the Bolshevik brand of communism coupled with the Jewishness of the so-called oligarchs rather suggests that the hatred of a Russia that has turned its back on those particular aspects of Jewish heritage might be at least part of what drives some neocons. Just as in the case of Syria which the neocons, bowing to Israel’s interests, prefer to see in chaos, some might long for a return to the good old days of looting by mostly Jewish foreign interests, as under Yeltsin, or even better for the heady days of 1918-9 Bolshevism when Jews ruled all of Russia.

Thursday, June 07, 2018

732 De wreedheden van Amerika in de Koreaanse oorlog.

Ik wist al uit een boek over Korea dat zelfs de Amerikaanse generaal MacArthur diep onder de indruk was van het beestachtige gedrag dat zijn land in Korea had vertoond. 
Hier een artikel waar originele Amerikaanse documenten het bewijs leveren. 

US Atrocities in Korean War - Chem and Bio Weapons, Mass Civilian Bombing and Execution

Koreans not only have good reason to view the US with suspicion and mistrust, it's a miracle they don't hate us for all eternity
With the world's press spending a great deal of its energy on the rather fractious relationship between the United States and North Korea, a look back in time gives us some fascinating insight regarding the geopolitical stresses that rule the region, particularly the stresses that occurred during the Korean War.  
Thanks to the International Action Center and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL), a Non-Governmental Organization which was founded in 1946 and acts as a consultative group to UNESCO, we have an interesting document that outlines some of America's actions on the Korean Peninsula during the early 1950s.
Hier zijn een aantal schilderijen te zien van de wreedheden. 
Het is een Indonesische publicatie. De teksten onder de schilderijen vertellen niet wat er te zien is.  Hier de eerste vier onderschriften, met Google vertaald:  
1. Het Sinchon Museum, gebouwd in Noord-Korea, vangt de wreedheden van de Koreaanse oorlog op door schilderijen en sculpturen.
Bron van het artikel:
2. Veel van de bloedbaden vonden plaats in de oorlog die deel uitmaakte van de Koude Oorlog.
3. Country leider Kim Jong-un haat het land Uncle Sam
4 De Koreaanse oorlog tussen Noord en Zuid brak uit in 1950 tot 1953.
In March 1952, the IADL issued a Report on U.S. Crimes in Korea during the Korean War.  Here is a screen capture showing the title page:
In the early 1950s, the Government of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea repeatedly asked the United Nations to protest violations of international law by their enemies, the United States-led international coalition.
These requests were ignored by the United Nations and, as such, the Council of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers set up a Commission consisting of lawyers from several nations to investigate these allegations with a "boots on the ground" trip to Korea which took place from March 3rd to March 19th, 1952, visiting the provinces of North and South Piengan, Hwang Hai, Kang Wan, including the towns of Pyongyang, Nampo, Kaichen, Pek Dong, Amju, Sinchon, Anak, Sariwon and Wonsan among others.  
Here is a list of the lawyers that saw first-hand what had occurred in the DPRK:
The IADL notes that, under United Nations rules, the U.S. intervention on the Korean Peninsula was unlawful and that President Truman's orders to the American Navy and Air Force should be considered an "aggressive act" that went against the United Nations Charter.
Here are some of the more interesting findings of the IADL Commission:
1.) Bacteriological Warfare: 
The Commission investigated the allegations that American forces in Korea were using bacteriological weapons against both the DPRK armed forces and the nation's civilian population.  Between the 28th of January and the 12th of March (i.e. during the dead of winter), 1952, the Commission found the following insects which carried bacteria in many different locations:
The Commission noted that many of the insect species had not been found in Korea prior to the arrival of American forces and that many of them were found in mixed groups or clusters that would not normally be found together, for example, flies and spiders.  
It also noted that the January temperature was 1 degree Celsius (just above freezing) to 5 degrees Celsius in February but that the prevailing average temperature was far below the freezing level, temperatures that are extremely hostile to insect life.  
The insects were infected with the following bacteria which include plague, cholera and typhus:
  • Eberthella typhus
  • Bacillus paratyphi A and B
  • Shigella dysenteriae
  • Vibrio cholera
  • Pasturella pestis
Here are some examples of what was reported by local citizens:
In addition, a great quantity of fish of a species which live in regions between fresh water and salt water were found; these fish were found in a half rotten state and were infected with cholera.
2.) Chemical Weapons: 
On various occasions since May 6th, 1951, American planes used asphyxiating and other gases or chemical weapons as follows:
In the first attack on Nampo City, there were 1,379 casualties of which 480 died of suffocation and 647 others were affected by gas.
3.) Mass executions of civilians:  
According to witnesses, the commander of the U.S. Forces in the region of Sinchon by the name of Harrison ordered the mass killing of 35,383 civilians (19,149 men and 16,234 women) during the period between October 17th and December 7th, 1950.  
The civilians were pushed into a deep open grave, doused with fuel oil and set on fire.  Those who tried to escape were shot.  
In another case, on October 20th, 2015, 500 men women and children were forced into an air raid cave shelter located in the city of Sinchon.  Harrison ordered American soldiers to put explosives into the shelter and seal it with sacks of earth prior to the fuse being lit.
Here are other examples of mass murders:
4.) Bombing and Attacking Civilians:
Prior to the Korean War, the capital city of North Korea, Pyongyang, had a population of 464,000.  As a result of the war, the population had fallen to 181,000 by December 31, 1951.  In the period between June 27, 1950 and the Commission's visit, more than 30,000 incendiary and explosive devices were dropped on the city, destroying 64,000 out of 80,000 houses, 32 hospitals and dispensaries (despite the fact that they were marked with a red cross), 64 churches, 99 schools and university buildings.
Here is a description of one of the aerial bombardments of Pyongyang:
Here is the conclusion of the Commission:
The IADL Commission unanimously found that the United States was guilty of crimes against humanity during the Korean War and that there was a pattern of behaviour which constitutes genocide.
Let's close this posting with the conclusion of the 2001 Korea International War Crimes Tribunal which examined the testimony of civilians from both North Korea and South Korea over the period from 1945 to 2001:
The Members of the International War Crimes Tribunal find the accused Guilty on the basis of the evidence against them: each of the nineteen separate crimes alleged in the Initial Complaint has been established to have been committed beyond a reasonable doubt. The Members find these crimes to have occurred during three main periods in the U.S. intervention in and occupation of Korea.
  1. The best-known period is from June 25, 1950, until July 27, 1953, the Korean War, when over 4.6 million Koreans perished, according to conservative Western estimates, including 3 million civilians in the north and 500,000 civilians in the south. The evidence of U.S. war crimes presented to this Tribunal included eyewitness testimony and documentary accounts of massacres of thousands of civilians in southern Korea by U.S. military forces during the war. Abundant evidence was also presented concerning criminal and even genocidal U.S. conduct in northern Korea, including the systematic leveling of most buildings and dwellings by U.S. artillery and aerial bombardment; widespread atrocities committed by U.S. and R.O.K. forces against civilians and prisoners of war; the deliberate destruction of facilities essential to civilian life and economic production; and the use of illegal weapons and biological and chemical warfare by the U.S. against the people and the environment of northern Korea. Documentary and eyewitness evidence was also presented showing gross and systematic violence committed against women in northern and southern Korea, characterized by mass rapes, sexual assaults and murders.
  2. Less known but of crucial importance in understanding the war period is the preceding five years, from the landing of U.S. troops in Korea on September 8, 1945, to the outbreak of the war. The Members of the Tribunal examined extensive evidence of U.S. crimes against peace and crimes against humanity in this period. The Members conclude that the U.S. government acted to divide Korea against the will of the vast majority of the people, limit its sovereignty, create a police state in southern Korea using many former collaborators with Japanese rule, and provoke tension and threats between southern and northern Korea, opposing and disrupting any plans for peaceful reunification. In this period the U.S. trained, directed and supported the ROK in systematic murder, imprisonment, torture, surveillance, harassment and violations of human rights of hundreds of thousands of people, especially of those individuals or groups considered nationalists, leftists, peasants seeking land reform, union organizers and/or those sympathetic to the north.
  3. The Members find that in the period from July 1953 to the present, the U.S. has continued to maintain a powerful military force in southern Korea, backed by nuclear weapons, in violation of international law and intended to obstruct the will of the Korean people for reunification.Military occupation has been accompanied by the organized sexual exploitation of Korean women, frequently leading to violence and even murder of women by U.S. soldiers who have felt above the law. U.S.-imposed economic sanctions have impoverished and debilitated the people of northern Korea, leading to a reduction of life expectancy, widespread malnutrition and even starvation in a country that once exported food. The refusal of the U.S. government to grant visas to a delegation from the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea who planned to attend this Tribunal only confirms the criminal intent of the defendants to isolate those whom they have abused to prevent them from telling their story to the world.
In all these 55 years, the U.S. government has systematically manipulated, controlled, directed, misinformed and restricted press and media coverage to obtain consistent support for its military intervention, occupation and crimes against the people of Korea.
It has also inculcated racist attitudes within the U.S. troops and general population that prepared them to commit and/or accept atrocities and genocidal policies against the Korean people.
It has violated the Constitution of the United States, the delegation of powers over war and the military, the Bill of Rights, the UN Charter, international law and the laws of the ROK, DPRK, Peoples Republic of China, Japan and many others, in its lawless determination to exercise its will over the Korean peninsula.
The Members of the Korea International War Crimes Tribunal hold the United States government and its leaders accountable for these criminal acts and condemn those found guilty in the strongest possible terms." (my bold)
And Washington wonders why the North Koreans are so hostile toward the United States!  
The irony of Washington's criticism of other nations (i.e Syria) and their use of chemical weapons is stunningly hypocritical.