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.


  1. Voor Matt die zich afvraagt waarom vrijwel iedere bijdrage van Jan op Blik verwijst naar joden:


    Uit het artikel:

    "Tót aan de komst van de Antwerpse kooplieden bestond er in de Noordelijke Nederlanden géén slavenhandel! In 1568 veroverden Spaanse troepen de Zuidelijke Nederlanden en namen de machtige handelsstad- en haven Antwerpen in bezit. Parma, de Spaanse legeraanvoerder, bood de overwegend Joods-Antwerpse kooplieden aan te blijven of anders twee jaar de tijd om hun zaken af te wikkelen waarop veel van hen in eerste instantie naar het toen nog traditioneel katholieke Zeeland trokken. Ze vestigden zich in de plaatsen Vlissingen en Middelburg waar ze nauwgezet de ontwikkelingen richting Antwerpen in de gaten konden houden en elke vorm van economische activiteit maximaal belemmerden. Een deel van hen vertrok in latere jaren naar Amsterdam (toen ook wel ‘Nieuw Antwerpen’ genoemd) en Rotterdam. Een ander deel vestigde zich als plantage-eigenaar overzee, in Nederlands Guyana, wat nu Suriname heet. Anders dan de Noord Nederlandse kooplieden die van oudsher met de Hanzesteden handelden in hout, graan, zout en haring hielden de nieuw gevestigde Joodse kooplieden zich bezig met de handel in ‘levend ebbenhout’ – de mensenhandel. Tot aan het eind van de 13e eeuw ondervonden ze tegenwerking van de Hanzekooplieden waarna ze zich begonnen te vestigen langs de Noord- en Oostzee en de noordelijke gewesten."


    "Het is een relatief onbekend gegeven dat met name de Nederlandstalige Zuid-Afrikaanse ‘Blanke Boeren’ voorop liepen in de afschaffing van de slavernij. Samen met de nieuwe regeerders in de ‘Bataafse periode’ van 1803-1806 werden concrete stappen genomen om zowel de slavenhandel als ook de slavernij af te schaffen!"


    "De Nederlandse burger – zélf min-of-meer (loon-) slaaf en horige van de heersende elite – betaalde fors mee aan de afschaffing van de slavernij. Per vrijgekochte Surinaamse slaaf vergoedde de Nederlandse overheid – uit de zak van de Nederlandse belastingbetaler wel te verstaan – een bedrag van ettelijke honderden guldens belastinggeld aan de slaveneigenaar/plantagehouder, een bedrag dat vele malen hoger lag dan waarvoor zijn ‘eigendom’ nog in de boeken stond.

    Per saldo kan met recht gezegd worden dat het de toenmalige Nederlandse (blanke) burgers geweest zijn die met door hen opgebracht belastinggeld de Surinaamse slaven hebben vrijgekocht. Misschien dat men hier eens bij stil kan staan? Beter nog.. zou het niet eens tijd worden voor een monument ter nagedachtenis van hen die de slaven (van toen) hebben vrijgekocht? De blanke Nederlandse belastingbetalers van toen!"

    1. Ik was benieuwd wie de schrijver was.

      Het is deze man:

  2. Ook interessant:

    "Een verhaal over woekerpraktijken in het Engeland en het Verenigd Koninkrijk van 757 N.Chr. tot 1694. Een kijkje in de bancaire geschiedenis van het Empire waar ooit de zon nooit onderging en Staatsschuld niet bestond"

    Uit het artikel:

    De eerste joodse migratie vond plaats in 1066 in Engeland, na de nederlaag van koning Harold III door Willem I (de Veroveraar) in Hastings.

    "De Joden droegen bij aan de financiering van Willem’s invasie in Engeland in ruil voor toelating tot Groot-Brittannië. Al snel wendden ze zich tot woekerpraktijken."


    "Met rentepercentages rond 33% op land en 300% op hulpmiddelen van handel werd Groot-Brittannië, binnen twee generaties, economisch door de Joodse woekeraar geruïneerd.

    King John (1199-1216) deed niets om de slavernij van Groot-Brittannië tegen te houden en werd beschreven als “verkwistend, incompetent en behorend tot de Joden”."


    "Toen kwam de 17e eeuw waarin Joden terugkeerden naar Engeland, en dit keer, om te blijven. Joden, die in 1492 door Isabella I van Castilië & Ferdinand II van Aragón uit Spanje waren verdreven (wegens woekerij, en omdat ze de stadspoorten 700 jaar daarvoor opengezet hadden voor de moslimse invasie), en onderdak gevonden hadden in Nederland."

    1. Maar in 1694 begon het spel [as goed: toen kwamen de joden Engeland weer binnen en richtten ze de eerste bank op die geld mocht scheppen van de Koning.

      Tot dan toe werd gebruik gemaakt van stokken, waar strepen op stonden.
      Binnen enkele decennia waren er oorlogen gevoerd met dat gecfreerde geld, maar was het Engelse volk ook diep in de schuldenb geraakt bij de bankiers.

      ( Ik die dit uit het hoofd. Ellen Brown beschrijft dit heel mooi in Web of Debt)

      De Nederlandse joden hadden in Amsterdam de Beurs / en de aandelen uitgevonden, en gingen nu naar Engeland.
      Cromwell haalde hen binnen. Hij was in feite een verrader van het volk.
      Helaas vergeet ik al die verhalen steeds weer.